Sitting of 15 March 1923

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS,
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, introduced pursuant to the Provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Caledonian Insurance Company Bill (Substituted Bill).
Greenock Corporation Bill (Substituted Bill).
Potteries and North Staffordshire Tramways and Light Railways Bill (by Order),
Read a Second time, and committed.
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL,
" to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Bradford Corporation Act, 1910, relating to Bradford Corporation Trolley Vehicles," presented by Colonel ASHLEY; read the First time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    WIDOWS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that Ernest Herbert Langfield, deceased, who
    1734
    served seven years and 175 days in the Army prior to 1914, again joined up on 1st October, 1914, and was transferred to the Army Reserve on 13th January, 1919; that he was suffering from malaria when demobilised, but endeavoured to carry on without a pension until he broke down in health; that later he applied for a pension under Article 9, but this was still undecided when the man died at the, coal face on 12th January, 1920 that the coroner's certificate is signed cause of death syncope following malaria; and that an appeal to the Pensions Tribunal by the widow on 22nd September, 1921, was rejected, because the man remained at his post and was demobilised without complaining of malaria; and, in view of the fact that the family are dependent on Poor Law relief, will he have the case reconsidered in the light of medical evidence and the coroner's certificate?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): This widow's claim to pension was very fully and carefully considered, but the Ministry were unable to regard the cause of death as connected with service. That decision has been confirmed on appeal by the independent Pensions Appeal Tribunal, who had before them all the available evidence, and is now, therefore, final.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the medical evidence justifies the belief that the death was actually due to war service and since the coroner's certificate supplements that view, does he not think that when a doubt exists, the widow and children should get the benefit of it?
    Major TRYON: Clearly if there is any doubt, the benefit of it should be given to them but this case has been considered by an independent body and decided. I will go into it personally, but I must- say, in view of the decision of the Appeals Tribunal, I am afraid it is not possible to do anything.
    Mr. G. A. SPENCER: Is there not, a great conflict of evidence between the medical referees and the local practitioners who are in constant attendance on these men?
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it a fact that from the time of this mart's application for pension until the day of his death, no medical evidence whatever was in the

    1735
    hands of the Ministry and the only medical evidence available was evidence which justified the view that death was due to war service?
    Major TRYON: I should be happy to see the hon. Member about the case afterwards, but I am bound to point out that I am not hopeful of doing anything, in view of the decision I have just mentioned.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Minister of Pensions if he will examine the case of Mrs. Bedford, of 59, Thurnscoe Road, Bradford, widow of the late Horace Bedford, No. 25,646, Durham Light Infantry; is he aware that Bedford, who had had 21 years' service with his regiment before the War, re-enlisted at 42 on 3rd September, 1914, and was sent to France, classed Al, developed deafness and heart trouble from shell-shock, and was discharged on 4th April, 1917, with a pension; that his nerves were so shattered that he could not resume his work as a commissionaire, and that his mental faculties were so unstrung that he finally committed suicide on 7th July, 1920; that, notwithstanding a certificate from Dr. M'Culloch, of 1, Hallfield Road, Bradford, that his mental and physical condition was the result of his war service, and that his widow holds his discharge certificate which says he served with honour and was disabled in the Great War, the Pensions Office at Westminster has informed Mrs. Bedford, 1st January, 1923, that the cause of her husband's death was not connected with his military service, and that the pension was stopped at the time of his death?
    Major TRYON: After full consideration of all the circumstances, the Ministry were unable to regard the cause of the late soldier's death as being connected with his service or with the ear trouble for which he was receiving pension, and that decision, having been confirmed, on appeal, by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal, is final.
    Mr. LEACH: Will the right hon. Gentleman not look at this man's disablement discharge document, upon which, on the authority of His Majesty the King, it is stated that his disablement is due to his war service, and does that not in itself constitute sufficient evidence to account for the state of mind and for the untimely death of this man?
    Major TRYON: I shall be happy, if the hon. Member will come to me afterwards, to show him the actual reason for this man's death, and the evidence at the inquest. I would prefer not to give it to the House, but I am prepared to do so if necessary.
    Mr. LEACH: Would it be regarded as evidence if the certificate and opinion of the man's doctor were handed in?
    Major TRYON: All evidence is taken into account, but I have seen the account of the inquest, and I can see no connection whatever between the original trouble and the actual reason on account of which this man committed suicide.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE (LIEUT. F. W. GARLEY).
    Mr. R. YOUNGasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that Lieut. F. W. Garley, O. Air/S4787, having volunteered in 1914, was demobilised last May; that for a considerable time before discharge he has received treatment for ear trouble, and in the absence of an English military ear specialist had to be attended while on service in Berlin by a German specialist; that since November last he has been certified as unfit for work and put to considerable expense; and whether, under these circumstances, the Ministry will speed up the consideration of his claim for a disability pension which has now been lodged for a prolonged period?
    Major TRYON: I am glad to inform my hon. Friend that the ear condition has been accepted as due to service, and that this officer's disability retired pay has been increased to include compensation for that disability. I may explain that the delay which has occurred has been mainly due to inquiries which resulted in the Ministry being able to admit the claim.

    WEST YORK REGIMEN'T (W. WILLIAMS).
    Mr. BARKERasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that William Ernest Williams, late No. 20,511, West York Regiment, residing at 9, York Street, Abertillery, now in receipt of a pension of 8s. per week, has made an application for a commutation of his pension to enable him to enter a drapery and millinery business of which he has had training and experience, and that the commutation of

    1737
    the pension has been refused and no reason given for the refusal; and will he have the case reopened, and, if satisfied of the bona fides of the applicant, will he have the pension commuted as requested by Williams?
    Major TRYON: An application for commutation was received in 1920, and was refused. No reasons why commutation was desired were given. No further application appears to have been made, and I am afraid that as the amount; of the award is below the non-commutable minimum a renewed application could not be entertained.

    APPEALS.
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in view of the fact that many ex-service men and their dependants are unable to afford to pay the expenses of securing assistance when making their appeals before the House of Lords tribunal and are unable themselves to do justice to their own cases in a court of that character, he will further consider the desirability of placing an official of his Ministry at their disposal, so that their claims shall not suffer from inadequate presentation?
    Major TRYON: Appeals to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal are made, in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's regulations, through the local offices of the Ministry, and it is the duty of the local official to advise an appellant how to prepare his case, and to inform him that, if he so desires, he may secure the assistance of a member of the War Pensions Committee or other person in connection with his appeal. I understand, moreover, that the chairmen of the tribunals give appellants every assistance in presenting their cases to the best advantage. I do not think that I should be justified in adopting the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Mr. THOMSON: Are not these appellants, in actual practice, seriously handicapped, because they are unable to provide means to pay travelling expenses, let alone expenses of legal assistance? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, as, from personal experience of two courts, I realise how the appellants are handicapped?
    Major TRYON: I am very anxious that everything should be done which will
    1738
    bring out the case fully, but I am not personally in favour of an arrangement which would be something in the nature of the employment of counsel on both sides—one for the Ministry and the other against. I prefer that the whole of the case should be put up and decided by the tribunal.
    Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Do I understand that in practice the area officer affords every possible assistance to the man to present his case to the tribunal and gives him all the requisite information?
    Major TRYON: Yes, it is clearly the duty of the Ministry officials to do everything to bring out the whole facts.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is it not the fact that in numberless cases people who wish. to appeal go to county councillors and borough councillors and Members of Parliament., imploring them to find someone to present the appeals? I do not know what the area officers are doing.
    Mr. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the matter further consideration? Is he not aware that we are continually finding people who cannot really present their cases properly?
    Major TRYON: I have been personally going into the question of the way in which the evidence goes up to these tribunals and taking definite examples. Anything we can do to bring the evidence out more clearly, we shall be delighted to do. I cannot accept the suggestion that the State should pay advocates on both sides, when, as a matter of fact, it should be the duty of the State to put the whole case fairly.
    Mr. LANSBURY: But it does not.
    Sir EDWIN STOCKTONasked the Minister of Pensions whether there are any cases on record where appeals have been allowed by the Lords Tribunal and yet no award whatever made by the medical boards to appellants not in receipt of a pension?
    Major TRYON: Decisions of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in favour of the appellant are invariably accepted by my Department. Where the appeal is on entitlement a finding by the tribunal in favour of a man riot in receipt of compensation is always followed by an award

    1739
    from my Department; but, as I explained to my hon. Friend last Thursday, decisions of assessment tribunals setting aside final awards do not necessarily imply that the man is, at the time, entitled to further compensation.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Minister of Pensions if he is prepared to set up or recommend machinery whereby cases which have been dismissed by the House of Lords Appeal Tribunal, and which are supported by weighty independent medical evidence, can be reviewed?
    Major TRYON: This matter has been very carefully considered by the Government but they are advised that the course suggested is not practicable in view of the provisions of the War Pensions Acts. In this connection I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the answer I gave on the 22nd February to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. T. Thomson), of which I am sending him a copy.

    NEED PENSIONS.
    Mr. ERNEST EVANSasked the Minister of Pensions what it would cost to continue for another year the bonus on need pensions which it is proposed to withdraw at the end of the present financial year?
    Major TRYON: The concession as regards certain need pensions which fell to be reduced last year was of a purely temporary nature made with the object of enabling the pensioners affected gradually to adjust themselves to altered circumstances, and had no relation to a general bonus based on the cost of living. I have no authority to continue a temporary concession of that nature made in favour of a limited section and for a particular purpose, the cost of which for another 12 months would amount to £70,000.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the Minister of Pensions if, in cases where need pensions are reduced, he will give instructions that the pensioner be informed of the reasons for the reduction at the time notice is given of such reduction?
    Major TRYON: I shall be glad to consider very carefully the hon. Member's suggestion and, if I find it practicable, to give effect to it.

    ROYAL WARRANT.
    Mr. LAWSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether the terms of the new Article 17 have been announced; if not, what is the cause of delay; whether cases for consideration under the new Article have bean reserved; and, if so, what is the number of these cases?
    Major TRYON: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of art announcement on the subject which was given wide publicity in the Press on the 7th January last, Cases which have arisen are being dealt with under the new provision.
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Pensions what is the number of applications under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant in which the Ministry has held that the claim was barred from consideration by reason of the date of the first removal from duty being more than seven years?
    Major TRYON: I presume the hon. Member intends to refer to Article 11, which deals with claims by widows. I regret that the records of my Department do riot enable me to state the number of the particular class of case referred to, but I may explain that all claims affected by the time limit in Article 11 are being dealt with under the modified interpretation of that Article and the amended provisions of Article 17 announced in the public Press on the 7th January. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that announcement.

    TREATMENT ALLOWANCES.
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether an applicant for pension under Article 9 of the Warrant, whose conditions renders it necessary for him to receive treatment in an institution or otherwise, is entitled to allowances on the usual scale pending a decision on his claim to pension; and, if not, will he state Ns hen this privilege was withdrawn, and for what reason?
    Major TRYON: Cases of this kind are not entitled. to grant or allowance under the Royal Warrants until their claims are settled. But, as a special concession it is, and has been for some time, the practice to grant the usual family allowances to those claimants to pension under Article 9 of the Royal Warrant who, on the ground of urgency, have been provided

    1741
    with treatment by my Department while the merits of their applications for pension are still under consideration.
    Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTSasked the Minister of Pensions whether a man's unfitness for work was regarded as justifying the payment of allowances during a period of treatment; whether this has now been altered to unfitness for work in consequence of the treatment; and, if so, will he state the date on which the change was made and the reasons for it?
    Major TRYON: Article 6 of the Royal Warrant clearly provides that treatment allowances are payable only where, in consequence of a definite course, of treatment deemed necessary in the man's interests, he is unable to provide for the support of himself and his family. There has been no change in this principle, but some three years ago when it was found that misapprehension had arisen, the attention of all concerned was drawn to the matter.

    MEDICAL CLASSIFICATION.
    Sir E. STOCKTONasked the Minister of Pensions whether, in consideration of claims for maladies alleged to have a War-service origin, the Ministry take into consideration and accepts at its face value the fact that the applicant was, after medical examination, passed into the Army classed as A1?
    Major TRYON: The man's medical classification on enlistment, along with all other facts of the case, is fully considered in dealing with any claim to pension.
    Mr. G. A SPENCER: How can the medical referee certify that a man is suffering from some ailment contracted prior to his service, when a medical board has 'sassed the man as A1?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot argue the question.
    Captain BENN: If a man was classified A1 on enlistment, is not that primâ facie evidence that, he was not then suffering from any disease?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The subject cannot now be debated.

    STATISTICS, LONDON.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions the approximate number of
    1742
    men, women and children pensioners under his Department in the County of London at the present time; and if there has been any great decrease in the number during the last year?
    Major TRYON: I regret that I have not this information. The County of London is not treated as a separate unit in the records of my Department.

    MENTAL CASES (LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL HOSPITALS).
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Minister of Pensions whether any pensioners under the charge of his Department are at present patients in any of the London County Council mental hospitals; if he can state, approximately, what number of patients there are; what arrangements are made for payment; if any part of the men's pensions are deducted towards the cost of hospital maintenance; and if he will state what amount?
    Major TRYON: There are approximately 800 service patients in the mental hospitals of the London County Council. Payment for the cost of their maintenance and treatment is made by my Department direct to the medical superintendents of the hospitals. During treatment pension is suspended, and the allowances authorised by Article 6 of the Royal Warrant are granted.

    COMMUTATION.
    Captain HAYasked the Minister of Pensions what is the reason for the Regulation which prevents him from commuting low percentage pensions; and, in view of the number of applications from holders of such pensions for commutation with a view to raise funds to emigrate, whether the Government will relax the Regulation so that some small outlet may be opened for idle ex-service craftsmen?
    Major TRYON: This Regulation, which is common both to my own Department and to the Service Departments, was made with the object of ensuring that the man should not be entirely destitute in the event of failure involving complete loss of capital. Experience has shown the necessity for this rule. I may add, however, that an advance of 26 weeks' pension can generally be arranged when a pensioner is about to emigrate to a British possession.

  EDUCATION.

    TEACHERS (CERTIFICATED, UNCERTIFICATED, AND SUPPLEMENTARY).
    Mr. CHARLES CROOKasked the President of the Board of Education the number of certificated and uncertificated teachers (men and women separately), and of supplementary teachers, employed in public elementary schools on 31st March, 1920, 1921, and 1922, respectively?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures asked for by my hon. Friend. The

    ENGLAND AND WALES.

    Public Elementary Schools maintained by Local Education Authorities.

    Numbers on

    Certificated Teachers.

    Uncertificated Teachers.

    Supplementary Teachers.

    Men.

    Women.

    Men.

    Women.

    Women.

    31st March, 1920

    …

    34,327

    79,519

    2,644

    33,048

    13,384

    31st March, 1921

    …

    34,138

    81,706

    2,162

    33,222

    13,500

    31st March. 1922

    …

    35,641

    81,952

    2,208

    32,463

    12,392

    INSTRUCTOR OF HANDICRAFT, WEST HAM.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that on 16th October, 1922, the county borough of West Ham Education Committee interviewed a number of candidates for appointment as an instructor of handicraft, and selected Mr. W. H. Rose, who at that time was serving as a teacher of handicraft at the Haslingden secondary school, Lancashire; that Mr. Rose possesses the first-class teachers' certificate of the City and Guilds of London Institute, obtained in 1914, and other qualifications; that the committee decided to fix his salary at £337 10s. per annum, with an annual increment of £12 10s., to a maximum of £425; that a letter was sent to the Board of Education giving particulars of Mr. Rose's services, and stating that the committee proposed paying him the salary as stated; that on the 1st December the Board of Education notified that Mr. Rose had not been recognised as a teacher of handicraft, and on 8th December another letter was sent to the Board giving all the particulars asked for; that Mr. Rose resigned his position on the staff of the Haslingden secondary
    figures are not precisely comparable, because the figures for 1922 are those returned by local education authorities for teachers serving in public elementary schools, excluding special schools and schools recognised under Section 15 of the Education Act of 1902, but including practical instruction centres, whereas the figures for 1920 and 1921 exclude practical instruction centres. Moreover, the figures for 1922 have not yet been corrected in the light of the later Returns, and, therefore, must be taken with reserve.
    The figures supplied are as follow:
    school and commenced duty in West Ham on 8th January, 1923; that on 21st February a letter was sent by the Board of Education stating that they were not prepared to recognise Mr. Rose as a teacher of handicraft under the code of regulations for public elementary schools from the date of his appointment as a full-time teacher of handicraft to children in public elementary schools, which was the 8th January, 1923; and that, by the Board's action of not allowing that service to count, the West Ham education authority will lose grant on the difference between £120; if he can state whether he will be willing to consent to the recognition of the previous services of Mr. Rose in technical and secondary schools in calculating his correct position on the salary scale; and if he will take action in the matter?
    Mr. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave the hon. Member of Stratford (Mr. Groves) on the 7th March.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the reply given to my hon. Friend apply to exactly the same case?
    Mr. WOOD: Yes, it applies to the case of Mr. Rose, and I think that, if my hon. Friend will look at it, he will see that it meets his case. If not, I hope he will perhaps take the opportunity of consulting me personally about it
    Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us any reason why he disallowed the services of this particular man from 1st December to 8th January?

    SPECIAL AND BLIND SCHOOLS (TEACHERS).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will take steps to see that, in carrying out the instructions contained in a recent Circular issued by the Board to secure economy in the administration of special and blind schools, local education authorities do not reduce the standard of teachers employed by engaging unqualified teachers or by increasing the number of children in these classes?
    Mr. WOOD: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Board's Circular 1297; in that case I may refer him to the reply I gave on the 1st Mardi, to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Morrison).

    TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that many local education authorities framed their estimates for the current financial year on the understanding that the Board would continue to contribute 50 per cent. of their approved expenditure under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, he will suspend the enforcement of Circular No. 1,285 until the end of the current financial year and so prevent an additional burden being placed without due notice upon the ratepayers which has previously been borne by the State?
    Mr. WOOD: I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the meaning of the Circular referred to. The words "whether within the scope of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, or not "in the last paragraph of that Circular refer not to expenditure but. to teachers. The only expenditure incurred by local education authorities under that Act is expenditure on administration, and such expenditure is recognised for the purposes of calculation of grant.

    TEACHERS (OPTIONAL RETIREMENT).
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the unemployment amongst teachers, it will be possible to allow earlier optional retirement, at the age of 55, on a lower pension, for women teachers, thus affording employment to the teachers at present out of work and at the same time relieving the financial situation of the local authorities, as the majority of the older teachers are at the maximum scale?
    Mr. WOOD: The suggestion of the hon. Member would require legislation, which I am unable at: present to undertake.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are the Board by administrative action encouraging local authorities to retire teachers at an earlier age than the statutory date?
    Mr. WOOD: I was asked a question two days ago about that, to which I gave rather a careful reply, and to which I would refer the hon. Member.

    ACTING TEACHERS' EXAMINATION.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has yet been able to fix the date for the delayed acting teachers' examination, in view of the large number of students who have spent both time and money in preparation for this examination and are left stranded in an uncertain position?
    Mr. WOOD: I propose to hold the examination in November, 1924, and as at present advised I am disposed not to hold it again, at all events on the present lines.

    DUDLEY GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education the total number of students provided for by the Dudley Grammar School, and the fees paid per student?
    Mr. WOOD: The number of pupils in attendance at the Dudley Grammar School on the 1st October, 1922, was 379. The ordinary fee is now £15 a year.

    BLIND PUPILS.
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education whether, under Circular 1,297, a class of blind pupils being educated in institutions receiving

    1747
    State aid will be increased from 15 to 18: and, if so, whether he will reconsider the matter in relation to the teaching of the blind?
    Mr. WOOD: I may refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on the 1st March last to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. Morrison).

    TRAINING COLLEGES (GRANTS).
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education what were the amounts of Government grants per student paid to denominational training

    —

    1919.

    1920.

    1921.

    1922.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    Resident Students (Men)

    …

    …

    …

    55

    55 + 16⅔

    55 + 27½

    55 + 27½

    Resident Students (Women)

    …

    …

    48

    48 + 14⅓

    48 + 22

    48 + 22

    Day Students (Men)

    …

    …

    …

    40

    40 + 11⅔

    40 + 20

    40 + 20

    Day Students (Women)

    …

    …

    …

    35

    35 + 10

    35+ 15 ½

    35 + 15½

    NOTE.—The figures following the sing + represent addition Grant which in the case of Resident Students is the maximum rate and may in some cases have been fixed at a lower rate.

    Grants are paid to local education authorities in respect of training colleges provided by them at the same rates for the first two years, but from 1st April, 1921, the special grants for local authority training colleges were in most cases merged in the general grant paid to local authorities in respect of their total expenditure on higher education. This grant was payable at the rate of 50 per cent. of the net expenditure, and was not related to the number of students.

    ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION.
    Mr. CLARRYasked the President of the Board of Education if he is prepared to review the present system of supervising and inspecting schools, having regard to the unnecessary overlapping which at present occurs and the heavy cost of administration?
    Mr. WOOD: I share the desire of my hon. Friend to reduce as far as possible the cost of administration and inspection, and I have lately been making investigations with that end in view. On the facts at present before me. I am of opinion that the degree of duplication and overlapping between the inspectors of the Board and the officers of local education authoritiesis
    colleges and to training colleges provided by local authorities in 1919, 1920, 1921 and 1922, respectively?
    Mr. WOOD: As the answer is of a statistical nature, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT,
    Following are the figures:
    The rates of Government grant per student, including personal grants, payable to denominational training colleges in respect of the four years ending in July, 1919, 1920,1921 and 1922, respectively were as follow:
    is slight, but I hope to furnish the House in due course with more precise information on the subject.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not a fact that a considerable number of local authorities have already- discharged a large portion of their inspectorial staff, and that there is no need for any further investigation?
    Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Might not the whole of the inspection take place either by the local authority or by the central authority, so that there should be no overlapping?
    Mr. WOOD: I think the question of overlapping is exaggerated, and although these officers are called by the same name, they do in fact very different tasks.

    IRAQ (ROYAL AIR FORCE).
    Mr. MOREINGasked the Secretary of State for Air the number of officers on, and attached to, the Air staff in Iraq?
    Captain HACKING (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The answer is: Royal Air Force

    1749
    officers employed on Air staff, administrative, technical and medical duties, 60; Army officers attached for special staff and intelligence duties and for liaison work with the British and Indian troops, 12.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Secretary of State for Air how much has so far been spent upon the new Royal Air Force base at Hinaidi, in Iraq; and whether, in view of the necessity for economy, orders will be given for the complete and immediate cessation of work on this base?
    Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend yesterday circulated to the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) an answer to his question of the 6th March, and he would refer my hon. Friend to the information contained therein.
    As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend would point out that by far the greater part of work in hand has already been completed, and whilst every effort is being made to cut down all unnecessary expense, it would be very false economy to leave the buildings uncompleted at this stage. There are, however, certain outstanding items, amounting in all to £90,000, which have not yet been started, and upon which work will not be commenced until a policy regarding Iraq has been decided.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the and gallant Gentleman aware that the future of the Government of Iraq is by no means settled, and was it not rather a foolish policy to start this expensive work before the question was settled?

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost per question of preparing Answers to Questions submitted by hon. Members of this House, and if any considerable saving to the national Exchequer would be effected if questions were not asked at all; and, if so, how much?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Stanley Baldwin): I am unable to give an Estimate, but it is no doubt true that considerable expenditure of time and money is involved in answering Parliamentary Questions. It would not, however, be in accordance with the
    1750
    wishes of the House, so far as I can judge them, that the Government should take steps to curtail Members' rights to question Ministers.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what it cost to answer the Question in question?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not a great deal of exaggeration in regard to the alleged cost of these Questions? Are not the officials there in any case, and would they not be doing very little if they had not to answer them? Is it not a fact that a Parliamentary Question is one thing and—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is giving his own views.

    LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to promote legislation in regard to leasehold enfranchisement?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central on the 28th November last.

    INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Prime Minister when the Industrial Assurance Bill will be presented: and if he can indicate the approximate date of its Second Reading?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will await the statement on Business which I pro-pose to make after Questions.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
    Sir E. STOCKTONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the readiness in some quarters to waive the economic and financial claims put forward by this country to Turkey for acceptance, he will, before taking any such action, inquire the opinion of the various chambers of commerce and trading organisations of this country?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion made by my hon. Friend has already been anticipated. Before the opening of the Lausanne Conference steps were taken to obtain the views of representative trading and other groups on matters affecting their interests.

    GERMAN REPARATION.
    Mr. LAMBERTasked the Prime Minister whether he has received any communication from the German Government respecting the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr; and whether the German Government has shown any disposition to accept the sum that he named at Paris as a reasonable reparation payment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A number of protests have been received from the German Government on matters arising out of the occupation of the Ruhr. As regards the second part of the question, no proposal on the lines suggested having been made to the German Government, there has been no question of German acceptance.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister welcome such an offer by the German Government if they were really willing to pay a reasonable reparation payment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: f do not think that is a question that arises at this moment.
    Captain HENN: Did the Prime Minister make any effort to get into touch with the German Embassy in Paris during the Paris Conference to hear what they had to say or to receive the proposal which, it is said, was made?
    The PRIME MINISTER: No; it is open to the German Government to submit any proposal if they desire to do so.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it still open to them to do so?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

    EASTERN GALICIA.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the Canadian desire, as expressed to the Colonial Office, in favour of the independence of Eastern Galicia; and will he communicate to our representative on the
    1752
    Ambassadors' Conference the undesirability of his being a party to any sacrifice of the independence of Eastern Galicia?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I am aware that the Canadian representative raised the question of the status of Eastern Galicia at the Third Assembly of the League of Nations, but no communication un the subject has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Canadian Government since the close of the Assembly. Certain organisations representing Canadians of Ukrainian origin have, I under stand, expressed themselves in favour of the independence of Eastern Galicia, but His Majesty's Government do not consider ibis expression of opinion sufficient to justify them in adopting the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel COURTHOPE: Is the answer of my hon. Friend affected by the decision taken at Paris yesterday?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir, it is not affected by that. What my hon. and gallant Friend refers to is in an unfinished stage at present.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from the Under-Secretary that the Conference yesterday postponed the consideration of this question for further evidence?
    Mr. McNEILL: No, I am not aware that they did that.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: What have they done? Does the representative of the Foreign Office in this House know what decision was come to In the Ambassadors' Conference yesterday in Paris?
    Mr. McNEILL: Yes, but. I think the decision was only a provisional one.

    REPARATION DUTY.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount received in respect of the 26 per cent. reparation duty during the calendar year 1922; and what is the number of payments comprised in this total?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Greenock on the 1st instant, the net receipts under the

    1753
    provisions of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act, during the year in question amounted to £6,847,000. The information as to the number of payments cannot be obtained without considerable labour and consequent expenditure, which I regret I am unable to sanction.
    Captain BENN: Is this duty being imposed by the French Customs Is it being reimbursed by the German Government?
    Mr. McENTEE: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer say what has been the cost to Great Britain of recovering this amount?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think that question should be put down.

    GERMAN DIVIDENDS (GREAT BRITAIN).
    Mr. SNELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with regard to dividends due to Germans from British businesses which are still under a War provision payable to the Public Trustee, he will state under what conditions, and when, it is proposed to resume normal arrangements?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Viscount Wolmer): I have been asked to reply. Under the Treaty of Peace Order in Council, 1919, all property, rights and interests within His Majesty's Dominions belonging to German nationals on the 10th January, 1920, the date when the Treaty of Peace with Germany came into force, are charged with payment of the amounts due in respect of claims by British nationals. The Public Trustee is realising as quickly as possible the interest which German nationals held in British businesses on that date. Any interest acquired by a German national in a British business after the 10th January, 1920, is not subject to the charge, and the dividends from such businesses can be paid to the German owner.

  HOUSING.

    GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Prime Minister whether there is any likelihood of the Government's housing proposals being announced before Easter?
    The PRIME MINISTER: It is unlikely that it will be possible to make an announcement before Easter.

    LOANS TO BUILDERS.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to restoring credit to the building industry, and allowing the citizen in need of a house the opportunity of having a house built which shall he his freehold property, he will establish a national housing bank empowered to make advances to builders or potential owners of houses approved by the local authority at the same rate of interest as is paid on the war loan, with an added percentage which will repay the advance in 25 years?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir. I cannot undertake to embark on banking operations of the nature suggested. I have no reason to suppose that the existing facilities are insufficient.

    HOUSE PROPERTY (REVALUATIONS).
    Mr. COOPER RAWSONasked the Minister of Health whether the revaluation of house property for the purpose of taxation has been completed, and when notices of new assessments will be served upon owners; whether revaluations include an increase of 40 per cent. in respect of houses affected by the Rent Restriction Act of 1920; and what time will be allowed to property owners to appeal against such revaluations?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend to answer this question. The work of revaluation of property for Income, Tax and Inhabited House Duty purposes is now being completed, and it is anticipated that the notices of the new assessments of annual value will for the most part be ready for issue by the end of April. A person wishing to appeal against an assessment has to give notice of his objection in writing to the inspector of Taxes within 21 days after the date of the notice of assessment of annual value. In practice, however, no objection will be raised to a reasonable extension of this period, when the circumstances warrant it. Where a house is let to a bonâ-fide tenant, and the rent has been fixed in accordance with the Rent Restriction Act, 1920, that rent is normally being

    1755
    adopted as the basis of the annual value for Income Tax and Inhabited House Duty purposes.

  RUSSIA.

    M. KRASSIN.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister, whether M. Krassin, when last in London as representative of the Russian Government, requested a meeting with some Member of the Government; whether this request was refused; and, if so, for what reason?
    Mr. McNEILL: Since the conclusion of the Russian Trade Agreement, it has been the practice for the head of the Russian Trade Delegation to be received by the official in charge of the Department of the Foreign Office principally concerned, rind this arrangement has proved adequate for the transaction of business. When M. Krassin in January last proposed a different arrangement, as indicated in the question, the reply was returned that it was thought better to adhere to the existing procedure.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the request was made because of the change of Government in this country, and that previously M. Krassin had been received by the Prime Minister and by other Cabinet Ministers of the old Government? Why was he treated in this way by this Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think the answer which I have given holds good to the question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I press the hon. Gentleman about this? What object is there in either the Secretary of State or himself refusing to see the representative of another Government? What good does it do? May I have an answer?
    Mr. McNEILL: Yes, certainly, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will resume his seat. It remains true that the answer which I have given covers the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask further if the hon. Gentleman is aware that the only result has been that
    1756
    our representative at Moscow is labouring under very great difficulty and is refused access to responsible Ministers in the Russian Government?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think that raises an argumentative point which cannot be pursued at Question Time.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will pursue it at the earliest opportunity.

    CATHOLICS (ARRESTS).
    Captain O'GRADY(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information respecting the arrest of the Catholic Archbishop of Petrograd and 14 priests and who are now in prison in Moscow pending their trial on a charge of refusing to hand over certain church property to the State, being forbidden to do so by their ecclesiastical superiors in Rome. Whether there is any channel by which friendly representation can be made to the Russian Soviet Government in this matter, and, if so, will those offices be undertaken by His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with a view to the release of the prisoners?
    Mr. McNEILL: The ecclesiastics referred to by the hon. Member were arrested on 10th March and conveyed through the streets in a military truck under armed guard. The trial was to begin on 14th March. Every effort has been made to save their lives. The British Agent at Moscow unofficially represented to the Soviet Government, early in the proceedings, the lamentable impression which would be caused on public opinion abroad by such action when no longer excusable on the ground of revolutionary necessities, and a further telegram has been despatched to him to-day to continue his efforts in the same direction. The Russian Trade Representative here has also been asked in a friendly way to do anything he can to avert a disastrous sentence. Besides this, knowing the active interest which is being taken by the Pope in the matter, a telegram has been addressed to His Majesty's Minister at the Vatican to enlist the continued sympathy and support of His Holiness.
    Mr. NEWBOLD: Will the Under-Secretary request the law officers of the Crown to put. at the disposal of the Soviet

    1757
    Government all the details of the manner of dealing with similar persons during the English Reformation?

  BUDGET.

    BEEK DUTY.
    Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider a substantial reduction in the Beer Duty, which would not necessarily mean a loss to the Exchequer but would be of great advantage to agricultural districts by encouraging the production of barley?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, in common with all other relevant suggestions, will receive due consideration in connection with the forthcoming Budget.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many suggestions he has received during the last two months?
    Mr. BALDWIN: That would need the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule.

    ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the exemption from the Entertainments Duty of agricultural shows where a band is engaged to play, as no material profit arises from the employment of a band at such shows?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am unable to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. LORIMERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the feeling against the Entertainments Duty being charged against agricultural and horticultural shows; and if he can see, his way to suspend. this tax at shows which are run purely of agricultural and allied industries?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20th February to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Market Harborough.

    INTEREST CHARGES.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the approximate saving in interest charges that will accrue to the Treasury by cancellation or repayment of Government
    1758
    debt during the current financial year, against issue or re-issue of Government securities, excluding debt to the United States of America., bearing interest at rates lower than those payable on the retired obligations.
    Mr. BALDWIN: I must ask my hon. friend to wait until the financial year is over, and I can deal with these matters in the Budget. Statement.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Shall I put this question down again, or will he deal with it in his Budget Statement?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think I shall probably deal with it in my Budget Statement.

    SINKING FUNDS.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which are the sinking funds or repayment charges on Government debt that have not been in operation from April. 1922, to April, 1923; what sum will be required to restore their operation in full, excluding debt to the United States during 1923–24?
    (2) what proportion of the surplus of revenue over expenditure during the financial year 1022–23 has been or will be applied to any and to which of the sinking funds and repayment charges suspended by the Finance Act of 1922; and to what, specifically, will the balance be applied for debt reduction or other purposes?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I hope my hon. Friend will not press me for details which would more properly be given in the Budget Statement. The amount of sinking funds and similar charges not provided from revenue in the current year's Budget was estimated by my predecessor at approximately £30,000,000.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentl1eman be able to give me specific answers to those two questions in his Budget Statement?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I hope so.

    EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the settlement and repayments for Excess Profits Duty are being held up: and if he will expedite the outstanding cases?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of any case in which it is alleged that undue delay has occurred, I will cause inquiry to be made in the matter.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an undertaking that, at any rate in all those eases where claims for repayment of Excess Profits Duty have already been sent in, the taxpayer shall not be prevented from recovering such duty by any legislation which may be introduced in the forthcoming Finance Bill?
    Mr. BALDWIN: In the event of my proposing any such legislation, I should bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    SUGAR DUTY.
    Lieut.-Colonel COATESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the serious diminution of the quantity of jam manufactured in this country owing to the high Sugar Duty; whether he will consider a reduction of this duty in order that more home-grown fruit may be utilised; and whether he can make any pronouncement at once on this subject with a view to reassuring the fruit growers in regard to this year's crops?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have received representations in the sense suggested. As regards the last part of the question, I am unable to anticipate the Budget Statement.

    SUPER-TAX.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amonnt of the receipts from Super-tax during the present financial year up to 10th March?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The receipts from Super-tax during the present financial year up to the 10th March, inclusive, amounted to £56,435,000.

    SPIRITS (OFF-LICENCE SALES).
    Sir A. HOLBROOKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representation on behalf of off-licence holders that people of small weans are subjected to great injustice
    1760
    under the present regulation that no smaller quantity than a full bottle of spirits can be purchased; and whether he will consider amendment of regulation, so as to enable purchasers to obtain a half-bottle of spirits, if required, to be held in case of sickness?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am aware that representations have been made from time to time in the sense mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I am unable to adopt his suggestion, which would involve an alteration of the law.

  IRELAND.

    LAND COMMISSION.
    Colonel NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in addition to the sum of £1,821,516 which is borne on the Estimates for the next financial year in respect of the Irish Land Commission, he will say what is the total liability of the British Exchequer in respect of the Irish Land Commission, and by what date will this liability be finally liquidated?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am not sure that I understand the hon. and gallant. Member's question. Land purchase in Northern Ireland remains under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, a reserved service for which the Imperial Exchequer is primarily liable. Moreover, the British Government remains liable for the completion of pending cases under the existing Land Purchase Acts both in the North and in the Free State. It is impossible to say how many years it will be before these liabilities are finally liquidated or to make any accurate estimate of their cost.
    Colonel NEWMAN: How much of that one million applies to the Northern State and how much to the Free State?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should like notice of that question.

    BEEF AND SPIRITS DUTY (SOUTHERN IRELAND).
    Lieut. - Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of Excise Duty paid in Southern I reland on beer and spirits during the past year; whether the whole amount of this has

    1761
    been paid to the Free State Government; and can he state approximately how much of this after 1st April will go to the Free State Government and how much to this country?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The net amount collected in the Irish Free State on account of Excise duties on beer and spirits during the 11 months ended 28th February last (the latest date up to which figures are available) is £14.630,000. In accordance with the law, these and all other Customs and Excise duties collected in the Free State during the financial year 1922–23 are being provisionally paid into the Irish Free State Exchequer, pending the necessary adjustments which have to be made in respect of duty-paid commodities removed from the Irish Free State to Great Britain and Northern Ireland and rice rersâ. The accounts relating to these adjustments are not yet complete, and I am unable to furnish the figures requested in t he last part of the question.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say roughly what proportion of these drinks are consumed in Ireland and what proportion come to this country, so that we may know in future what the Irish Exchequer is likely to get out of it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot say without notice.
    Lieut.-Colonel NALL: Will the liquor produced in Ireland pay duty to the English or the Irish Exchequer?

    FREE STATE CUSTOMS BARRIER.
    Mr. HANNONasked the Chancellor of the what proportion of the expenditure of the Board of Customs and Excise estimated' for the coming financial year is attributable to the setting up of the Customs barrier against the Irish Free State?
    Mr. BALDWIN: It is not yet possible to give a figure, but it is anticipated that the cost will he no more than a small fraction of the whole Customs and Excise expenditure.

    DEPORTATIONS FROM GREAT BRITAIN.
    Mr. HAYESasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether R. B. Leahy, of 14, Ling Street, Edge Hill, Liverpool, who has been de-
    1762
    ported to Ireland, is now detained in Mountjoy Prison, Dublin; if so, whether he has been brought before any judicial authority; and, if not, what steps are being taken to secure a speedy and proper trial with full legal facilities for the deportee?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bricigeman): I have been asked to reply to this question. Yes, Sir, this man is at present lodged in Mountjoy With the other persons just, sent over to Ireland. As I have already explained to the House, the statutory safeguard provided in these cases, if an internee desires to appeal, is reference to the Advisory Committee presided over by a Judge or ex-Judge, and facilities are being given for internees to communicate with their legal advisers and to interview them in connection with any such appeal.
    Mr. HAYES: As the Government have accepted full responsibility for the deportations, will they accept equal responsibility for the return of these people to their homes, if the Advisory Committee recommend their release?
    Captain BENN: Will these men have the right if they desire to appear personally before the Advisory Committee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter on which I have another question.
    Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD(by Private Notice): I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can now say who the third member of the Advisory Committee under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act Order is to be, and whether he can also now state what procedure the Committee is to adopt regarding personal interviews with nose who have been deported?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have just learned that the gentleman whom I had invited to act as third member is engaged on other public work which may prevent him from joining this Committee, but there will be no delay in making an appointment. As' regards the second part of the question, their procedure is a matter for the Committee. I will, however, represent to them that they should, as suggested yesterday by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley, follow the practice adopted during the War under a similar regula-

    1763
    tion of giving an opportunity to the person interned to be seen by the Committee if there is reason to do so.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Assuming that there are any innocent persons, in view of the continued inconvenience and injustice done, could the right hon. Gentleman give us guarantees that this Committee will meet without delay?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, certainly I am very sorry it, is not already set up. I wrote several days ago, and I only a few minutes ago got an answer from this third gentleman.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Arising out of that answer, if it is proved that any of these persons are completely innocent, and have suffered any monetary loss or loss of situation, will the Home Secretary grant any compensation to them for the injury done?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will certainly consider that, if they are entitled to it.
    Captain BENN: Can the Home Secretary say exactly what is meant by the words, "if there is reason to do so "? Does it mean that the accused person, if he desires, will have to provide adequate reason?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I was merely quoting the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley yesterday, in the question he asked me then. I mean, and I think he meant, if the Committee—to whom I cannot dictate in this matter—think there is reason.
    Sir JOHN SIMON: May I ask whether the Home Secretary has ascertained from the learned judge who, I think, presided over the Committee during the War, whether it is not the fact that he constantly did see applicants?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, that is what I meant when I stated that this Committee would, I believe, follow the practice adopted by other Committees which were administering similar Regulations.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of returning to the country of their birth English-born men and women who have been taken to Ireland, and of putting
    1764
    them on trial in the ordinary way for any offence which may be alleged against them?
    Mr. SEXTON rose—[Interruption.]
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not laugh. This is a serious business. I know what it is to be deported.
    Mr. SEXTON: I was merely putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to ask if in case a Member of this House can produce evidence with regard to a British-born subject—I will submit it to the right hon. Gentleman, evidence in regard to one who has been known to me from boyhood, and all his associations—if that is done, will it be accepted as evidence that he had no connection with the revolutionary party?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The proper course in that ease would be to appeal, and for the hon. Gentleman to give all the information he has got to add to this appeal before the Advisory Committee. With regard to the question of bringing a charge against British-born people in this country, I do not quite understand whether the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. Jones) means that he wishes that British-born people or British-domiciled people—I do not know which he said—
    Mr. JONES: British-born. I have sent you two cases to-day.
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Well, I have not got them. The hon. Member asks whether a British-born person should appear in person before this Committee?
    Mr. JONES: No, I deny the right of this Committee to try English-born people.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the Home Secretary provide me with facilities to see Glasgow deportees, in their places of internment., during the coming week-end?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No notice has been given of that Question. That is a Supplementary Question.
    Mr. MAXTON: I put it to you, Sir, that you should not protect the Home Secretary.
    Mr. SPEAKER rose—
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman was going to answer it.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Kirkwood) must not stand at the same time that I am standing.
    Mr. MAXTON: Am I in order, Sir—since the Home Secretary is not in a position to give me these facilities—in applying to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Scotland and in asking if he will see that I have an opportunity of seeing my constituents at the week-end in Dublin?
    Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland):I think it is obvious to the whole House that it is quite impossible for me to give a decision on a question like that, at 15 seconds' notice, such as I have had to-day.
    Mr. MacDONALD: Arising out of that answer, have we not had a pledge from the right hon. Gentleman that the legal advisers of these deportees and their friends are to be allowed to see them?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think I gave that; answer yesterday.
    Mr. J. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee of Members of this House, who are interested, to go and see them?
    Mr. MAXTON: Can I take it, Mr. Speaker, from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, that "legal advisers and friends" includes Parliamentary representatives, and would apply to me in this particular case?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot give as answer without considering that.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he has received an assurance from the Irish Free State Government that the persons arrested and deported to Ireland are sent there for internment only, and that prior to their release and return to this country, no charge will be made against them rendering these persons liable to trial and sentence?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir. As I explained on Monday last, nothing more than internment is proposed at present. If it should be desired later to proceed against any of the persons concerned on specific charges, the assent of His Majesty's Government would first be obtained, and the subsequent procedure
    1766
    would be that provided by the Indictable Offences Act.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of these people, those I know in London particularly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]— I know them and I am proud of it—are men and women occupying responsible positions. Is it not better if you cannot try them here to expedite their trial there, and not, to have them hanging on for months without getting an opportunity of trial?
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the Home Secretary make clear as to whore that trial is to take place which is forecasted to take place subsequently?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That depends on where the offence has been committed.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Does the Act provide for the place where they can be tried? Under the Act can they be tried outside Great Britain if their offence was committed in Great Britain?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure to what Act the hon. Gentleman is referring.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: The Indictable Offences Act.
    Mr. W. THORNE: If anyone can prove that he is British and born in England, will he have a chance of being tried in England?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any of these men and women deported from this country are liable to be tried by court martial by the Free State Army in Ireland?
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: It depends on the place where the offence was committed.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I have an answer to my question?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Certainly. I am not certain they will be tried at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] But if the hon. Member means will they be heard by the Advisory Committee, I shall certainly make representations in that sense to the Committee.
    Mr. W. THORNE: The right hon. Gentleman says he does not know

    1767
    whether they will be tried. Then in the name of common sense what have they been "pinched" for?
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The Home Secretary says that the individuals who have been deported will, if they are to be tried, be tried in the country where the offence took place. Will he state whether it is not the case that all these individuals have been arrested under a charge of conspiring in this country against the Irish Free State, and in that case will he inform the House what was the sense of deporting them to another country instead of trying them in this?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think it would be unsatisfactory if I were to try to give, offhand, an answer to a long question like that. [Interruption.] This is a very serious question, and if hon. Members who want an answer will kindly put down any questions they wish, I shall be glad to reply.
    Mr. McENTEE: In view of the in- ability of the right hon. Gentleman to give us any information in reply to the question, can he tell us, in the case of these English-born subjects, if he will he prepared to admit them to bail until he makes up his mind?
    Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask a categorical question. Will any of these persons who have been deported he allowed to appear in their own defence before the Advisory Committee as a matter of right?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought. I had already explained that I must leave that procedure to the Committee, but I am representing to the Committee that they will, I suppose, follow the precedent set by similar Committees.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. I want your advice in this matter. I wish to move the Adjournment, owing to the unsatisfactory answer on the legal point by the Home Secretary. I wish to know if I am in order in doing so.
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had the Adjournment moved on this question on Monday last.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: But. Sir, this is a different matter, this is a question of the place of trial and the legal jurisdiction over those people.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is the point which was raised.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Has not a new point arisen, in this respect, that to-day the home Secretary is unable to give us any clear answer as to the liability to trial of persons who have been deported from this country?
    Mr. SPEAKER: There is perhaps this point—the question whether the persons of British birth will be allowed to appear. But I understand the Home Secretary to say that he is going to make representations to the Advisory Committee. What I would suggest is that on this point a question could be put, on Monday and I will not rule the matter out on the ground of time, if it be desired to raise the matter then.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I thank you for the answer in the first place. Secondly, may I ask you if I shall have the liberty, if the answer be unsatisfactory on Monday, to move the Adjournment then?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I say I will not take any objection on the ground of time.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question, of which I have given hint Private Notice, namely, whether his attention has been called to the arrest and deportation to Ireland of Miss Barrett, lately residing at 24. Campbell Road, Bow, and Miss Kathleen Brooks, lately residing at Whitehall Court, Highgate; whether he is aware that Miss Barrett and her father and mother were all born in this country, and are consequently British citizens, and since the signing of the Peace Treaty between England and Ireland she has taken no part- in any agitation either against the British or the Free State Government; and whether he is aware that Miss Kathleen Brooks is also an English-born citizen, who at the time of her arrest was in company with her sister; that the two ladies, being informed by the police officers that their orders were to arrest Miss M. Brooks, but as they did not know which was M. Brooks, the ladies themselves should decide which should be taken; whether Kathleen

    1769
    volunteered to be arrested because her sister is suffering from illness; whether also he is aware that the warrants served on these ladies are dated 7th March and were served on 11th March; that consequently four days of the time allowed for appeal had elapsed and whether under all the circumstances, and in order to restore public confidence, the Home. Secretary will ask the Free State Government to release these ladies forthwith and return them without delay to this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I only made the orders for the arrest and internment of these ladies on being satisfied that there were good reasons for so doing. [An HON. MEMBER "Which one!"] The lady who has been arrested. If they desire to appeal against the provisions of the Orders, it is open to them to make representations to me to be laid before the Advisory Committee. Such representation is required to be made, not as suggested in the question, within seven days from the date of the Orders, but within seven days from the date on which the Orders were served on them, and I have no doubt that the Committee would grant any reasonable extension of time. I may add that I am satisfied that the Miss Brooks who was arrested is the lady in respect of whom the Order was made.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman contradict the statement that the police officers admitted to these ladies that they did not know which of them they wished to arrest, and that the ladies had to choose which one should be arrested. Is that the method by which the: Criminal Investigation Department caries out its duties?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My information is lime the lady they have arrested is the one they intended to arrest.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Is the Home Secretary's conviction that the lady arrested is the right person based on the fact that, on Monday afternoon, two policemen were inside the house when a letter was delivered by a postman simply addressed "Miss M. Brooks" and was taken away by the policemen as a proof of there being a Miss M. Brooks?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: This is the first time I have heard of that.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny the statement that the
    1770
    police did not know which of these ladies they were sent to arrest?
    Sir ALFRED BUTT: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in fact the right lady has been arrested, and further whether it is not a fact that, before these arrests were made, he had investigated the cases and if he had left these people loose we were risking having assassinations in this country?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have made inquiries, and my information does not tally with the information of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).
    Mr. LANSBURY: Will you deny the statement?

    PRINCES OF ROYAL BLOOD (INCOME TAX).
    Mr. LEES-SMITHasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the average, is approximately the proportion of the income payable out of the public revenue to princes of Royal blood which is allowed to be deducted in accordance with Rule 10 of the rules applicable to Schedule E, of 8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40, before arriving at the net amount for the purposes of Income Tax and Super-tax?
    Mr. BALDWIN: Of the provision made by 10 Edw. VII and I Geo. V, c. 28, 80 per cent. falls within the rules quoted by the hon. Member from 8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 40.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that reply does not mean, in non-technical language, that the Royal Princes pay Income Tax and Super-tax on only a third of their income from public revenues, and that four-fifths of their income is free from taxation?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I think that is quite obvious from my reply.
    Mr. LEES-SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that means that as the income of the Royal Princes increases the allowance increases in proportion, so that if the income increases from £10,000 to £25,000, only £5,000 will be paid in Income Tax, as in the case of the Duke of York?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I do not think that necessarily follows, and I would remind

    1771
    the hon. Gentleman that this is precisely the same Statute under which we here enjoy a remission of taxation.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    WOMEN (APPOINTMENTS).
    Mr. JARRETTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that certain women who failed to pass the recent women's examination have since been appointed to permanent posts as writing assistants without further examination; will he say how many such women have been appointed; and for what reason such action was taken?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): Appointment as writing assistant was offered to candidates at the limited competition for the clerical class (women) who obtained marks from 549 to 525 inclusive, the number who accepted such appointment being 256. The appointment as writing assistants of these women, a number of whom had already been successful in the limited competition for the writing assistant class, was considered to be to the advantage of the public service.

    MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
    Mr. J. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that while the number of beneficiaries of the Pensions Ministry fell from 3,333.506 on 31st March, 1920, to 2,620,000 on 31st December, 1922, and the number of subordinate staff was reduced during the same period from 31,128 to 24,636, the number of permanent officials of the rank of principal clerk and above was increased from 61 to 78; and whether this increase of highly-paid staff during a period when many lower-grade clerks were dismissed was sanctioned by the Treasury?
    Major TRYON: My right hon Friend has asked me to answer this question. The Treasury, after full consideration, authorised the increase which was necessary for the effective organisation and supervision of the work and the proper control of the large expenditure with which my Department is charged.
    Mr. J. DAVISON: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the
    1772
    appointment- of these highly-paid officials was undertaken in the interests of real economy or under the pressure of political influence?
    Major TRYON: Political influence had nothing whatever to do with it. On the point of economy I may add that these appointments have thoroughly justified themselves because we are working with a much smaller staff, and the cost of administration, not counting medical work, is about 9d. in the £.

    WAR DAMAGE (FRENCH CLAIMS).
    Mr. ALBERT BENNETTasked the Prime Minister the amounts paid in each of the years since the War for claims by French peasants and others for alleged damage to their property done by our troops during the War?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to reply. The information is not immediately available, but if the hon. Member will he good enough to inform me further of what he has in mind, and particularly whether he means accidental and avoidable damage only, or damage due to occupation also, I will make inquiries and communicate with him in due course

    RIO DE JANEIRO EXHIBITION.
    Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Prime Minister whether he has yet been able to make any arrangements for the handing over of the British pavilion at the Rio de Janeiro Exhibition to the Brazilian Government-, in accordance with his promise that he would endeavour to secure the services of some personage who would enhance the British prestige at this ceremony?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to a similar question on the 14th December, in which he stated that every endeavour will be made, to secure that the ceremony of presentation of the British pavilion to Brazil will be worthy of the occasion. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of stating that it has now

    1773
    been found possible to make arrangements which will ensure the British pavilion being kept open until the 2nd July, the date of the closing of the exhibition at Rio de Janeiro.
    Sir G. HAMILTON: When will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be able to make a statement? If I put a question down for this day week, will he be able to give a reply?
    Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I think I will be able to reply if a question be put down a fortnight to-day.

  AGRICULTURE.

    RATING.
    Mr. THOMAS DAVIESasked the Prime Minister when the Government's proposals for agricultural rating will be laid before the House of Commons?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. LAMBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very large number of agriculturalists are anxiously awaiting this Measure, and will he introduce it at the earliest possible moment?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I am quite aware of the interest taken in it.

    CEREALS.
    Mr. HAROLD GRAYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the minimum quantity of cereals which the Government consider it necessary should be grown in this country for safety in time of war; and, if not, whether he will institute an inquiry?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Robert Sanders): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and I do not think an inquiry of the kind suggested by my Hon. Friend would serve any useful purpose in the absence of information as to the conditions and character of any future war. In any case, I may point out that the production of food in this country should not be considered in terms of cereals alone, without regard to the production of other equally essential products such as meat and milk.

    MOTOR CAR LICENCES.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cars that had licences taken out during the second and third quarters did not have licences taken out for them for the last quarter of 1922 and for the first quarter of 1923; and what has been the loss to the Exchequer owing to the present unfair system of taxation on horse-power and not on fuel?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I have no precise information on the point raised in the first part of the question. The approximate numbers of quarterly licences for motor vehicles taxed on the horse-power basis, which were current at quarterly dates in 1922 were as follow:

    28th February

    29,397

    31st May

    48,103

    31st August

    52,181

    30th November

    30,702

    The figures for 28th February, 1923, are not yet available.
    As regards the last part of the question, I am not aware that there has been any loss to the Exchequer, but the whole question of fuel tax is now being considered by a Departmental Committee.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: Why is it that the proceedings of this Committee have been so long drawn out?
    Colonel ASHLEY: The Noble Lord knows that the proposals which the Committee have to consider are very far-reaching and complicated, and I can assure him that there has been no avoidable delay.
    Mr. G. A. SPENCER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee hope to come to a decision before the Budget is introduced?
    Colonel ASHLEY: That rests with the Committee, and the Departmental Committee have freedom of action in this matter.

    MUNITION FACTORY, MABLEY GREEN.
    Captain ERSKINE-BOLSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether

    1775
    he can see his way to restore the land now occupied by the munition factory on Mabley Green, adjoining Hackney marshes, to its original purpose, namely, a recreation ground for the people, in the near future, especially in view of the serious shortage of playing fields in the district?
    Mr. BALDWIN: As stated in an answer that I gave to the hon. and gallant. Member for North Hackney on Thursday last, the whole matter is under consideration, and it is hoped that a decision will be arrived at shortly. I regret that I am unable to add anything further at present.

    CONFEDERATE WAR BONDS AND LOANS.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if ho can give the total amount of Confederate War Bonds and Loans raised by the Southern States of the United States and placed in this country, the proceed; of which went into public improvements in those States and on which default was made; whether he has approached the United States Government with a view to setting off these debts owed by the United States to this country against the debts owed by this country to the United States; and, if not, whether he would be prepared to make representations to the United States asking them to do so?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I have no detailed information regarding these transactions, in which neither His Majesty's Government nor the Government of the United States was directly concerned. The answer to the second and third parts of the question is in the negative.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Are we to be the only country to honour our debts while countries richer than ours are not to be called upon to pay their debts?
    Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the United States have nothing whatever to do with these loans?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Sir J. BUTCHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be
    1776
    the increased annual cost to the State if, retaining the existing qualifying age of 70, universal old age pensions, irrespective of means, were granted; and what would be the increased annual cost if, retaining the existing qualifying age, the limit of means were increased to the limit fixed for the total exemption of Income Tax?
    Mr. BALDWIN: A rough calculation, based on the latest available population figures, gives the additional cost of universal old age pensions as £17,000,000 a year. As was stated in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Salford West on the 6th, the Committee of 1919 estimated the additional cost for the United Kingdom, with a 10s. pension, of the adoption of the Income Tax exemption limit at £14,500,000 a year. As the Committee also came to the conclusion that the adoption of this limit was impracticable, I have not had these figures revised.
    Mr. L. THOMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that 93·2 per cent. of the recipients of old age pensions receive the maximum amount of 10s., he will consider making provision for the remaining 6·8 per cent. on the same basis, seeing that it would only incur an extra charge of some £730,000 per annum?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. D. Somerville) on the 6th instant, of which I am sending him a copy.

    CAPITAL ISSUES (DUTY).
    Mr. A. T. DAVIESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the only serious handicap under which British bankers are in competing with the United States for foreign loans is the 2 per cent. duty which is now imposed in this country upon issues of new capital, while in America there is no duty on fresh capital raised there; and whether the present position has been considered with a view to some amelioration at an early date?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I fear I can add nothing to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on this subject on Thursday last.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by charging this 2 per cent. we lost the Chilean Loan, although the Americans cannot hold it, and had to send it over to Great Britain to be taken up?

    GRETNA FACTORY.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum of money spent for the erection of the munitions works at Gretna; and will he give the total amount paid to contractors who were employed on the basis of 10 per cent. upon materials purchased and wages paid?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The cost of Gretna, including the land and townships, was approximately £9,000,000. The work was completed about six years ago, and to furnish the information required in the second part of the question would involve the examination of accounts over six years old. I regret that, with the present depleted staffs, it is impracticable to undertake that work.
    Mr. HARDIE: Might I be given the privilege, in the presence of the officials in charge, of examining these accounts, because I have come across something very serious which I want to bring to the attention of the public? I should like to press this, because it is very serious. I have definite information.
    Mr. BALDWIN: If the hon. Member will come and see rue about the matter, and tell me what is in his mind, I shall be glad to discuss it with him.
    Mr. HANNON: Does this mean that everyone who has a complaint against the State must have the right to examine accounts?
    Mr. HARDIE: Why not.?

    FRANCE AND ROHR DISTRICT (BRITISH GOODS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what becomes of the money collected under the 10 per cent. tariff on British goods entering the newly-occupied territories in Germany and imposed by the French authorities; and whether any of
    1778
    this money is to be returned to the British Government or to the British merchants who pay it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am informed that the money is being deposited in Allied banks in -occupied territory in the name of a special committee. I am inquiring whether the money is being held at the disposal of the 'Reparation Commission, as I assume to be the case.
    Mr. W. GREENWOOD: is it not understood that the consumer pays the tax?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of the Bradford trade is being held up owing to the delay caused by these harassing regulations?

  ALIENS.

    NATURALISATION.
    Mr. LORIMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many aliens have secured British naturalisation during 1922, and the corresponding number for 1921?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The number of certificates of naturalisation granted in the United Kingdom in 1921 was 1,247, and in 1922, 893.

    COLOURED MUSIC HALL ARTISTS.
    Captain O'GRADYasked the Home Secretary whether, having regard to the unprecedented unemployment among music-hall artists, he is aware that coloured people. have been engaged to come into this country to perform in a revue at a West End theatre of varieties; whether Article 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1920, has been observed, which lays down that applicants for a permit must state that no labour in Great Britain will be displaced by the engagement of aliens; if so, will inquiry be made into the matter; and, if satisfied that wrong information has been given, will steps be taken to cancel the permits?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. Permits under Article 1 (3) (b) of the Aliens Order, 1920, have been issued in respect of a troupe of 33 American men and women, including a negro orchestra. The troupe is required for a

    1779
    period of six weeks only, to give a special entertainment lasting about 20 minutes, as a part of a revue at a theatre in London. I am assured that it would not be possible to find substitutes in this country who could give an entertainment of the kind desired. The question of displacing British labour does not, therefore, arise. The permits were issued upon the condition that the troupe give a stage performance only. They will not play dance music without obtaining the prior consent of the Minister of Labour.
    Captain O'GRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept from me a record of the Variety Artists' Benevolent Fund, from which a large amount of benefit is given to variety artists who are out of work in this country at the moment?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I think the general arrangements with regard to the admission of aliens to play music in this country, with which I shall have to deal presently on another question, will, when the hon. Member hears them, be in his opinion satisfactory.
    Mr. THORNTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the nature of this performance that no one in this country can do it?
    Mr. HARDIE: Is it the "shimmy"?
    Mr. JARRETT: Upon whose assurance is the right hon. Gentleman so convinced that English artists cannot give a similar performance?
    Mr. J. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that a performance shall be given in this Chamber?
    An HON. MEMBER: There is one every day.

    SPECIAL CONSTABULARY, LONDON.
    Mr. RAWLINSONasked the Home Secretary what is the present position the Special Constabulary Reserve (London); and what steps, if any, are intended to be taken in reference to that force, either by disbanding it or otherwise?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Special Constabulary remains in being, but, owing to the limited application of the Special Constables Act, 1914, under which it was formed, there is now no power to main-
    1780
    taro its numbers by fresh recruitment, except in case of actual emergency. I hope, however, to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session to enable the special constabularies which have been formed in connection with many police forces to be maintained on a permanent footing as auxiliaries to the regular police.

    STREET TRADING.
    Mr. GILBERTasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session to carry out the recommendations of the Street Trading Committee; and, if so, will he state when such a Bill will be brought in?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 19th February on this matter.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE.
    Mr. LEACHasked the Home Secretary if he will introduce legislation giving the London County Council powers to set up a watch committee for the control of the Metropolitan Police Force?
    Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No, Sir; I do not propose to introduce legislation in the sense suggested. Apart from other considerations, I may point out that the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police Force includes not only the County of London, but also Middlesex and parts of Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey.
    Mr. LEACH: Would not the setting up of a watch committee by the London County Cotulcil enable the authorities to make a more efficient investigation into some of the charges recently brought against that force?

    TELEPHONE, ABBEY ST. BATHANS.
    Major WARINGasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the 200 inhabitants of Abbey St. Bathans are situated seven miles from the nearest medical doctor; and that a telephone would be of value in cases of illness; and whether he can see his way to reduce the guarantee £20 in order that this public service may be of service to the public?
    Major BARNSTON (for the Postmaster-General): My hon. Friend is advised that the use which is likely to be made of a public call office at this hamlet would be small, and the revenue inconsiderable. In view of the heavy expenditure involved in supplying it, he regrets that he is not in a position to reduce the guarantee required.

  PALESTINE.

    HEBREW SCHOOLS.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the schools of the Hebrew community in Palestine are about to draw revenue from the public rates, instructions will be given to the Palestine Government to insist upon the same syllabus being applied in their case as in other public schools of that country?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The schools referred to are not on the same footing as Government schools. They are provided and mainly supported by private funds in the same way as the private schools of the Christian communities. Some small assistance is to be given from public funds on a per capita basis to all non-Government schools, provided they are registered with the Government of Palestine, and are subject to official inspect ion. The Secretary of State is not prepared to give instructions that the syllabus of these assisted schools should be made to conform with that of Government provided schools.

    ARABS (STATUS).
    Mr. LORIMERasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now say when the pledge, given in 1915, guaranteeing the Arabs independence and the possession of Palestine will be carried out?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The promise to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in certain areas is being fulfilled by His Majesty's Government to the best of their ability. The Government do not admit that Palestine was included in these areas, and it was always the intention of the British Gov-
    1782
    ernment that, in view of the many international and other special interests involved, Palestine should be accorded special treatment.
    Mr. HARRIS: Considering that Palestine is not a Dominion of the British Empire, ought it not to be dealt with by the Foreign Secretary rather than by the Colonial Office?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Palestine is being administered under a Mandate, and as there exists, temporarily, at any rate, under the Mandate, a British administration, it is in charge of, and the responsibility lies upon, the Colonial Office.
    Mr. NEWBOLD: What are the other special interests?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There are a great many religious susceptibilities and religious feelings in connection with the Holy Land.
    Mr. NEWBOLD: Are there any oil interests?

    KENYA (INDIAN SUBJECTS).
    Brigadier-General COLVINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, having regard to the economical disturbance and unrest which would be created in Kenya Colony by the raising of the Indian question and the postponement of the elections, prompt steps can be taken to effect a settlement on the lines of Viscount -Milner's despatch of 21st May, 1920, and thus enable elections to proceed at once'.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As the House is aware, the Governor of Kenya, with representatives of various sections of the community, is about to visit England for the purpose of discussion with my Noble Friend the Secretary of State. It is not possible to take any action, such as that suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, which would prejudge the result of the discussion.

    UNEMPLOYMENT. AUSTRALIA.
    Mr. NEWBOLDasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give statistics of the unemployment now prevailing in the

    1783
    building, dockside, engineering, shipbuilding, and other principal industries in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria., and South Australia?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware to what extent there is unemployment in Australia in the industries to which the hon. Member refers. There is no unemployment in agriculture in Australia.
    Mr. NEWBOLD: Cannot we have a more satisfactory answer than that, in view of the fact that large numbers of men are emigrating there and finding no jobs?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that is not true.
    Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: is it not the fact that no one is assisted at the present time except, for agriculture and domestic service, and that, therefore, there is no unemployment in the ease of those emigrants who go?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is so.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not also the fact that no emigrants are desirous of quitting Australia at the present moment?

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the sources of water supplies of this country, having regard to the future needs of an increasing population, and with a view to the elimination of competition between local authorities in respect of available sources of supply?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): Such an inquiry is now being undertaken by my Department.

    POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERasked the Minister of Health whether he has now completed the consideration of the Report of the officer of the Ministry who held an inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law relief in the Sheffield Union; and whether, in view of the fact that the inquiry was held in public, he will take steps to have the findings of the inspector published immediately?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the Report will be published at an early date.

    RELIEF WORK (PAYMENT IN KIND).
    Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Coventry Corporation are employing men upon laying gas-main pipes, trench-digging, etc., by arrangement with the board of guardians, who are paying the men wholly in kind; whether any grant is being given for this work; if so, whether it is in accordance with the Regulations that men employed on relief work of this character may be paid wholly in kind; and, if not, whether he will make representations to the local authority?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The men referred to are receiving poor relief from the guardians, and it is within the discretion of the guardians to give such relief wholly in kind. I understand, however, that the relief is usually given half in money and half in kind. No grant is being made in respect of the work in question.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a distinct violation of existing agreements as this work, in the ordinary way, would have been given to unemployed men at the full rate of wage, and why is the board of guardians to be permitted to employ people on such terms as are mentioned?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The guardians have to have some work as test work when they are giving relief. This is an arrangement they have come to with the corporation. I have no reason to suppose they are thereby depriving others of work.
    Mr. HAYDAY: Were there in existence agreements as between the workmen on these undertakings and the undertakings, and were those agreements considered at the time these arrangements were made between the undertakings and the guardians?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member had better send me the nature of the agreements.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does not this amount to a breach of the Truck Acts—payment in kind instead of payment in wages?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not payment of wages. It is relief work.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that work done by the Coventry Corporation ought to be given out under the terms of the Coventry Corporation Act and not handed over to men who are obtaining relief from the guardians? Is it not a distinct violation of all the practices which have gone on in this country between employer and employed since the abolition of the Truck Acts?
    Me. CHAMBERLAIN: This is an arrangement between the corporation and the guardians and not a matter in which I have any responsibility.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is not this a precedent in favour of boards of guardians all over the country following up similar agreements to employ people who are being assisted by them to the exclusion of men who are signing on at Employment Exchanges and cannot find employment?
    Mr. HAYDAY: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the importance of the subject. I will raise the matter on the Adjournment before the Easter Recess.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    GARFORTH COLLIERY (PROSECUTION).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has bean called to the recent prosecution of the management of Garforth Colliery, near Leeds, for the following, amongst other offeeees, against the Coal Mines Regulation Acts: lack of inspection of workings prior to men going to work, no reports of inspection whilst men were at work, inadequate ventilation, refuge holes obstructed or not provided, roof too low for the passage of ponies, machinery unfenced, inadequate supply of food and water for horses, ill-fitting harness and eye-guards, and for having no means for extinguishing fire; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps have been taken since the prosecution was initiated, and now exist at the colliery, to protect the lives and limbs of both men and ponies employed there?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Lieut.-Colonel Lane-Fox): Yes, Sir. The prosecution was taken by my orders. The mine
    1786
    is now under new management, and the divisional inspector is satisfied that all possible measures are being taken to remedy the defects. Inspection is continuing, and, if further action is necessary, it will be taken.
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that, in the prosecution of the Garforth Colliery Company, the magistrates have fined the agent and manager and dismissed the owners of the colliery from the case, declaring that their responsibility ended after they had found the money necessary for working the colliery; if he had considered the danger to the lives and limbs of employés which may arise from such irresponsibility; and whether he will introduce legislation, making the colliery owners directly responsible in such matters?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I am aware that the charges against the owners were dismissed, the Bench finding that they were not liable by reason of Section 102 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. That Act makes it clear that the safety of the persons employed is a direct responsibility of the manager of every mine, and that, where an owner takes any part in the management, he shares with the manager responsibility for observance, of the safety provisions of the Act. This follows the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Mines, and I do not think that further legislation required.

    PROFITS AND WAGES.
    Mr. CAIRNSasked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that for the last nine years the coal mines of this country have made a total profit of £207,400,000 after paying all expenses, and also that the selling price of coal for the past three months has been high; if so, how is it that the workmen's wages are only 40 to 45 per cent. above 1914 wages, and the cost of living is 79 per cent. above 1914 cost; will he say where the increased profits have gone: has the cost of a ton of coal raised increased; and what percentage on capital invested has been paid each year from. 1913 up to the present time?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: As regards the amount of colliery profits in recent years, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for the Don Valley on the 12th

    1787
    March. As regards the relation between prices and wages to my answers to the hon. Member for Rotherham on the 7th March, and as regards costs of production to the summaries issued quarterly by my Department. As regards his final question. I have no later information than that given by my predecessor on the 19th April, 1921, in reply to the hon. Member for Frame, from which it will be seen that the profits available for distribution (before deduction of Income Tax) during the seven years ended 31st March, 1921, might be estimated to represent 11¾ per cent. on capital. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these answers.
    Mr. CAIRNS: is the figure of £207,400,000 correct?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: If the hon. Member will wait he will find the whole of the information given in the answer.
    Mr. CAIRNS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that thousands of miners are getting £1 a week? Cannot they have some of this?
    Mr. HANNON: Is not this alleged £207,000,000 entirely exaggerated?
    Lieut.-Colonel LANE-FOX: I do not think it is correct.

    BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
    Mr. T. THOMSON(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the serious national consequences which would arise out of a stoppage in the building trades at the present time, he will draw the attention of the parties concerned to the national agreement entered into on 9th April, 1921, between the National Federation of Building Trade Employers and the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives which provides that, before any stoppage of work can take place, six calendar months' notice has to be given to terminate that agreement?
    Sir M. BARLOW: I know that both the building trade employers and the operatives are fully conscious of the gravity of the present situation. A meeting of the National Building Wages and Conditions Council will be held on the 20th March for the further discussion of the position, and I feel no doubt that, as in the past, both the employers' and workers'
    1788
    sides will avail themselves of all possible means of reaching a settlement and avoiding a stoppage of work. I cannot make any statement on the points in dispute while these negotiations are proceeding.
    Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the men have agreed to accept a reduction to now on an average of 3d per hour over and above the agreement based on cast of living conditions, and now they are going to he asked to accept another 4d. reduction on the average? Will he keep in touch with the situation and try to bring the thing to a satisfactory conclusion? The men have made all the sacrifices they can make anti will make no more.
    Mr. McENTEE: Are the proposals now put forward by the Master Builders' Association a direct breach of the agreement which has been entered into between them and the representatives of the workmen, and will he use his influence to induce the employers' association to abide by the agreement they entered into and withdraw those notices?
    Sir M. BARLOW: The suggestions made in both those supplementary questions are really matters of argument, which naturally will be dealt with as I have already indicated, in the course of negotiations. I cannot possibly enter into them myself. With regard to the suggestion that I, and the responsible officers of ray Department, should keep in touch with the negotiations as they proceed, of course, that will be the ease.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the Business of the House for next week, and how far he intends to go to-night if he gets the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
The PRIME MINISTER: The Eleven o'Clock Rule will only be suspended as a precaution. We wish to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and to get Army Vote A and the Vote on Account.
The, business for next week will be—
Monday: Unemployment Insurance Bill, Report and Third Reading.
Tuesday: Report stage of Middle Eastern Services Supplementary Esti-

1789
mates, and, if time permits, the Industrial Assurance Bill (House of Lords), Second Reading.
Wednesday: Report stage of Air Estimates.
Thursday: Report stages of Navy and Army Estimates.
Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Easter Adjournment will be, and for how long?
The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not say now, but it will not be for very long.
Mr. LANSBURY: When will the London Equalisation of Rates Bill be introduced?
The PRIME MINISTER: It cannot be until after we return from the Easter Recess.
Mr. LANSBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the borough councils in London are unable to arrange their budgets?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am aware of that.
Mr. MacDONALD: Is there any hope of getting the Housing Bill before Easter?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid not. It will be introduced immediately on our resumption.
Mr. PRINGLE: Will it be printed before Easter?
Mr. MACLEAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Rent Restrictions Act falls out in June of this year, and that it will leave little time for debate on the new Bill between the reassembly of the House after Easter and June?
The PRIME MINISTER: It would have been impossible in any case to take it before Easter.
Mr. T. THOMSON: If we cannot take the Second Reading of the Bill before Easter, cannot the right hon. Gentleman announce the terms to the House, so that local authorities need not be held up for another month before getting their schemes under way?
The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member knows that there has been a change in the head of that Department, and the Minister must have reasonable time to consider the matter.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 165.

Division No. 43.]

AYES.

[4.19 p.m.

Ainsworth, Captain Charles

Brown, Major D. c. (Hexham)

Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)

Brown, Brig. Gen. Clifton (Newbury)

Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)

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

Bruton, Sir James

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Apsley, Lord

Buckingham, Sir H.

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

Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin

Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.

Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew

Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Butcher, Sir John George

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Balfour. George (Hampstead)

Butt, Sir Alfred

Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick, G

Button, H. S.

Doyle, N. Grattan

Banner, Sir John S. Harmoud-

Cadogan, Major Edward

Du Pre, Colonel William Baring

Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Edge, Captain Sir William

Barnett, Major Richard W,

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Sarnston, Major Harry

Chapman, Sir S.

Ednam, viscount

Becker, Harry

Churchman, sir Arthur

Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)

Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. c. H. (Devizes)

Clarry, Reginald George

Ellis, R. G.

Bellalrs, Commander Carlyon W.

Clayton, G. C.

England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Berry, Sir George

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Betterton, Henry B.

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

Erskine Bolsl, Captain C.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Collox, Major Wm. Phillips

Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)

Blundell, F. N.

Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale

Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

Fawkes, Major F. H.

Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.

Cope, Major William

Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.

Brass, Captain W.

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

Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.

Brassey. Sir Leonard

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

Flanagan, W. H.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cllve

Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)

Ford, Patrick Johnston

Brittain. Sir Harry

Cralk. Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Forestier-Walker, L.

Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot

Lewis, Thomas A.

Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)

Fraser, Major Sir Keith

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Robertson, J. O. (Islington, W.)

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.

Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes. Stratford)

Furness, G. J.

Locker-Lampson. G. (Wood Green)

Rogerson, Capt. I. E.

Ganzoni, Sir John

Locker-Lampson, Com, O. (Handsw'th)

Rothschild, Lionel de

Gates, Percy

Lorimer, H. D,

Roundell, Colonel R. F.

Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Ruggles-Brise, Major E.

Gilbert, James Dariel

Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Goff, Sir R. Park

Lumley, L. R.

Russell, William (Bolton)

Gould, James C.

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Russell-Wells, sir Sydney

Gray, Harold (Cambridge)

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

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)

Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.

Greenwood, William (Stockport)

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James 1.

Sanderson, Sir Frank B.

Gretton, Colonel John

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

Sandon, Lord

Guest. Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)

Margesson, H. D. R.

Shakespeare, G. H.

Guinness, Lieut-Col. Hon. W. E

Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)

Sheffield, Cir Berkeley

Guthrie, Thomas Maule

Mason, Lieut-Col. C. K.

Shepperson, E. W.

Gwynne, Rupert S.

Mercer, Colonel H.

Shipwright. Captain O.

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)

Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l.W.D'by)

Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

Sinclair, Sir A.

Halstead, Major O.

Mitchell, Sir VV. Lane (Streatham)

Singleton, J. E.

Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)

Molloy, Major L. G. S.

Skelton, AN.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Molson, Major John Elsdale

Somerville. A A. (Windsor)

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.

Sparkes, H. W.

Harrison, F. C.

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

Spears, Brig-Gen. E. L.

Harvey, Major S. E.

Morden, Col. W. Grant

Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.

Hawke, John Anthony

Moreing, Captain Algernon H.

Stanley, Lord

Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)

Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)

Steel, Major S. Strang

Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)

Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Murchlson, C. K,

Stockton, Sir Edwin Forsyth

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Murray, John {Leeds, West)

Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Herbert, S. (Scarborough)

Nail, Major Joseph

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

Hilder, Lieut. Colonel Frank

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

Siteler, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Hiley, Sir Ernest

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

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

Hogg. Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)

Newson, Sir Percy Wilson

Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford. Henley)

Hohier, Gerald Fitzroy

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

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)

Hood, Sir Joseph

Nield, Sir Herbert

Titchfieid, Marquess of

Hopkins, John W. W.

Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Tubbs, S. W.

Houfton, John Plowright

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)

Paget, T. G.

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.

Parry. Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry

Wallace, Captain E.

Hudson, Capt. A.

Pease, William Edwin

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

Hughes, Collingwood

Penny, Frederick George

Waring, Major Walter

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Percy, Lord Eustace [Hastings)

Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.

Hurd, Percy A.

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tee.)

Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley

Peto. Basil E.

Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withinton)

Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)

Philipson, H. H.

Wells, S. R.

Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

Pielou, D. P.

Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Piiditch, Sir Philip

Whitla, Sir William

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

Pownali, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Wise, Frederick

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Preston, Sir W. R.

Wolmer, Viscount

Jarrett, G. W. S.

Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.

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

Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

Privett, F. J.

Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)

Jephcott, A. R.

Raeburn. Sir William H.

Woodcock, Colonel H. C,

Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul

Raine, W.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

Rawilnson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward

Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)

Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.

Yerburgh, R. D. T.

Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel

Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)

Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

Reynolds, W. G. W.

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Lamb, J. Q.

Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)

Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.

Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.

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

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

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

NOES.

Adams, D.

Brotherton, J.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Dudgeon, Major C. R.

Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)

Buchanan, G.

Duffy, T. Gavan

Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')

Buckle, J.

Duncan, C.

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

Dunnico, H.

Attlee C. R.

Buxton, Charles (Accrington)

Ede. James Chuter

Barker, G.(Monmouth, Abertillery)

Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedweilty)

Barns, A.

Cairns, John

Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)

Batey Joseph

Chappie, W. A.

Falconer, J.

Benn Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

Clarke, Sir E. C.

Foot, Isaac

Bennett, A.J.(Mansfield)

Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

Gosling, Harry

Berkeley, caption Reginald

Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Bonwick, A.

Collins, Pat (Walsall)

Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

Bowdler, W. A.

Collison, Levl

Gray, Frank (Oxford)

Boverman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Darbishire, C. W.

Greenall, T.

Briant, Frank

Davies, Evan (Ebbw vale)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Bromfield, William

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughten)

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

1792

1793

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

M'Entee, V. L.

Shinweli, Emanuel

Groves, T.

McLaren, Andrew

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr TydviI)

March, S.

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Martin, F. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dine, E.)

Simpson, J. Hope

Harbord, Arthur

Maxton, James

Smith, T. (Pontetract)

Hardie, George D.

Middleton, G.

Snell, Harry

Harris, Percy A.

Millar, J. D.

Snowden, Philip

Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)

Morel, E. D.

Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

Hayday, Arthur

Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)

Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

Mosley, Oswald

Stephen, Campbell

Henderson, Rt. Hon, A. (N'castle, E.)

Mulr, John W.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Murnin, H.

Sullivan, J.

Herrlotts, J.

Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)

Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)

Hinds, John

Newbold, J. T. W.

Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Nichol, Robert

Thornton, M.

Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)

O'Grady, Captain James

Trevelyan, C. P.

Hogge, James Myles

Oliver, George Harold

Wallhead, Richard C.

Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)

Paling, W.

Warne, G. H.

Irving, Dan

Parker, H. (Hanley)

Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)

Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

Pattinson, S. (Horncastlel)

Webb, Sidney

Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)

Phillipps, Vivian

Wedgwood, Colonel Joslah C.

Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Weir, L. M.

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Potts, John S.

Welsh, J. C.

Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)

Pringle, W. M. R.

Westwood, J.

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Richards, R.

Wheatley, J.

Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)

Richardson, R. (Houghtonfe-Spring)

White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)

Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

Ritson, J.

Whlteley, W.

Kenworthy, Lieut. Commander J. M.

Roberts, C. H. (Derby)

Wignall, James

Kirkwnod, D.

Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)

Williams. David (Swansea. E.)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

Lansbury, George

Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Lawson, John James

Rose, Frank H.

Wlntringham, Margaret

Leach, W

Saklatvala, S.

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

Lee, F.

Salter, Dr. A.

Wright, W.

Lees-Smith, H. B. (Kelghley)

Scrymgeour, E.

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Linfield, F. C.

Sexton, James

Lowth, T.

Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)

Shaw, Thomas (Preston)

Mr Neil Maclean and Mr Lunn.

Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS PRESENTED.

  LLEGAL TRAWLING (SCOTLAND) PENALTIES,
  " Bill to amend the Law with respect to the penalties for illegal fishing by trawl vessels," presented by Mr. MILLAR; supported by Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Falconer, Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Frederick Martin, Sir Charles Barrie, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, Major Warring, and Mr. Guthrie; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 52.]
  WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY),
  " Bill to make valid certain charges imposed and levies made during the late War," presented by Sir PHILIP LLOYDGREA1q11; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Attorney-General, Colonel Sir Robert Sanders, and Viscount Wolmer; to be read a Second time upon Monday next., and to be printed.[Bill 53.]
  RABBITS AND ROOKS BILL,
  " to enable local authorities in certain eases to provide for the destruction of rabbits and rooks," presented by Mr. LAMB; supported by Mr. Hope Simpson, Mr. Bruford, Sir Douglas Newton, Mr. Charles Roberts, Mr. Thomas Davies,
  1794
  Colonel Wedgwood, Mr. Millie, Mr. Hurd, and Mr. Lambert; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to he printed. [Bill 54.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS).
  Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  Nationality of Married Women,—That they concur in the Resolution communicated by this House: "That it is expedient that a Select Committee of the Commons be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to examine the British Law as to the nationality of married women; to consider in their legal and practical aspects the questions involved in the possession by husband and wife of the same or of different nationalities; and with due regard thereto, and to the operation of the laws of foreign countries, to report what, if any, alteration of the British Law is desirable."

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  First Report brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 35.]
  Bill, as Amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.
    Order for Committee read.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    In moving that you do leave the Chair, Sir, I must ask the indulgence of the House in that the task of justifying the Army Estimates has fallen to me and not to my Noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, who cannot be here in support of the policy for which he is responsible. I also regret that the House has been inconvenienced by the lateness in laying our Estimates. The War Office is in the midst of very great difficulties and administrative problems. Troops are stationed abroad, and there is great uncertainty as to how long they will remain. Even in keeping the Estimates back as we have done we have not, been able to get a very accurate Estimate, for instance, of the strength for which we shall have to provide in Turkey. I am afraid the House will consider, when they look at the smallest of the British force for which we have provided in the Near East, that in spite of our delay in laying the Estimates we have proved over-optimistic.
    The Army Estimates have been reduced this year by over £10,000,000. They are now £52,000,000, as against £62,000,000 last year. The Memorandum of the Secretary of State shows how fully the Government has carried out the reductions recommended in the. Geddes Report. The Vote for personnel shows a reduction of 55,000 men. Owing, however, to the exodus of four years special short-service men, the Army at the beginning of the financial year will be about 12,000 short of establishment. Recruiting, however, is excellent, and there is no doubt that we shall make up the shortage in a very reasonable period. The intake for normal engagements of service for the year which is just finishing has been 39,000 recruits as against a pre-War average of 29,000.
    1830
    It would be impossible and improper for me to prejudge at this stage the possibilities of further economies in the Army Vote beyond saying that the Army Council have very carefully examined the expenditure, and see no considerable additional reduction in establishment which would not involve dropping below the line of great. danger. The British Army has never been designed to meet the German or any other European menace. Its size has been regulated to the task of keeping the marches of the Empire and the maintenance of law and order. These responsibilities remain undiminshed, and there have been added to them responsibilities for large mandated territories in three different continents. The risks, therefore, are far greater than at any other period before the War. Of the reduced Army, in spite of these greater risks, we have 31,000 men serving in Germany, Turkey and Mesopotamia, where there was never any pre-War liability of any kind. Unless, therefore, we made too great a provision before the War, it is clear that with our existing liabilities we have already run very grave risks in cutting down, as we have by 21 battalions of in fantry, nine cavalry regiments, and 49 batteries of Royal Horse. and Field Artillery, as compared with pre-War days, when, as I have pointed out, our commitments were smaller.
    The justification of the decision last year was the urge of remorseless financial necessity. The maximum retrenchment in our defence forces is possible, and only possible, while the world remains exhausted by war. It needs not any specialised knowledge at the present time to see the danger points in Europe and the Near East which have been left by the War, stresses of economic and territorial pressure, reinforced by armed and trained men who are only with difficulty held back by treaties and diplomacy. These European risks, however, do not directly concern my argument. In any ease, at their maturity they would be beyond the scope of the Regular Army and its Reserves. There are, however, certain standing risks to the British Empire in Asia and elsewhere with which it is the normal function of the Regular Army to deal, and which it is the duty of the General Staff closely to watch. Such risks in the main dictate the size.

    1831
    of the standing Army and its Reserves. Our present establishment is sufficient to enable us to deal with these risks if they materialise singly. Should they, however, materialise simultaneously, we are not now in a position effectually to deal with the situation.
    For the moment we are exceptionally weak owing to the smallness of our Reserves. On the other hand, we have a great, but wasting, asset in the many men of war training who would still be available in an emergency. We are advised by the General Staff that with the present reduced Army we are facing the same heavy risks as before the War, with dangerously decreased resources. The slowness of mobilisation, due to the shortage in our Reserves, must add to the danger and might well mean that any trouble with which our Regular Army and its normal Reserves could deal in the initial stages, in the normal ease of our Reserves being up to strength, might spread to such a volume as to be beyond the scope of our standing Army without a very large call on national effort.
    The statement of the late Secretary of State a year ago showed that, while we should be able to mobilise before the War one and a half cavalry divisions and six infantry divisions within 10 days, we should in the future be able to mobilise only one cavalry division and four infantry divisions, not in 10 days, but in four months, and of the four infantry divisions we should only be able to mobilise one immediately and from existing resources and without special enlistment. The speed of mobilisation must, of course, increase as our fighting and technical reserves fill up, but it would not be in the public interest to state year by year the exact position in this respect. As a special measure, pending the normal growth of our reserves, 10,000 men with war training will be enlisted directly into Class D of the Reserve, and of this number practically the whole may be said to be in sight within three weeks of the announcement having been made. Unfortunately, more difficulty has been experienced in the case of 8,000 trained men whom we have tried to take directly into our Reserve. This scheme has been in force for two years, but I am sorry to say that out of the 8,000 asked for we have only secured so far 5,400.
    1832
    Much as the Army Council desire to retain the old and distinguished Militia battalions which are now in abeyance, I regret that it has not been found. possible in present conditions to justify the cost of their re-establishment. A scheme which would really supply an alternative is being examined. Under it the infantry depots may be organised so as, on mobilisation, to form cadres on which to build reserve units for replacement of the militia battalions. Although we cannot at the moment see our way to take any definite action about the infantry Militia, we are providing in the Estimates this year £350,000 for the institution of technical Militia to supply us with our trained personnel, telegraphists, mechanical transport, etc., without which quick mobilisation is impossible. The House will understand that these changes in the Reserve, and possible changes in the depots, will merely affect the speed of mobilisation, but not the size of the force which we can mobilise.
    The Army itself must. feel an even more lively interest than the House of Commons in the stabilisation of our establish went. Fifteen hundred officers have been axed under the Geddes recommendation, and the process has naturally caused most acute anxiety throughout the Army. Such is the feeling of insecurity that parents are showing reluctance in putting their sons into the Army, and we are now faced with a very serious difficulty in finding cadets for Sandhurst, which at the present time is 88 short of establishment. This serious position is the more remarkable in view of the great increase of pay now received by officers in the Army. They are to-day getting from two to two-and-a-half times pre-War rates. My Noble Friend the Secretary of State appreciates the gravity to the interest of the Army of a continuance of the present anxiety, and with a view to allaying it he is going to press the Government to come to an early decision in the matter of establishment which may, we hope, enable us to announce definitely the end of the compulsory retirement of officers, except under the prescribed conditions under the Royal Warrant as to age and period of service.
    Very great economies of detail have been carried out to get the Estimates down to the figure laid before the House. Non-essentials have been cut

    1833
    out and we have been obliged to sacrifice many desirable services such as the grant to cadets, owing to the overriding necessity of keeping the maximum of fighting men. Establishments are still being care fully overhauled and the guiding principle has been to create an Army capable of quick expansion. With this object it is specially necessary for us to train leaders. I stress this point because I have been asked a good many questions which suggest that our arrangements are too lavish in respect of higher ranks as compared with continental armies. That appears to me to be misleading. Our Army, in the case of the small wars in every type of country and under every variety of condition, must be prepared to deal with far more complex and differentiated conditions than those for which continental armies are designed. The late struggle also taught. us the necessity of an Army in this country being adaptable to the needs of a great national effort. Continental armies organise their manhood in peace time, and their proportion of leaders to men must necessarily be smaller when the cadres are half full than with us, where the leaders exist in peace time merely as an empty cadre to be filled up when necessity arises.
    Although no large saving is in view on establishments, some economy may be found in future years in the cost of personnel. The House will remember that under the Royal Warrant for pay, published in 1919, officers' terms are to be reviewed in July, 1924. It has not been thought advisable to consider the variation of pay of other ranks until that of officers can also be reconsidered. In any case the effect of changing the pay of other ranks, if decided upon, must be small at first, as no reduction can be made during the term of any existing engagement, when the change of conditions takes place. Considerable changes have been made in establishments. In both the cavalry and infantry a headquarters wing has been added as part of the organisation to include the administrative personnel, and it is hoped in this way to simplify the training of companies and squadrons in peace and their handling in war. I should mention that the headquarters wing will also include a fighting factor in the machine gun sections. The six cavalry depots have been abolished and a central cavalry depot has been created at Canter-
    1834
    bury. In the same way eleven artillery depots have been concentrated in a central artillery depot at Woolwich.
    Although considerable reductions have been made, the Army continues to spend from 00,000 to £700,000 a year in research. It, is difficult to give the exact figures, because research expenditure is rather closely interwoven with technical establishments, and I do not think we can expect, that this expenditure on research and experiments can ever vary directly with our establishments. If we cut down our numbers it becomes more than ever necessary to get the fullest benefit from scientific research and the improvement of war material. There was great waste of life in the Great War from the lack of knowledge, and the evolution of armaments was bought at a very high cost. It is, I believe, true economy in peace time to spend money on research, and so to avoid the ordering of wrong material when war comes with mass production. Much progress has been achieved during the year in tank design. Whereas the endurance of the track of the latest tank which was available during the War was only 150 miles, and the speed per hour was only eight miles, the present models have an endurance of 1,000 miles for the, track and a speed of 25 miles an hour. It is hoped during 1923–4 to equip a whole Tank battalion with the new light. tank.
    It has been decided also to substitute mechanical transport for horse wagons in the divisional trains, and this will involve on mobilisation the provision of a considerable number of 30-cwt. lorries. To encourage the manufacture and the existence in this country of this type. of vehicle in commerce, a small subsidy payment of £40 apiece is now being offered for lorries of 30-ewt. carrying power in accordance with War Office specification. The estimates contain provision for a school at Bland ford for boys, who will be taken and trained to trades. Bland-ford already possesses a large camp of huts and this was found to be the most economic site for adaptation. Difficulty has been found for several years past in securing the growing number of skilled personnel necessary for technical work. Blandford school will eventually take 1,000 boys at the age of 14, of whom 330 are expected to enter during next year.

    1835
    The War has naturally dislocated our pre-War Army, and the resulting resettlement and re-education and reorganisation have been much complicated by the necessity for the strictest retrenchment. Training has been carried out under difficulties owing to the numerous calls on units, in emergencies, both at home and abroad. We have lost valuable training facilities over 30,000 acres in Ireland, and we are asking the House to vote £180,000 this year towards a scheme which will eventually accommodate two brigades of Infantry, two brigades of Artillery, a Tank battalion, and a Signal Service Training Centre, in a new area which will give facilities equivalent to those which we have lost in Ireland. We have not yet decided the details as to the site, but it is certain that a large set-off will eventually be obtained by throwing up unsuitable and obsolete accommodation which will no longer he necessary if this scheme is adopted. We are spending considerable sums in training officers and instructors in the complexity of modern war and its weapons. But we have been obliged to cut down the provision for the general education of the Army, and the Army Education Corps has been accordingly reduced by about one-half. On the other hand we are making a start next month, at Catterick and Hounslow, with vocational training centres for instructors, who will go back to their units and pass on their instruction in brick-laying, upholstery, market gardening, and other trades which are useful in civil life. Courses in the same subjects will also be given at the end of their engagements to selected men, to help them to start in industry after demobilisation, and in this way we hope to do something towards repaying the debt to the soldier, and removing the reproach to the State of unemployment. among so many who leave the Colours.
    The House always takes a very useful and lively interest in the details of Army organisation, and especially lately in the establishment and cost of the War Office. The War Office cost has been cut clown in the Estimates by nearly £300,000, and the staffs of the Commands have been cut down by £100,000. Of the total cost, only £969,000 under the -War Office head would have been shown as the cost of the War Office under the old arrangement of Votes, and the remaining
    1836
    £353,000 would have been distributed under other heads. The figure of £969,000 is just over double the corresponding provision of £457,000 in 1914, and the main cause of this increase is the great post-War volume of work. Letters to the War Office are still more than double what they were pre-War, and the cost is further explained by the fact that not only the Army, but the Civil Service is getting very much higher pay than was given eight years ago. Much of the reduction is of course the natural result of winding up the legacies of the War. At the same time, while the present tension exists throughout the world, it must continue necessary to employ an abnormal number of staff officers in obtaining information and preparing for contingencies.
    The reconstruction of our military forces must also impose a heavy burden which, for the moment, rules out-any fair comparison with the pre-War period. But a close scrutiny is being made of organisation and administration, so as to secure the greatest efficiency and economy. The present system is based on the recommendations of the Esher Committee. It was primarily designed for the control of a small army, but the Esher Committee very wisely—to use their own phrase—took as their main object "the establishment of a system in peace which has its exact analogue in War, which will train officers in peace for their war duty, and which will provide machinery which cannot be disorganised on the despatch of troops for service abroad." That they succeeded in designing a system suitable not only for peace, but for war, is shown by the fact that this administrative foundation, on which was built the small pre-War army, carried efficiently in War the colossal administrative burden of the whole nation in arms. The Esher Committee certainly have no reason to be ashamed of the foundation that they digged.
    5.0 P.M.
    It is our duty to examine closely, in the light of war experience, our present organisation, and to find out and correct. any defects. Administration has been complicated by the development of new armaments and methods of warfare and the improvisation of machinery to work them. Personally, I believe that the Esher system is so elastic that overlapping, if it has taken place, can easily be corrected by fresh delimitations of

    1837
    responsibility between Departments, with out any fundamental changes. The pre War control of expenditure, which, of course, depends largely on our organisation policy both in peace. and war, was probably more open to criticism than the system of directing organisation. This country certainly did not wage war cheaply. Enormous waste took place, not only under the War Office, but in all directions. In war, owing to the system of Votes on Account, all Parliamentary control of expenditure went by the board. Perhaps no system could altogether have avoided this trouble. But it is clear that, in peace time, House of Commons control can only be achieved by proper accounting as the foundation for the annual Estimates. Economy can be achieved by big cuts, but it can be better applied by a small-bladed scalpel. Big cuts are often disastrous, but unless you have a micro scope of scientific accounting to enable you to distinguish between sound and unsound expenditure, you cannot possibly use your scalpel. As far as the War Office are concerned, efforts are being made to improve the control of expenditure by a new system of accounts, which was introduced for the first time in the Estimates of 1920–21. They allow, not only the House of Commons and the War Office, but also officers of all stages of responsibility, to know and control the cost of the Services which they administer. The whole system of Army Votes was developed from the time when the House, in its jealousy of the power of the Crown, thought merely of limiting the numbers of the standing Army and its expenditure and not of getting good value for the money.
    To take an instance. Neither the officer commanding a hospital nor the War Office could know what was the expenditure on any hospital, either in total or per patient, under the old system. The officers' pay was found in one account, the men's pay was passed in another, and rations, nurses, drugs, furniture and building all came out of various Votes, and were never brought together either locally or centrally in any intelligible account. The old system was an admirable, if costly, method of preventing dishonesty. It was designed rather to defeat misappropriation than to bring about business management. The officer had no means of knowing what anything
    1838
    cost, and it must cause a dangerous tendency to think that cost did not matter.
    The new system of Votes is built up on a scientific system of cost accounting, details of which are shown in the Army Account—this blue volume which I hold, and which is published every year. The great aim of the system, apart from Parliamentary and War Office control, is to enable an officer to see and check expenditure on waste in his own sphere of responsibility, and it should thus enable real decentralisation of financial control which previously was far too much concentrated in the Finance Department of the War Office. I do not for a moment wish to suggest that the accounts in their present form are perfect. They are still in an experimental stage, but I do join issue with those who think, because formerly we had no effective system and contented ourselves with cash accounts, produced by the Royal Army Pay Corps, and nothing but cash accounts produced by them, those accounts being combined in different Votes under the War Office by a Civil Service personnel, that we ought on that account to be debarred from taking advantage of modern accountancy in controlling business.
    All these questions of organisation and business are being considered by two Committees. The first is a Treasury Committee with Lord Weir as Chairman, Sir John Chancellor, Assistant Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and General Sir Herbert Miles. This Committee is examining the establishments, not only of the War Office, but also of the Admiralty and the Air Force. They have taken evidence in the case of the War Office which shows that they are interpreting widely the latitude given under their terms of reference to indicate how variations in policy would affect economy. The second Committee is a War Office Committee presided over by Sir Herbert Lawrence, and its function is to inquire into the administration and accounting of Army expenditure. I am sure that the detailed criticism which has been, and no doubt to-day again will be, directed against Army administration by the House of Commons, will be carefully considered by these Committees, while the wider aspect of Imperial defence organisation is being examined by special cum-

    1839
    mittees of the Committee of Imperial Defence. The terms of reference of the most. important one were paraphrased by the Prime Minister last week.
    I now turn to the Territorial Army, which is the real second line of the Regular Army for Imperial defence. The figures of the Territorial Army now amount to 6,000 officers and 130,000 other ranks. It has a reduced establishment of 8,000 officers and 172,000 other ranks, so that it is practically three-quarters full strength. There is also a reserve of officers amounting to 4,000. I suggest to the House that this is a very cheap insurance for £5,250,000. Although the bounty is being reduced, and four years' enlistment has been substituted for the shorter term in the interests of economy, the Force under these conditions has fully held its own. The final figures of net gain for February over discharges will probably reach an increase of nearly 2,000. Many units are up to strength, and in a position to choose the men whom they will accept. The greatest difficulty at the present time seems to be in London. Of the 12 weakest battalions in the Territorial Army, six are found in the London Divisions. Lloyds, however, true to their patriotic traditions, have set an excellent example by forming a Lloyd's Anti-Aircraft Battery of Artillery, which, I am glad to say, is now up to strength, with several on the waiting list. We are hoping that other organisations and employers may see their way to help the Territorial Army by becoming responsible for infantry companies. The spirit in the Territorial Army is admirable. It is remarkable how those who work hard during the week are prepared to give up their small leisure to Army training and week-end camps.
    Perhaps the most striking feature of the year in the Territorial Army is the start which is being made in raising Air Defence formations. Two Air Defence Brigades have been formed in London, and those who have joined undertake to come up for service during a national emergency, even if the Territorial Army as a whole has not been called up. The Voluntary Aid Detachments have been correlated to the Territorial organisation by means of certain functions which have been assigned to the County Associations. A general V.A.D. Committee has now been set up, combining not only the tech-
    1840
    nical side—the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance Association—but also the County Territorial Associations, the War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Ministry. Under this control we look forward to the development of the Voluntary Aid Detachments as a permanent and valuable part of our organisation for war.
    In conclusion, I should like to bear testimony to the splendid efficiency and discipline of the whole. Army under very trying circumstances. I will not deal with their duties abroad, but the task which the Army had to perform in Ireland was one of singular difficulty, calling for very great self-control and forbearance. The personal regard, overriding all political bitterness and misunderstanding, which was shown by the Irish people on the evacuation by the British Army of Southern Ireland, was very strong evidence of their splendid discipline and conduct. Since the War, life in the Army has been very uncomfortable. Moves have had to take place frequently and at short notice. Troops have been living almost under war conditions, deprived of the usual amenities, and separated for long periods from their families. In addition to this, they have been harassed by a feeling of great insecurity and anxiety owing to compulsory retirements on the ground of economy. In spite of those adverse conditions, the spirit anti discipline of the Army are beyond all praise. All ranks seem to have recognised the necessity for economy, and the whole Army is showing loyal cooperation in the very painful task to them of cutting down establishments, which has been imposed upon them by the necessity for retrenchment. I hope the House will accept the Estimates which we have laid, and that the Army Council will be allowed to stabilise and rebuild the Army on the scale now recommended.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the first place, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to be congratulated on his first presentation of the case for the Army to this House of Commons, and I think also that the House is to be congratulated on the presentation that he has made, with the one regret that he is not the Secretary of State instead of the Under-Secretary, because, after all, it is desirable that this House, in the case of one of the big spending Departments, should have the

    1841
    responsible Minister here to answer criticisms that are made. I would also congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon the fact that he is able to state his case for the first time since the War with the Estimates in our hands. It has been rather trying in the past to deal with the Army without having the Estimates in our possession. We have now got them, and although we have only had them for two days this is a presage of better things to come and that in the near future we may be able to get back to the normal course of events. The cost of the British Army is really dictated, I think, by two causes. We have seen during this year a reduction of £10,000,000. For that reduction the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not to be praised or blamed. That reduction is due to his predecessor in the Coalition Government, as a result of the Geddes axe. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans). who was then in charge of the War Office, made that reduction of £10,000,000. Therefore it must not accrue to the credit of the present Government. Unfortunately, we have seen no further attempt at reduction from the present Government. The position is in the condition of solution, with no further reductions made, but vague hopes of future reductions when they become possible. That immediately brings us to the enormous cost of the Army Services. The reduction has been £10,000,000 since last year, but it is still £52,000,000 against £28,000,000 before the War, and that increase is one that must not be put down entirely to the increase in the cost of living, because we have not the same article that we had before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] No, not so efficient. The cost of the Army is dictated by two causes. In the first place, human nature being what it is, there is in every man in the Army a desire to retain the strength and dignity of his command. We have got to realise that. Arguments will be used in favour of a large Army, quite honestly, because those who use them believe that the safety of the country depends on their particular unit, whether it be cavalry, infantry, machine guns or tanks, being kept at its previous standard. No doubt that is only natural. At the same time, it is important that we should realise it, because it is the Minister responsible to this House
    1842
    and representing the War Office, who has to control and fight that natural tendency towards extravagance. We must Daly upon the hon. and gallant Gentleman to do all that is possible to counteract this natural tendency towards keeping the units large, and the commands large and keeping departments above what is absolutely necessary for efficient management. That is one reason why the cost of the Army does not drop as it ought to drop.
    The next reason is the existence of a quite honest and justifiable desire to minimise the risks of disaster to this country. I think all hon. Members on the other side of the House feel that if the country could at the same time be kept safe they would desire to reduce the cost. of the Army in order to save the taxpayers' pockets. It is then mainly a question of risk. Now, risks are comparative. There are always risks in our private lives and in the public life of the State. There is the risk of bankruptcy, of financial disaster, which is as great and as real as the risk of any other sort of disaster. The last War proved that a sound financial system, a sound financial basis in a country, is of greater value or, certainly, is of quite as much valise as many battalions. When we are brought up, as we are to-clay, between two alternative risks, the risk to our financial position on the one hand and the military risk on the other hand, we have got to measure the one against the other, instead of looking solely at: the military risks while the financial risks are, in effect, every whit as serious to the community. I have said that a sound financial position is a greater safeguard than many battalions, but the measurement of these risks really depends upon our foreign policy. It is policy which creates the risks. It is policy which dictates the amount of insurance we must provide against risks. Therefore, in discussing an Army Vote, we have to consider how far our foreign policy is leading us to further expenditure upon the Army and to expenditure beyond that which we should consider necessary, had we a foreign policy of a different character.
    During the last year, by the mercy of Providence, we have got rid of one of the worst bits of our foreign policy. We have cleared the Army out of Ireland. We have saved that enormous wastage which was draining our resources and

    1843
    involving work which only a very large army could perform. How far has the removal of Ireland from our responsibilities enabled the present Government to make reductions beyond those reductions which were authorised by the late Government and were advocated by the Geddes Committee at a time when conditions prevailed in regard to Ireland different from those which exist to-day? Has the abandonment of Ireland—the reduction of the Irish Command and the removal of our troops from Southern Ireland—enabled the Government to make any further reductions in the Army, beyond those reductions which were contemplated when the Irish garrison was needed and when, apparently, there was no end, or little likelihood of an end, to the need for that garrison in Ireland. It must be remembered in that connection that we are losing income through the abandonment, of Ireland, and, therefore, we have a right to demand from the Army that there should be if possible an equivalent reduction in expenditure. I turn from Ireland to a branch of our foreign policy which is at present creating an excessive demand upon the Army, and that is the maintenance of the force in Egypt. In Egypt, I believe, we have two cavalry regiments and nine infantry battalions. In the old days the Army of Occupation in Egypt, was paid for by the Egyptian taxpayer. Now that Egypt is independent, I suppose our Army in Egypt is paid for by the British taxpayer. I should like to know whether that is so or whether I am wrong?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: No change has ever been made in the original arrangement, come to in the time of Lord Cromer, under which the Egyptian Government made a contribution of £150,000. Although that Army costs millions nowadays no increase has ever been made.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In that case, the east of our Army in Egypt—our much larger Army in Egypt—does come upon the British taxpayer. There we have a direct instance of where our somewhat muddled and changeable foreign policy has definitely added to our liabilities and to the calls upon the Army by creating the, need for this large force.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member
    1844
    again, but I think he must have misunderstood what I said. Although the Army in Egypt is costing millions, that does not mean that you will be able to reduce the Vote by millions, by taking them out of Egypt, because those millions would be spent in any case in keeping your Army against risks elsewhere. What I meant to point out to the hon. and gallant Member is that he will find in the Votes a total sum spent on the Army in Egypt. That is not the same thing as saying that it is spent on Egypt because we have designed our Army not for Ireland or for Egypt but for the standing risks of the British Empire, which are far larger than the risks which have been removed or may be removed, in either of those places.
    Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Captain Fitzroy): If the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) proposes to go into foreign policy, I must point out to him that a discussion on foreign policy would be quite out of order on this Vote.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am quite aware of that. I would not dream of discussing foreign policy when there are no representatives of the Foreign Office here. All I am discussing is the additional charge upon the people of this country for the maintenance of an Army in little packets throughout the Globe. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says the Army in Egypt would have to be maintained in any case. If he looks at the Geddes Report he will see that one of the arguments used there for the reduction of the Army was that smaller garrisons could be maintained, and that not, only the foreign garrisons, but also the parallel battalions under the Cardwell scheme in this country, could be cut down and the personnel of the Army reduced. I would also remind the Under-Secretary that the Geddes Committee deliberately recommended the reduction of the personnel of the Army not to 160,000 but to 136,000. That figure has by no means been reached at the present time. They recommended that a great many whole battalions abroad could be reduced to half battalions, and the parallel battalions here reduced at the same time. What I am trying to make quite clear is that it is our foreign policy which creates the demand for British troops, and thereby swells these Estimates. The Egyptian

    1845
    case is only one. Turning to Constantinople, we find another case where we have an indefinite demand upon the Army of this country.
    I may say that we have a demand there for our troops which has become very expensive—I think we have been told that our army of occupation at Constantinople cost us, up to the negotiations at Lausanne, no less than £20,000,000. That expense is still going on. I am not quite clear whether it appears in these Estimates or whether it is going to come in as a Supplementary Estimate, but it is going on month after month, and, at the same time, our army there is incurring the very gravest risks. Everybody who knows the risks of having a mere packet of 8,000 or 9,000 men in the middle of a fanatical population, in an enormous town whence removal may be extremely difficult, will agree that it is not merely the financial difficulty, but the actual danger to our troops which should cause the Under-Secretary to urge vigorously the reduction, at any rate, of that little packet and the lightening to that amount of the calls upon His Majesty's Treasury. I pass from Egypt and Constantinople to the Rhine Army. There is another demand upon us and another need for a larger army, which we should not otherwise have. Last year it was estimated that we should get. £1,500,000 from Germany to help to pay the cost of the Rhine Army. We were told that might not cover the cost, but that it was expected we should get that sum in reparations from Germany, and I should like to know if we have got it. When the: Under-Secretary, or his representative, comes to reply, perhaps, I hope, we shall hear also what they expect to get this year from the same source, if anything.
    It is obvious therefore, as I have said, that foreign policy must determine the cost of our Army. Unfortunately, it is also the case that your weapon determines, to a certain extent, your foreign policy. If you have got a large Army, if you have a bright weapon, the tendency is to rely upon that Army and to use that weapon. We want not only to change the policy which calls for a large Army, but to reduce the large Army, so that our policy may change likewise. This leads me up to the main point which we on this side of the House
    1846
    wish to put before the Under-Secretary, and it is that in dealing with the Army Estimates and reducing expenditure upon the Army, we are hound to look in future to the summoning of a Conference similar in character to the Washington Conference, but dealing with armaments throughout Europe. I find I have difficulty in urging, for instance, a. real reduction in our Air armaments, when we see in other countries enormous increases in that particular form of armament. The same remark applies to th Army and the Navy. It would facilitate the re-establishment of pre-War expenditure upon fighting Services, if we, in conjunction with America, could get some sort of Conference whereby all the nations might agree together, as at Washington, to reduce post-War armaments. It is on those lines that the saving of a future is likely to come, and I urge the Under-Secretary to do what he can to get his Government to move in that direction. It is not only of vital importance to us, hut to the whole of Europe, that something in that respect should be done. A proportionate reduction in the armies and army expenditure of the different European countries would be infinitely more imporant than the proportionate reduction of the naval expenditure which resulted from the Washington Conference. I pass to the next question of the numbers of the Army and the efficiency of the Army. The Geddes recommendations were to disband eight cavalry regiments and 28 battalions of infantry. I gather that 24 of those battalions have been disbanded—24 or 23, f am not certain which—but the other four battalions have not been touched; but that is nothing to the cavalry. I believe that out of eight cavalry regiments for disbandment, only four have been disbanded, and I. should have thought that one of the lessons of the late War was that, under modern conditions, cavalry were singularly helpless in the face of barbed wire and machine guns.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The total reduction in cavalry regiments is nine, as compared with pre-War.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But the reduction of eight cavalry regiments has not taken place. What I cannot make out is the exact position of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the matter of numbers in

    1847
    the Army. Last year the Secretary of State declared that they were budgeting to reduce the Army from 201,000 men to 153,000 men. He took credit for the fact that he was cutting down the Army by exactly the amount that the Geddes Committee recommended, only he was starting from a different datum level, and that he was going to reduce to 153,000 men, but now we are told that the hon. and gallant Gentleman this year is going to reduce the Army, not from the 153,000 to which it was reduced last year, but from 215,000 to 160,000. Really that means, if you compare the two statements, that the size of the Army has increased from 153,000, to which it was reduced last year, to 160,000, to which it is to be reduced this year. If you look at the figures in detail, under Vote A, you will find that there has been no reduction whatever actually in the numbers involved. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman, when he replies, could tell me what the figure is in the 1922–23 Estimates, which precisely coincides with the 160,000 for whom he is budgeting in these Estimates, and, further, how he squares that particular figure with the statement of the right hon. Member for Colchester that he was reducing it last year from 201,000 to 153,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The figures of the right hon. Member for Colchester were, of course, tentative at this stage of the Estimates last year. The hon. and gallant Member will remember that he talked of a reductionof 24 line battalions, whereas after these figures were given the infantry reduction was changed to 22 battalions, namely 12 Irish battalions and two battalions in each of the five four-battalion regiments. The establishments were not then worked out, and it was no doubt impossible to estimate the necessary establishment to provide the reserves for the four and a half divisions which that House accepted as necessary. These establishments have now been gone into, and it is not merely a question of fighting troops, but taking them all round, including the Colonial militia troops, they involve this Vote of 160,000 to get that standing and reserve establishment considered necessary for the safety of the Empire.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: That has not answered my question. I am afraid we
    1848
    shall have from every Under-Secretary of State for War in the years to come the same pretty promise of a, reduction each year. The real difficulty is this. We have cut down the numbers of the Army, we have reduced the expense of the Army by £10,000,000 this year, but the real difficulty is that the Army is no longer an efficient machine similar to that which we had before the War. It is not fair to the country or to the taxpayer to say, "Here we are charging £52,000,000 as against £28,000,000," and to pretend to be giving them the same thing. Are you? We know you are not. In 1914 the British Army was in the best condition that it has ever been in the long history of this country. We were able to put four divisions across the sea immediately. Now, with this present Army, you could put one division across the sea immediately, and four in four months following. There is a. long, long gap between the position of the Army to-day, and its readiness to perform its European task, and the position of the Army before the War. We are not getting the same Army, and when the hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that the Army does not exist to garrison Egypt or Constantinople or Ireland, but that it exists for the great risks of European wars—
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I did not say that. I said the standing risk in Asia and in Africa had not been reduced in any way, and I made it clear that the British Army was not controlled in its establishments by any idea of a European war.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Standing risks in Africa and Asia can practically be met by garrisons in Egypt and Constantinople; but the whole point is that we had in 1914 an efficient weapon. Now, by the admission of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we have not quite the same weapon, and it is not fair to say that, by merely spending another £24,000,000 on the Army, they have managed to give the country the same thing. They have not. They have given us a very inferior thing, comparatively speaking. One of the dangers is that people are not realising that they are not getting now from the Conservative and Coalition Governments anything like so efficient a weapon as was provided by the much-abused Lord Haldane in the year 1914. In fact, our

    1849
    Army to-day compares best with the Army we had in 1902, after the Boer War. It is not so bad as in 1895, but it is not anything to be superlatively proud of in respect to its readiness to face those big European risks. Overseas, we can send one division, and the reserves are not available at present. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting 10,000, and hopes in years to come that the Army will build up its reserves once more. But it is worse than that.
    The real position is specially difficult, because the reductions have not been so much in the numbers in the Army as in the ancillary services, and in modern warfare it is the ancillary services which really count. Warfare has become mechanical, and the numbers do not matter so much as the readiness of the machine. The tendency of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's predecessor was, I think, to maintain the fighting units, and the ancillaries suffered in consequence. Signals, tanks, medical service, machine guns, Army Service Corps—in all those there were substantial reductions, and that is only natural, because it is the costly services that you seek to reduce when you have to save money somewhere.
    Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: It is not true that signals have decreased. They have increased on this year's Estimates.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You were reducing them last year.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Signals were made more efficient and actually increased.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have figures here, and I must have misread them. However, I withdraw. I will say that the tendency is always, if you have to cut down, to cut down on the expensive services, the valuable services, and, of course, it is these services which one is least able to improvise in case the risk turns into a war. We should see that those particular auxiliary services are maintained, even at the expense of the fighting unit. It takes a longer time to make the machine than to make the fighting man, and therefore, when we are cutting down the expenditure on the Army, as we are at the present time—and further cuts will have to be made next year—it is essential that we should see that we cut rather the numbers than
    1850
    the auxiliary services. One can be improvised—not easily, but possibly—whereas the other cannot be improvised. So I say we are getting a less efficient Army, but the tragedy of it is that, in spite of that, we are getting a more numerous War Office. The Army in 1914 had, for its War Office staff and command staff, 942 officers. Last year the figure was 1,266 and this year it is 1,173, so that this staff at the War Office has increased, although the weapon which it is controlling has depreciated, both in-numbers and in immediate fighting efficiency.
    The War Office is, of course, an extremely difficult administrative weapon to curtail. I am glad to hear that there has been this Committee appointed to go into the question of staffs and see what can be done. When you are reducing establishments, it is almost inevitable that all the people on those establishments should immediately start corresponding with each other, in order to make jobs for themselves, and overlapping inevitably occurs. That is one of the difficulties in any administration, but it is particularly difficult when people see their work vanishing and know that they may get "the sack" shortly. One of the worst cases of overlapping in the War Office is the existence and position of the Ordnance Master-General of the Ordnance. The Department of the Master-General of the Ordnance was the Department at the War Office which, in 1915, forced the country into establishing the Ministry of Munitions to do its job properly, but now the Master-General of the Ordnance is really the fifth wheel of the coach. He is supposed to supervise the Royal Factory at Woolwich, to deal with designs, and to deal with matters concerning the material of the artillery. I do not know, not being in the War Office, whether it is so, but. I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he will probably find, in the staff under the Chief of the General Staff, people—mere majors and captains, very likely—doing exactly the same work, and capable of doing it as well, as the Master-General of the Ordnance. The Master-General of the Ordnance appears to date back a long time. I think the hon. Member for Staffordshire was Master-General of the Ordnance in 1453, and it has gone on ever since.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It has been revised.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: It may have been revised and brought up to date, but does the hon. and gallant Gentleman deny that that Department fulfils at the present moment duties and a position which could be carried out by the ordinary subordinates of the Chief of the General Staff, without any serious loss to the whole of the administration of the Army in this -country? There you have got one of those survivals which has survived the War, which is now surviving the peace, and the result is not only the enormous staff at the War Office, but the difficulties caused to all the other Departments there by reason of this sort of vermiform appendix which still exists in the body of the War Office administration. It is a curious thing, but if you watch the War Office you will find that, as years go on, every three or four years they indulge in a game of musical chairs, and every official changes his department, but the difficulty is that up to now they have, never played the game properly and taken away one of the chairs, so that there will be fewer seats for the mighty. I do think that when things change next year, or even before, it might be possible to reform that department of the War Office out of existence, and at the same time to see that these functions are carried on as well as ever.
    That brings me to the question of the cost accountancy in relation to finance. I am glad to be able to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the action taken by the War Office to obtain really a decent cost accountancy for once. We have got to read over the Army Estimates, and these absurd general statements of the cost of wages and other things. Now we can see what are the prices of the articles produced at the military factories. Now we can see what one battalion costs as against another. Now we shall be able in future years to see whether the cost per battalion goes up or not, and we shall be able to see whether Mechanical Transport Department is providing a service or services equivalent to the expenses of the Department. Every business man must realise, if you are going to get efficient finance, that it is absolutely essential that you should have the exact cost. No man would attempt to carry on any manufacturing business
    1852
    in this country without a costings Department. Might I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should use his influence with his Leader to press forward a similar system in the Navy. Why is it that in the last three years the Army has been adopting this new system, experimenting with it, and, I think, have improved it, and all this time the sister Service, the Admiralty, have continued the old system. We want the greatest possible economy not only in the Army but also the other fighting Services. Then, on the financial side, I know of no more terrible fund than the Terminal Charges Fund, which now stands at £3,588,000 for a war which ended five years ago. Even so, the expenses of the War are still being booked up against the taxpayer each year. How long are these terminal charges to go on? there a chance of this 3½ million coming to an end, or shall we sec next year another unfortunate figure put down for terminal charges, and that six years after the close of the War?
    How about the other side of the question? In previous years—not in this year —the Army has to a large extent been subsisting on the stores that were created or produced during the War, and which were not exhausted at the end of the War. They did not credit to the Liquidation Department the stores they took over. These stores have been used which otherwise the Army would have had to buy in open market; therefore their accounts do not accurately represent, as I understand it, the real cost of the articles. We ought to know not merely what the expenditure of the Army is as shown in the Estimates, but also how much they are drawing from stores which were charged in previous Estimates to the capital account of the Army. I would like to have that figure from one of the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. What, too, about the growth of the non-effective Vote? In 1914 it stood at under 24,000,000. It is now 7½ millions. Really, that is worse than in the case of the effective Votes.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: It is partly clue to axing.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope that will show itself in the Estimates of next year. The percentage at the present time runs to about 16 per cent. of the cost of the

    1853
    Army, which is enormous. Are we certain this does cover the sums given to the officers who have been compulsorily discharged? That they are not allowed pensions which go on year after year?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Some of them have got pensions earlier than otherwise they would have got them, and that partly accounts for the large non-effective Vote. The cost is very largely due to the fact that you have had to compensate officers, but this will be making for economy in future years on effective Votes.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: So much for that question. If you want really to reduce expenditure I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman outlined one way in which it could be done. It has got to be done! The pay of the officers was put up in 1919 at the topnotch of prices. There is no doubt about it that now the Army is the most well-paid profession in this country into which you can put a lad. If you want to do well for a boy put him into the Army as a sub-lieutenant. He will do far better there than he could in any civil profession at the present time. A lad of 22 gets, I think, about £350 a year, and he is doing well at that. That pay before the War, as I remember, was 5s. a day; now it is £350 a year, together with allowances. Here, I think, something might be done. The House will remember that the report upon which this scale of pay was based was drawn up in order to enable a poor man's boy, as an officer, to live upon his pay. We voted it almost with enthusiasm when we remembered what these men did who were always in the list as "second lieutenants except when otherwise stated." That pay at that time was not excessive. Now I think reform ought to some along. I think we might make that review at the same time, not injuring the position or the interests of tie second lieutenants in the. Army. More can be done now by really severely criticising and scrutinising the mess accounts than by increasing the pay.
    I would like, if I could get it, some sort of comparison between the cost of living of a lieutenant on board one of His Majesty's ships of the Fleet, and the cost of living of, say, an officer of parallel rank, that is a captain who is living in barracks. I believe we should find that the cost of living for the naval lieutenant would he about one-third the cost of
    1854
    living of a captain in one of His Majesty's regiments. If by careful supervision you can bring down the cost of living and the mess accounts which fall upon the officer at the present time, you would not only ease the country of a great deal of unnecessary taxation, but you would make it easier for that man to live, and to marry, and easier for him to find the profession in which a man can work which does not involve a large amount of expenditure than utterly unnecessary for any officer in any other service.
    The last thing I wool to talk about is the depots which have been scrapped. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting rid of these unnecessary depots. I notice that cavalry and artillery depots have been scrapped except one in which the authorities have effected a concentration. Why should not we at the present time take the money that it is contemplated to spend on the new training school at Blandford—apparently they are starting the fresh new school at a time when they have these depots and barracks.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Buildings at Blandford already exist, and of all our available buildings, are considered most suitable for adaptation.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there need to allocate further money? I note the memorandum of the Secretary for War says:
    "Notwithstanding the urgent need for economy, it has been necessary to provide considerable sums for the purchase of land and for major (Part I) building services, in view of—

    (a) The inception of an important scheme for the accommodation of troops in the North of England;

    (b) The establishment of a central training school for boy artificers at Blandford."

    My own feeling and information is that if you kept one or other of these places it would form a very suitable nucleus, perhaps with nuclei over the country, for these central establishments. I am very glad this sort of training is being undertaken, because, as a matter of fact, as hon. Members know, the needs of the Army in warfare, for this sort of training and service is enormous already and likely to grow with any sort of war that came about. While pressing for these new training establishments, I do want to point out on one side of army reform,

    1855
    that the energetic Geddes Axe has been exceedingly busy dealing with Army education. That really is regrettable. Army education has suffered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is reduced by 50 per cent. That is not the way really to deal with economy; if by reducing one sort of expenditure you curtail the sort of expenditure most likely to be reproductive, then the last state of your Army will be worst than the first. The country will not really benefit by this enormous reduction in Army education. The fatal idea seems to be at the War Office that what is wanted is not general education but special training, and that the man ought to ho trained as a bricklayer, or as a miner or a ploughman is trained, to have skill with his hands and not skill in the thinking part of him. For the Army, as well as for civil life, I am quite certain that the best thing now is to develop the thinking part and not to develop mechanical ingenuity. What we want are not machine tools trained to produce wealth, but people who will have a wide vision and be able to think for themselves; whose character has been built up by their life in the Army, and who are turned out, not inferior citizens, fit only to be hewers of wood and drawers of water, but citizens capable of thinking and acting for themselves and of standing up for their rights.
    Education is very different from vocational training. I hope that even under this Government we shall see a real increase rather than an increase in mere vocational training. The question of the central training school at Blandford I desire to draw attention to, and the additional expenditure for what is apparently a manœuvre ground to take the place of the Curragh. I do think that might be postponed. Clearly, what we want to do to-day is to get the landlords of the country to give their permission to move the troops over their grounds when those grounds are only used for sport. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Yes, we can buy those grounds at an enormous figure in order to enable our troops to fit themselves for saving the country in some future war Really, when you are dealing with grouse moors—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear:1—yes, the most suitable manœuvring ground in the world is Alder
    1856
    shot. What could that land be used for except for manœuvres? What. about other expenditure for accommodation?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Accommodation is needed for the troops.
    6.0 P.M.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: You always provide accommodation for the troops. But you could get land perfectly well during the War under D.O.R.A. at far less cost to the taxpayer. The fact of the matter is that once you start this wonderful scheme of providing new manœuvring grounds, of moving up expenditure for barracks, and factories for making all the necessities for the Army, you are incurring a liability for a gigantic further expenditure, and I submit that that is not the time to incur that expenditure. What we want to do is to make it an efficient but a smaller Army, and we can only do that, by an international agreement. Those of us who want economy as well as efficiency will not he found to be at all behind in regard to any movement to get into contact with the United States and other European Governments' in order to come to some international arrangement to reduce armaments. In this country we have the financial soundness as well as the mechanical aptitude for improvising war, and that would help us and save us at the same time from a risk greater than foreign invasion, that is the risk of financial collapse and the ruin of our position as the foremost financial Power in the world.
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I only want to intervene for a few moments in this Debate. On this occasion perhaps I may be able to speak a little more freely than I have in the past. I welcome the statement which has been made by the Under-Secretary of State for War. It was a very clear statement, and I find myself in agreement with most of it. There are two points upon which he anticipated my criticisms with regard to the War Office, and the system of accounts in the Army. My first point is that I am satisfied that our staff organisation as regards the Headquarters of the Army does require some reconstruction and reorganisation. Before the War, with an Army, which had the menace of the German Army on the Continent, consisting of six divisions with two cavalry

    1857
    divisions, we had a War Office staff of 174 officers. At the present time, with a very much reduced Army and with far less chance of war, we have a staff of 312 officers employed.
    It seems to me that from the point of the work which the staff has to do that is wrong and it ought to be put right. It is well-known in the service that a large staff must create work for itself. The excuse which the right hon. Gentleman gave for the additional staff was more letters and more correspondence. My idea is that if you cut clown the staff you immediately cut down the correspondence. I am satisfied that no one would be more happy and cheer more loudly any reduction of the War Office staff than the Army as a whole. There is another argument and it is that this large staff produces a great deal of what is called paper work which cannot be adequately dealt with in the time, and the result is that a mass of papers come up which demand some attention, with the result that the really essential things are often overlooked in the general mass of papers with which they have to deal. I would suggest for consideration whether it would not be possible. straight away to go back to very nearly the pre-War establishment at, the War Office and sec how it worked. We have had a large number of additional staff handling the distribution of the medals and there are still nine engaged in that work. I cannot see why an efficient staff about the size of what it was in 1914 ought not to suffice to do all this work. I am satisfied that we are not getting value for the amount of money which we are spending on the Headquarters Staff at the War Office.
    As regards the actual organisation of the headquarters of the Army. I think my right hon. Friend who has just spoken said that the Masters-General of time Ordnance ought to be merged into the other members of the Army Council, and I think he is right. The duties of the Masters-General of the Ordnance have largely disappeared. They are old, and the experience of the War has proved my contention, and I do not think alone on this subject, because many officers at the War Office agree with me that the duties of the Masters-General of the Ordnance, such as the general designing of machines and such duties, might be taken over by the General Staff, and the
    1858
    actual provision of material could be taken over by the Quartermaster-General. I submit to the Under-Secretary that suggestion, and no doubt he will put it before the Committee which is now looking into the question of the establishment of the War Office, certainly something on these lines ought to be very carefully considered.
    There has been a good deal of overlapping between the duties of the various military members. I suggest that the handling of the personnel of the Army is purely a matter for the Adjutant-General, and should not be dealt with by other members of the Army Council. I hope that reform will be carried out, and I am sure it would not only save money, but would save in the actual provision of personnel. My next criticism is with regard to the officers. I think, possibly, it would save in staff if the officers, generally were handled by the military secretary entirely. At the present time part of them are handled by the Adjutant-General and the others by the military secretary. I think it would be all to the good of the Army if the military secretary could take over, not only appointments, but the general posting of officers, and in that way you would get a saving in staff, and at the same time you would speed up the machine. The Army Council as a whole is, to my mind, a machine which does not carry out the functions put to it by the Esher Committee. As a matter of fact, this Committee seldom meets. I believe there are two cases when it did meet. One was to consider the unfortunate Dyer case, and the other was to consider whether they would give bagpipes to the Irish regiments.
    As a rule the business is carried out by the military members Possibly in the reconstruction, if any is contemplated, the Army Council could be the body that deals with all the business it is required to do, instead of half the body dealing with part of it. I know that view has been expressed by previous Ministers who have occupied high positions in the War Office. I would just like to make one criticism on the general organisation of the War Office. After the South African War it was found necessary to appoint the Esher Committee. I am satisfied now, that the Great War is over and the experience we have absorbed from that War, we really ought to appoint

    1859
    a similar committee to go into, not only the organisation of the War Office, but the general organisation of our Army as a whole, and our Army system. I ask the Government to consider that suggestion. I know there are many things which have gone by the board, and it is almost impossible to expect the military members to reorganise themselves. I suggest the appointment of a small but strong committee, consisting of two civilians and one big soldier who is not employed, and I think such a committee might, with great advantage to the State and the Exchequer, go thoroughly into our Army organisation.
    As regards the staff, there is one other point which I would like to touch upon, and it is that it seems to me out of place to have such a large staff in Egypt. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke before me called attention to the number of troops there. I do not propose to touch upon that point at all. At present there are three battalions and three cavalry regiments in Egypt, but it seems to me that the staff there is far too large for the work they have to do. I think, in cutting down the number of troops in that area, the reduction of the staff has been overlooked. Is it necessary to have an important senior officer in command there when Lord Allenby is also there as High Commissioner? I have no doubt the Under-Secretary will agree with me on that point.
    Then there is the question of the administration .of the Army; and this is a question which ought to command very close attention. The administration is not really on good lines. I know you have had the new system of cost accounting brought in during the, year 1919. I believe that the Select Committee of National Expenditure in 1918 did recommend that this system should be brought into the Army. I believe that was quite right, because our accounts before that time were in a chaotic condition, but I am afraid that the cost accounting is not producing the results desired. We have now got a corps of Army accountants, and all over the various units we have representatives of those accountants very largely doing paper work. There are about 901 of these people at home, according to the return which has been published, and this includes officers. The
    1860
    results of their labour are not really made easy by the administration of the Army. In other words, the actual faults found in the cost of the Army have not been translated into better methods by the administration.
    In order to get a good result from the cost accounting scheme you must link up more closely the officer in charge of the administration with the cost accountants. These officers have never really been brought into close touch with finance. I think one of the great defects of our Army system is that the officers are not brought close up against, the cost of what they are ordering and doing. At the present moment the cost accounting system is not doing what it ought to do in bringing matters before the notice of those who have to administer the Army. It is perfectly evident that those who administer in peace time will probably be those who will have to administer in war time, and I am sure a great deal of the excessive expenditure in the South African War and the late War might be avoided in the next war if the officers in peace time are brought close up against finance. It is interesting to note that the Esher Committee said, on page 16 of their Report:
    "There can he no doubt that, in proportion as officers are accustomed to financial responsibilities, the economy which they alone can secure will he effected."
    That is very true, and one sees all over the Army that the effect of decisions in administration is not considered from the point of view of cost and finance generally. There is one point in regard to the administration of the Army that I should like to make, and that is that while it is quite suitable to have a system of cost accounting for workshops electrical plant, hospitals, supply depots mechanical transport or educational establishments, it is, on the whole, quite useless to have it, for units like an infantry battalion, a cavalry regiment, or a battery of artillery. I would beg that some inquiry be made into the general application of this system of cost accounting in the Army. I know that a few officers who have studied the matter have represented their views to the War Office, but nothing, so far as I know, has come out of that representation The system in itself is all right, hut the application of it is all wrong at the present time. A great deal of very useful information

    1861
    was collected during the War by the Surveyor General of Supplies, and it seems to ice that, in the application of the supply system to the Army, Navy and Air Force, and particularly to the Army, there is a great deal of overlapping. There are great hospitals for all the Services, transport appliances for all the Services, and the buying of supplies is done separately by the different Services. It seems to me that the distinguished Lord who was at the head of the supply system in the latter stages of the War must have collected a great deal of very valeable information on the subject of the supply system, and I suggest that the Government might save a great deal of money if they had some central combined system to deal with supplies, transport and hospitals for all our Services at home.
    With regard to the question of our officers, I am in entire agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the reason for the large number of officers was that, on the expansion for the purposes of war, we had to have officers to officer our incoming men. That is perfectly sound, but, as the Territorial Army must be the basis of our security in any national danger, because our Regular Army is not big enough, and can never be big enough, to deal with it, I suggest that there ought to be some closer link between our Regular Army and our Territorial Army. The fault in the last War was that for long they were kept entirely apart from Regulars. The hon. and gallant Gentleman shakes his head. I know that in some cases Territorial troops were brought over and mixed into our battalions in France, but although they did ultimately come over in divisions, full use was not, made of that framework on which to build a National Army. I submit that a scheme should be carefully worked out whereby the Regular Army could be knit more into the Territorial Army, and that that is the real really economical way of producing a cheap Army. In connection with that, might I draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to a Committee which sat in 1919 at the War Office, whose Report, I have no doubt, has been relegated to the usual pigeon-hole, although it is really a most interesting Report. In it an attempt is made to arrange a system whereby the Regular Army could be knit
    1862
    to a Territorial or National Army, and in that direction I think a great deal can be done which would probably save money on the Regular Army and help the Territorial Army.
    Lieut.-General Sir AYLMER HUNTERWESTON: Before I begin to talk on the particular subjects on which I desire to address the House, I should like to reply to one or two things that have been said by the hon. and gallant. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison). With most of what he said I am in agreement, but there are one or two points on which I think he is not quite so much au fait as, perhaps, he might be if he had thought over them a little more. One point on which I entirely agree with him is that the Territorial Army and the Regular Army should be linked up. He added that that was not so in the War, but why was that? It was owing to the fact that a statesman and soldier, for whom we all have the greatest admiration and respect, did not really understand what the possibilities of the Territorial Army were, and, therefore, instead of building up on the basis of the Territorial Army, as would have, been desired by many of us, including my hon. and gallant Friend and myself, who before the War were employed at the War Office, a new Army was started, which was named after the great Field Marshal. If I may say so, in reply to what the hon. and. gallant Gentleman said, it was owing to that that full use was not made of the wonderful organisation of the Territorial Force, which had been built up by Lord Haldane and the others who were working with him at the War Office. I do not, therefore, agree with the particular application which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy, but with the general underlying principle I am in entire agreement.
    Further, with regard to the number of officers, it must be remembered, in regard to the Territorial Force, with which both he and I had a great deal to do before the War, that that Force must, as time goes on and as the officers with war experience gradually get fewer, depend very much upon the trained young officers of the Regular Army for its efficiency. The reason for the great efficiency of the units of the Territorial Force before the War was the fact that highly-trained regular officers

    1863
    were posted to their formations, and gave them a thorough training for war. The best of our regular officers were sent, in considerable numbers to the. Territorial Force before the War. Therefore, I would deprecate any feeling that, because more use can be made of the Territorial Army, we should not require to have a large number of regular officers. I believe the efficiency of the Territorial Army in the future will be closely linked up with having highly-trained regular officers of the Territorial Army in sufficient numbers to be able to give them help in helping themselves in their training. On the question of officers generally, I should like to add, to the reasons that have been put forward by the Under-Secretary of State, the fact that we have a situation in our country which is entirely unlike anything in any other country. Our peace Army is not a national Army, but a small Regular Police Army which is required to protect our frontiers and give us security all over the world. The very fact that the Army is so small makes it necessary to have a large proportion of officers. Furthermore, owing to its small size, numbers of officers must be away from the units, and, therefore, the establishments must be considerably increased. For that reason, and for many others which I need not now go into, I should consider it to be in the worst interests of the Army, and, therefore, in the worst interests of the nation—for their interests are the same—if there were to be any reduction in the proportion of officers now in the Army.
    I am also in entire agreement with the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy in thinking that a small Committee should be appointed to revise the War Office. This is a subject on which I have spoken in this House for the last three years. I have given my ideas of the composition of the Committee, and I entirely support what the hon. and gallant Member says. I believe that under our present Prime Minister a Committee has been appointed which, after it has gone into various matters with which it will deal first, will proceed to a decision as to how the War Office should be organised, whether the various members of the Army Council rightly hold their places, and whether the allocation of duties at the War Office is correct. Personally I do not consider
    1864
    that it is. I have strong views on that, but I do not think it would be of any advantage at the present moment to say what those views are. I hope, however, that the Committee will go very thoroughly into the matter and find a solid basis on which to build up its recommendations. That can only be done by first going fully into our resources of defence. Here let me say that I greatly regret that the procedure I asked for last year, of putting the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence before the Estimates for the three Services, has not been followed. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to bring that matter to the notice of the Cabinet, so that it may be considered next year. In order to get a thoroughly sensible discussion of the Navy, Army, and Air Force, we ought first to consider the rôle of all these three Services as one defence force, and it seems to me that the right occasion for such a discussion which I believe in times past has been most fruitful and interesting, would be on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. Then we can discuss the broad matters of policy which concern all three Services, and we shall be able to devote our attention entirely to the discussion of those matters which are germane to each particular Service when the Estimates for each are before the House. Unfortunately, that is not the case at the present time.
    The first essential to the efficiency of the Army and of the other Services is that there should be a proper co-ordinating authority, and I cannot refrain from saying one or two words upon that. All of us, who have this matter at heart, welcome the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint a Committee to go into this matter, and we trust that that Committee will be composed of Members who will be able to give continuous thought to this subject. I hope that the nucleus of that Committee will be a very small number of Members outside the Government, who can give continuous attention to the subject, not for a few days or a few weeks, but for months. It will in addition to that nucleus have to have the close attendance of Cabinet Ministers. It is obvious that with our system of government it is injudicious to have an outside committee sitting without the close attendance of Cabinet

    1865
    Ministers. We have seen in many cases with outside committees that their report is turned down. That would not be possible if the Cabinet had been carried along with the Committee throughout its consideration. I therefore suggest, for the consideration of the Government, that this Committee, as finally composed, shall consist of a, very small nucleus of people outside the Government, who can give entire attention to it for a long period of time, and have, as joint members, members of the Cabinet whose Departments axe really concerned.
    Further, I hope the terms of reference will be very wide. It has been one of our great faults in the past that we have always tried to do the job by catching hold of one little corner of a huge subject. You cannot get really intelligent and proper organisation unless you go to the root of the whole matter, and I trust the terms of reference will be such that we shall be able to consider the whole of our resources for defence, think of what may be the possibilities of the use of those resources in the future, and then, having considered both those, they might base our various resources, not only in the three Fighting Services, but in the nation at large, so that they may be properly utilised if, which Heaven forbid, there should, in the future, ever be any necessity for their utilisation. It is useless to think of matters of defence if you do not take what is the greatest necessity of all and build up on that what you require for the lesser requirements of our police Army in peace time. I suggest to the Government that, whatever be their decision as to what is the best co-ordinating authority for these three Services, whether it be a Ministry of Defence or otherwise—we all know the difficulties and I do not intend to enlarge on it—what in the opinion of myself and of many others are the most important matters that any such Ministry of Defence (or Committee carrying out the duties of the Ministry of Defence, which may possibly be the best solution under the present conditions of our Cabinet Government) its duty should he first to co-ordinate the policy of the three Fighting Services on lines approved by the Government; secondly, to assign to each Service its definite responsibility for the defence of the Empire: third, to see that special provision is made to enable each Service
    1866
    to discharge the responsibilities thus laid upon it; fourth, to subject the establishments of the three Services to continuous scrutiny to ensure that the forces provided are adequate for, but not in any respect in excess of, the requirements for the policy laid down by the Government; and fifthly, to review the Estimates of the three Services to ensure that the funds available shall be disposed of to the best advantage. It is, indeed, a thing of the greatest importance to the three Services and, therefore, to the country.
    I should like to draw attention to a great fallacy underlying the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the matter of manœuvre grounds. He seems to think troops could manœuvre over any land at any time without doing any harm. He furthermore thought a suitable place to carry out manœuvres would be a grouse moor. I was, before the War, responsible in a large degree for the training of the Army and had to do with big manœuvres, and have, therefore, had to go very carefully, as part, of my duty, into this question of manœuvre grounds. I can assure the House there is nothing on which money can be better spent than in providing proper manœuvre grounds for the Army on which they can carry out proper exercises under conditions as nearly as possible approximating to war. The old manœuvre grounds we have, such as that at Aldershot, are completely out of date. It is absurd to have troops deploying for action on one end of the Aldershot ground when they are under artillery fire from the other end. Another thing is that the manœuvre grounds in the South of England now are within range of a foreign country's aeroplanes, and it is very questionable whether it is advisable that all our military headquarters and big training grounds should be within range of aeroplanes from another country, however friendly it may he. I entirely endorse the policy adopted by the Government of putting one of our big training grounds in such a place that it is far from any foreign country. With regard to what has been said as to the Master-General of Ordnance, that is a point which had better be left to the Committee appointed by the Prime Minister. It is no use for any of us, whatever our opinions may be, to give a mere ex parte statement.

    1867
    We may have our ideas, and they may be strong ones, but it is better to leave such a thing to the decision of a Committee which will be able to hear every side of the question and to come to a right decision. All I wish to point out is that, though we have the name Master-General of Ordnance now, it is in no way comparable to what was the Master-General of Ordnance in the old days. That was a huge Department which was entirely separated from the rest of the Army. Then we had the Army divided into two.
    When the revision of the War Office is under consideration, as I hope it will be by this Committee, I hope it will be careful to see that our financial administration in the War Office is made more economical and efficient. There can be no doubt that in any private or any other business it is advisable that responsibility and financial power should go hand in hand. It is foolish to appoint to high office an officer with great experience of administration and then to tie his hands in the matter of finance. Give him the money for his Department to carry out what he has to do and let him spend it as he considers right within the limits laid down. We all know that is not the case at present and we know why it is. That is a point on which many of us would like to speak on another occasion but, not now. I have already spoken on the question of the financial control of the War Office both from inside and also from outside. The Treasury control of these various Departments is extraordinarily uneconomical and requires careful revision in the light of present-day requirements.
    There is one point on which I wish to enter a strong caveat, and that is what we have heard about a possible reduction of British units in India. Whatever may be the requirements of the Army in India, we must remember that we in this House must consider not only the local requirements of India, but also the needs of the Empire, and especially of our fellow countrymen out there. No decision should he allowed to be come to on such an important matter by any local Legislature, great and important though the Indian Legislature is. Everyone will agree that our responsibility is to
    1868
    see that our fellow countrymen are kept in security, and, furthermore, that we do not allow anarchy to occur in any country which is under our control, administration, whatever you like to call it. I rejoice to say I have among my personal friends some natives of India, with whom I was in very close personal association in the five years I spent there, and with whom I still correspond. I know they are equally of opinion with myself that it is necessary For the security of their country that the proportion of British troops should he large. The moral ascendency of the British troops is great, and the use of native troops is often attended with great difficulty. A very small body of British troops has often a far greater effect than a large number of native troops. Therefore I beg that, if anyone from motives of economy should desire a reduction of our strength in India, it should only be done after the most careful consideration, not only of local, but of the general needs. We have not only to consider the immediate needs. It is not for any Government in any part of our great Empire to say, "We have so much, enough for our immediate requirements." They have to think what is required in case reinforcements are wanted, and it is not fair that we should have to keep troops specially for reinforcing any particular part of the Empire because the numbers now there are insufficient for their proper requirements.
    I wish to say a word on the relations between the Services we are now discussing and the Air. I am of opinion that in the interests of the Army itself, which naturally I think of most, having spent my life in it, it would be most regrettable f there was any splitting up of the Air Service. I consider that we are able to get from the Air Force the services that we require by having air units posted to the Army, and the same applies to the Navy. The bugbear which has been put out, more by the other Service than this one, that the air units so posted to the land or sea service would not be under the control of the commander of those other Services is a delusion. I had Air Force units under my command for three and a half years when I was in France. There was never any question of interfering with their internal organisation. There was never any question

    1869
    of deciding what method should be adopted to carry out the objects in view, but because there was no such interference it did not mean that the air units were in any less degree under the command of the commander. Promotion, it is true, goes by efficiency in the Air Force, but it is none the less true that the Air officers are dependent on the reports they get as members of the Army Corps, and therefore the arguments adduced that the air units posted to any naval or military command would not be under the commander and might look beyond him leaves me quite cold. I hope, therefore, that there will be no alteration in the existing administration of the Air Force. To sum up, I think that the matter of most importance to the Army at the present time is this Committee which the Prime Minister has appointed. I think that from that, if the work is properly carried out by an efficient. Committee, which concentrates over a sufficient length of time, we shall be able to improve the efficiency of the Defence Services as a whole, and of the Army and of the War Office to a degree that can only be compared with the immensely increased efficiency obtained after the Esher Commission.
    Sir GODFREY COLLINS: Two hon. and, gallant Members have just addressed the House and brought to the Debate first-hand knowledge of a very difficult problem. They will excuse me if I do not follow them on those particular subjects. They both referred to the inquiry into the administration of the War Office. Let me remind the hon. and gallant, Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) that the War Office, in its main outline of organisation, stood successfully the stress and strain of war. The main features of its administration successfully stood five years of war, and if they were investigated again the broad outline of organisation at the War Office would be found to be successful. This is the last Estimate of the three Fighting Services, and we are now permitted to know the total cost of those Services. The Army Estimates are about £52,000,000, but to that figure must be added two sums of some consequence. The first is the total cost of the stores which have been drawn from stock without replacement this year. I find, on examination of the Estimates, that that amounts to £3.293,000—the Financial Secretary will
    1870
    correct me if I am wrong. In addition to that, the Army Estimates take £1,250,000, which they anticipate to receive from Germany toward the cost of the Army of Occupation. Therefore, the true cost of the Army for the year, is not £52,000,000, as revealed in the Estimates. To that £52,000,000 must be added these two sums of money, and so the total cost is £56,543,000. The War Office, are optimistic if they expect to receive £1,250,000 from Germany toward the cost of the Army of Occupation. I hope their anticipations will be realised, and that the War Office may be the Department to secure some payment from that country towards the cost of our Army. Let me also add that although they expect to receive £1,250,000, the total cost of the Army of Occupation in the coming year is £2,000,000.
    Having said that, I agree that the Army Estimates show a very appreciable reduction, and from my plate in the House of Commons I am anxious to congratulate the War Office on securing that reduction. I have had occasion from time to time to criticise—not always, I am afraid, with that good temper which I would desire—the Estimates presented by the Government. I think that this year and in the coming year the War Office have interpreted correctly the desires of the nation, and that they have made a serious and definite attempt to curtail the expenditure of the Army. During the last two years no doubt it will be so during the corning year—the War Office have been criticised, not only in the House of Commons, but outside. I believe that the criticism the War Office has received has been effective and has made that Department to-day a more effective and economical administrative machine. Would that the public would apply the same criticism to the Admiralty! The Admiralty is the spoilt child of the British public, which it is useless to criticise. It will not accept criticism, but the War Office, as these Estimates reveal, has benefited from the criticism of the past, and has been able to reduce its Estimates very considerably. Let me analyse the total cost of the fighting forces for this year. The total cost of the Army is some £56,500,000, the total cost of the Navy, on the same basis, is £53,000,000, and the Air Estimates are some £12,000,000. The cost of the fighting services in the

    1871
    Middle East is some £6,250,000—£127,750,000, five years after the Armistice! Will not everyone say that this large sum is excessive, and outside the necessities of the case?
    The Government of the day have formulated a policy that there will be no world war during the next generation. It is one thing to formulate such a policy; it is another thing to carry that policy into effect. After 1815, the Duke of Wellington formulated a similar policy, that there would be no upset in Europe for a generation. The Government of that day acted on that policy, and three years after Waterloo such large reductions took place in the cost of the fighting Services that the war taxation imposed during the War was repealed. I agree that this afternoon we are discussing the Army Estimates, but the total cost of the fighting Services has some bearing on our discussion. The size of the Estimates at present under discussion is settled, I think, speaking broadly, by the number of men. Once that point is settled, the main features of the Estimates are determined. The number of men which our Army requires must be settled, or is rather influenced, by the foreign policy of this country. If Great Britain is going to continue to occupy territory which does not belong to her, then the War Office will be called upon in the future to maintain troops in those areas. I will not argue, this afternoon, whether we should maintain troops on the Rhine, at Constantinople, in Palestine or in Mesopotamia.
    There will be other and more suitable opportunities for Debates on that subject, but with troops in those areas any large reduction in future in the Army Estimates cannot be obtained. We must curtail our commitments abroad if we are going to see a further reduction in our Army expenditure. If I can judge public opinion outside, it has no desire to occupy territory which does not belong to this country. The public has no hankering for further territory in any portion of the globe, and I hope that during the coming year the foreign policy of this country will be so modified that the War Office may be enabled to withdraw troops from different quarters and so be in a position to present reduced Estimates during the coming year.
    1872
    There are, in India, agents at work which may enable the War Office to reduce their Estimates. As the House knows, Lord Inchcape and his Committee have been investigating the problem of India and the number of troops that may be required there. Yesterday I put a question to the Under-Secretary of State for India. I asked him if he would state
    "the number of British troops which will be stationed in India if the recommendations of Lord lnchcape's Committee are accepted."
    The answer was;
    "If the proposals of Lord inchcape's Committee are adopted the total number of British fighting troops in India will be 63,040 ‥ ‥"—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 14th March, 1923; col. 1586, Vol. 161.]
    If my information is correct, the Commander-in-Chief in India has accepted the recommendations of the Lord Inchcape Committee. Therefore, we may anticipate that the size of the Army in India will be reduced. The Estimates reveal that some 71,000 troops—I think British troops—are in India, today. If Lord Ineheape's recommendations are accepted, there will be a smaller British garrison in India, and, as the House well knows, the number of troops in this country is influenced largely by the number required for India. I hope the Under-Secretary will concentrate on that subject, and if that recommendation is accepted it may be possible to reduce the size of our Army in that proportion.
    Mention has been made on more than one occasion of a question affecting large sums of public money. I refer to the number and size of our administration units in proportion to the number of our fighting troops. Page 8 of the Estimates reveals that there are 130,000 fighting troops on the Establishment of the Army, and some 18,000 troop; for administrative purposes. In other words, for every 1,000 troops the Army to-day requires 140 men, non-fighting troops, administrative units. I have been enabled to make a comparison with the French Army. I agree that any comparison with the French Army is naturally open to criticism, but I take that Army as a basis, and I find that the administrative units in the British Army are double in size to the administrative units in the French Army for every 10,000 men. If that be at all accurate—and I have had it on

    1873
    high authority—I think there is room for some possible reduction. The Under-Secretary may say that the numbers of our administrative units need not be large, can be enlarged equally in time of War; and that you must have a certain number of highly skilled individuals so as to take charge of a large number of troops if the Army is enlarged. That argument held good before the War, but to-day, with the large reservoir of skilled officers and men, who have served in those administrative branches during the War, it will not hold good. Therefore, I press upon him to consider, during the coming year, whether our administrative units cannot be reduced in number, so as to provide either an increased number of fighting troops or a reduction in the size of the Army Estimates.
    7.0 P.M.
    One other question is the size of the commands. The Under-Secretary in his opening statement pointed out, if I followed him correctly, a very considerable reduction which had taken place in the cost of the War Office and the. Commands. I had closely examined these Estimates, and. it appears to me that that reduction is snore apparent than real. The size of the staff at the War Office to-day in comparison with last year shows that for the current year the number is 1,173 in comparison with 1,158 for last year. The numbers show no reduction, but there is a slight increase. I agree that the total reduction is some £660,000, but the Irish Command has disappeared with the passing into law of the Irish Free State Bill, and. the necessity for the Irish Command in Dublin or in Ireland no longer exists. The cost of that Command last year was some £439,000. I hope I have, made that point clear to the Under-Secretary and that I may have some answer in the later stages of the Debate. The two hon. and gallant Members who have preceded me will agree with me, I am sure, that when the number of officers and men in the Army is being reduced the first cut should be in the size of the staffs. If the staffs showed an example in reducing their numbers the officers and men throughout the Service would take more kindly to the axe falling.
    I now pass from that to the Army of Occupation on the Rhine. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking in this House on Monday,
    1874
    referred to the position of our Army in that country. He was asked whether the British Army there was now surrounded, and whether it had contact with unoccupied Germany. His answer was, "It is not so now. It is all very well to laugh, but the situation has changed." If I understood these words aright, they meant that at some time our Army was surrounded, and was not in touch with unoccupied Germany. The prestige of this country demands that if we send our troops to any portion of the globe they should be maintained in keeping with the honour and dignity of this country.
    I would ask the -Under-Secretary a question in connection with McGrigor's Bank. I understand the Committee presided over by Lord Askwith distributes the money. Does he think the work of that Committee will shortly finish, and is he satisfied with the present Army agents? I ask for an official assurance. We have had this kind of assurance given before. This does not only concern the public purse; it concerns a large number of officers whose fears have been aroused, and I think some assurance from the Under-Secretary would pacify these people. Before I sit down, let me once again congratulate the War Office on having effected a large reduction; £10,000,000 in one year. I believe that the force of circumstances and pressure of events will force this country during the next few years to a still further reduction in the size of our Army. The bad social conditions of our people, our empty Treasury, all demand not only that this Government, but that any Government that sits on those benches in the coming year, shall curtail the unproductive expenditure on our fighting forces to a much smaller figure than we are being asked to vote, this year.
    Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I see in the paper which the War Office circulate that the lay of the officers and men of the Army amounts to some £13,000,000, as against £7,000,000 in 1914, though we have only now 160,000 officers and men, as against 183,000 at that time. I understood the Under-Secretary for State to say that next year this question will be considered. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Godfrey Collins) that the Army should be cut down any more. A more foolish suggestion I have not heard for many years. I would like to point out

    1875
    to my hon. Friend that by reducing the pay of the officers and men he would be able to employ a much larger number of men in the Army. If that was done, we would have a stronger Army, which is essential, and we would be doing something to relieve unemployment. It would be far better that some of the unemployed men should be learning their business in the Army than receiving the dole and doing nothing for it. The raising of the any of the Army took place in 1919, when there were wonderful ideas about the future of this country. I do not believe the raising of the pay attracted more officers and men to the Army. I believe you could have got as many officers and men at. a much lower rate. The cost of living does not affect the men in the Army. Lodgings, food and clothing are prodded for the men. Even assuming the cost of living did affect them, the rise in the cost of living is only 77 per cent., and the pay has increased by 150 per cent.. I quite understand that you cannot make a drastic change of this sort in a hurry, but I hope, as suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend, that next year this question of pay will be revised, and that with the savings the number of men in the Army will be increased. I trust that if other Members of the House speak en this question they will support my suggestion, which, without further cost to the taxpayer, will give us a stronger Army, and, in fact, will relieve the taxpayer of the cost of the dole to those men who enlist. It will strengthen the Army and give the unemployed a good profession.

    AIR ARM.
    Lord EUSTACEPERCY: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "with a view to the proper co-ordination of operations for which the War Office is responsible, involving the use of units of the Royal Air Force as the air arm of the Army, it is desirable that the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the organisation, training, and command of such units should be more clearly defined, and that for this purpose the whole problem should be dealt with by a permanent expert advisory sub-committee to be set up by the Committee of Imperial Defence."
    As the right hon. Baronet has invited support for the suggestion he has just
    1876
    made, I would like to say that personally I think his suggestion indicates the only line upon which it will be possible to secure any real economy in the Army. Before bringing before the House the Motion that stands in my name, there is one matter that has been raised in this Debate by the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), to which I would refer. He referred to the question of our garrisons in Egypt. This is a very remarkabe item in our Estimates Some 45 per cent. of the whole cost of our forces abroad is in respect to the garrison in Egypt. It is costing us £3,300,000. It is necessary that we should consider what the reason for that garrison is. It. is not, except in a very small measure, policing Egypt. It is not in Egypt to repel any possible foreign attack. It is in Egypt for the purpose of a show of strength, to replace that force by which we used to held Egypt, the force of our civil administration in that country. We have withdrawn our advisers and civil administrators, and we have practically left the internal administration of Egypt to the Egyptians themselves. We exercise no administrative control, but in its place we are holding an enormous garrison in the country—enormous compared to the size of the country, enormous compared to the actual work that force has to do. That situation, evident on the face of these Estimates, is one to which it will be impossible for this House or this country to reconcile itself in the long run, and we roust demand a definition of our position in Egypt, and a stabilisation of our position in Egypt which w ill enable us to reduce that garrison.
    The Motion which stands in my name is one for the setting up of a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence to secure proper co-ordination of operations for which the War Office is responsible, involving the use of units of the Royal Air Force as the air arm of the Army, and asks that the. Government's policy in regard to the organisation, training, and command of such units should be more clearly defined. It may he thought that this question has been discussed at such length during the last 24 hours that any further discussion would he useless That is so far true that. I do not propose to keep the House for many minutes; but in spite of our discussion yesterday, in

    1877
    spite of such illuminating speeches as that of the hon. Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes), there is one point which does need to be brought to the attention of the House, and this point was implicit in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir A. Hunten-Weston), which filled me with the profoundest misgiving.
    We discussed this question, not only yesterday, but a year ago. We were then told by Mr. Winston Churchill that there had been a number of committees on the question of the co-ordination of the Air Force with the other fighting services. He enumerated these committees. Ho threaded his way with great circumspection, as usual, through the labyrinth of committees which had sat on this subject and his final conclusion was that the whole question of co-ordination of the Air Force with the Army was now finally settled, and that it would not form part of the terms of reference to another committee, but that another committee was being set up to consider the naval question. Now we have another committee announced by the Prime Minister, which is to consider the three fighting services. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute suggested so many subjects into which it would be necessary for this committee to inquire, and he expected its inquiries to extend over the whole area of Imperial defence, that it is perfectly obvious any such committee, if it is to indulge in inquiries of that nature, could not be expected to report for a very long time.
    I cannot help having a grave feeling of distrust of these committees of inquiry. Committees of inquiry have always been a speciality of the Committee of Imperial Defence. No one could over-estimate the value of the plans laid down before the War as a result of such inquiries, but there has always been a tendency even in the Committee of Imperial Defence, I am afraid, towards something like that of the White Knight in "Alice Through the Looking Glass," who was always considering new inventions, but those new inventions did not enable him to sit in the saddle for many minutes together. An inquiry into the possibility or the feasibility of a Ministry of Defence will mean that after the Committee has discussed all these intricate subjects, the Cabinet will go on discussing them, and we shall not have a
    1878
    definite decision for at least two years. Meanwhile, what is going to happen to the actual co-ordination, and the joint staff work as between the Army and the Air Force?
    My Motion calls for a permanent expert advisory sub-committee In view of the Committee set up by the Prime Minister, and in view of the fact that we are apparently going to seriously consider this question of a Ministry of Defence, that must be read as meaning "permanent," until some other complete scheme is set up. The point of my Pesotion is that the Army in this matter is not pressing for anything like the Navy. It is not pressing for an Air Service for itself. It is not out for a policy of grab, and therefore it lays emphasis, as the Navy does not lay emphasis, on the supreme. necessity not for a committee of inquiry but for a committee of staff coordination. That is what this Motion calls for. That is what I believe to be absolutely essential. What ever may be the requirements of General Godley or General Harington in regard to the Air Force, those requirements have to be discussed and fought out from time to time between the Army Council and the Secretary of State for Air. They are fought out and they are not co-ordinated by any general authority. That, we affirm, is an impossible situation. This Motion does not ask for any grandiose committee, but it does ask for the setting up of a small joint staff committee between the Air Ministry and the War Office, under the. control of the Committee of Imperial Defence, so that the co-ordination which I believe to be absolutely necessary may be carried out pending the result of the larger inquiry that is being set up.
    Major RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Amendment.
    As regards the first part of the Motion, namely, that the policy of the Government should be more clearly defined as to the air arm and its co-ordination with the Army, there is no doubt, as the Noble Lord has said, that we shall get some enlightenment if not to-day and perhaps not to-morrow, at least we hope some time that we shall get some enlightenment from the Committee which the Government has announced its intention of setting up, Ns regards the second part of the Motion, namely, that there should be a permanent expert advisory sub-committee of the

    1879
    Committee of Imperial Defence, I do not think it is possible to lay too much emphasis on the importance of that. The reason is obvious. The Noble Lord has given several reasons why such a Committee should be set up. I will confine myself to giving a general reason, and it is this, that whereas there is mass of accumulated evidence, open for all who care to read, in relation to the operations of the Army and the Navy, in fact, in relation to the whole question of fighting by land and sea, yet as regards fighting in the air, so far the accumulated evidence and experience is extraordinarily small and limited.
    The mechanical side of flying is still only in its infancy. The Secretary of State for Air told us yesterday that the complete life of practical flying has only been 20 years, but the experience of fighting in the air has been confined to a little more than five or six years, and in consequence we cannot at the moment hope to congratulate ourselves that we have got any very definite basis on which to formulate our fighting plans. If it is true to say, as it is, that the mechanical side of flying is still quite in its infancy, it is obvious, also, and it follows as a corollary, that the strategical and tactical side of flying must only be in its infancy. If flying is still in its infancy, it is sufficient to assume that the growth of the air arm will be much more rapid than any development that may be looked for in the growth of the two sister Services. The two sister Services are already grown up, and we know a good deal about them. The growth of the infant air arm, until it becomes more stabilised than it is at present, will make it necessary to have same permanent organisation to watch every stage of growth and development, and especially to watch its relations with the two older sister Services.
    This Motion deals only with the relations of the air arm to the Army. For the reasons which I have given, that you must expect very rapid expansion in the air arm and the knowledge of the air, I second the Motion, because it is a matter of vital importance that we should watch it very closely. The Memorandum issued by the Secretary of state for War, which accompanies the Army Estimates, states that, owing to the
    1880
    needs of economy, it will not be possible to hold any manôuvres this year for any formation larger than a brigade. We know that aeroplanes are not attached to any formation so small as that of a brigade; in fact, except for spotting purposes, I do not think that any aeroplanes are attached definitely to any formation smaller than an Army for the purposes of fighting and reconnaissance. That being so, if there be no manôuvres held this year for any formation larger than a brigade, I should be glad if the Under-Secretary of State would inform us how it is proposed this year to carry out any manôuvres between the air arm and the Army.
    I should like to allude to two other questions. One is the question of defence from the ground against air attack. We know, and we are told, that the best way to meet air attack is to meet it in the air. That is perfectly obvious and true; but we must also keep in mind that there is auxiliary defence against air attack, which is possible from the ground. I am not aware that any special measures are being taken by the War Office to see that we are sufficiently paying attention to the development of resistance to air attacks, by such things as anti-aircraft guns. I do not know what is being done, but I should be glad of any information. One thing strikes me in this connection. It is possible that very large developments may be made as a result of investigation and experiment in repelling air attacks from the ground, and as the flying life of an air officer is rather short, I would suggest that a very good way of utilising the services of officers whose flying days are over, and who are most intimately acquainted with all that has to do with aeroplanes and flying, is that they might he very fruitfully employed by their being entrusted with the working out and development of our defences against the air from the ground.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: As we have now left the broad discussion on the Army Votes, and have come to the small but very interesting issue of arrangement between the Army and the air, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if I dealt with the points which have been raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) and the hon. Member for Malden (Major Ruggles-Brise) so that we might come to

    1881
    a decision on this matter, and get the Speaker out of the Chair so as to enable the wider question again to be taken up. The Noble Lord has stated that his object is a narrower one, than that which is covered by the prime object of the Committee to consider the co-ordination of the fighting Services and the machinery for that purpose, which was announced by the Prime Minister last week. The proposal of the Noble Lord is that for the organisation, training and command of units to the Army there should be a control by a Standing Committee set up by the Committee of Imperial Defence. The whole question therefore seems to be whether you are to have a committee of this kind or mere staff co-ordination direct, as you must have some such machinery both now and after the Committee Reports, and the machinery is set up en a permanent basis.
    Perhaps the Noble Lord may not be familiar with the position as it now exists. A conference was held only last month at the War Office between the Air Staff and the General Staff to work out details as to co-ordination and the problems which affect both Services. The arrangements which it recommended have been worked out in full agreement between the two staffs, and will shortly be laid down clearly in the new edition of Field Service Regulations which is now in preparation. Briefly, the arrangement if that the Air Council will supply the Air Fore, directly under them, in pursuance of- the policy of the Government as it is, and the distribution of the Royal Air Force will be decided by the Commander-in-Chief in consultation with the Royal Air Force Command. The Officers commanding the Royal Air Force contingent will be attached to the headquarters of the. Commander-in-Chief. The military authorities will define the tasks to be performed, but will leave the method of carrying out those tasks to the discretion of the Air Force Commander. General responsibility for providing the Air Force units with their daily requirements is vested in the military authority. The personnel will be subject to Air Force and not to military law. At the conference which was held last month, the General Staff were satisfied that the Air Force were doing everything they possibly could to help towards a solution of the fighting problems as affecting the two Services to the extent of their powers with the
    1882
    present establishment, because, of course., we should like to have greater facilities, but the Air Force are necessarily limited by their resources. At the present time there is definitely allotted one air squadron for Army work, and there is also a call on further machines and personnel for military purposes when they are required.
    Lord E. PERCY: I realise that the Air Ministry is limited by its resources, but who is there to say in the future that the Air Force resources are sufficient for military measures and that the military shall obtain from those resources sufficient to meet what military requirements there will be?
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I quite agree that in weighing up the rival claims between one force and another none of Otis machinery of which I am speaking is of the slightest use. That is obviously a much bigger question which must be decided by some outside authority. But for the moment I am dealing rather with the question of training and command of the units to which the Noble Lord referred, and I want to point out that under the present system of direct communication between the two staffs we are working smoothly, and these problems are being considered and adjusted. At the conference held last month the Chief of the Air Staff detailed particular experts to advise each command on matters concerning the air, in co-operation with the. Army, and in the same way experts have been detailed to help the artillery. Lectures have been arranged at .the Staff College, and there is no doubt that the Services are drawing very much more closely together than they were directly after the War.
    A great deal has been done in the way of education. Lectures are being given at the Royal Air Force Staff College by an instructor from Camberley, and a great deal is being done in the education of Army officers in what is required from the air point of view and in liaison work by an Army co-operation school which has been set up to instruct infantry officers in the developments of the Air Service, and at this school they are now arranging for taking 30 officers. I think that this and other evidence show that the present system is not working too badly. I do not deal with the further proposal of the Noble Lord that there should be some committee set up to co-ordinate the forces

    1883
    on a permanent basis, as it is hardly desirable to take a step like this until we have received the report of the Committee which is exploring the whole subject. When it has been considered, of course, steps will be taken to improve the staff training of these forces, and all that, therefore, is a necessary preliminary to any real scientific co-operation, and the Sub-Committee of Imperial Defence set up by the late Government, to make recommendations as to the creation of a joint brain or General Staff for die three Services, has been reappointed and is about to report.
    The suggestions made by the. Noble Lord and the hon. Member for Malden are very valuable. I am sure that the Committee will consider the views which have been expressed in this House, and I do not suppose that the House would expect in view of this Committee that I should prejudge the issue by any opinion at the present time. The hon. Member for Malden asked what was being done about the training of infantry personnel, etc., in anti-aircraft gun work, and that is being considered. I do not think that at the present time we can decide—and I think that it would be a great mistake to prejudice the issue—as to whether you are to have a Standing Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence doing this work or whether it is better to lay down rules which will cover the relation of the Services without any such committee control. I hope that despite the fact that my answer has been rather vague and I am afraid from the Noble Lord's point of view unsatisfactory, we may now get a decision on this matter and get. back to the general discussion. I hope that we shall soon get Mr. Speaker out of the Chair so that I may then on Vote A be able to answer the various points which I cannot deal with now on this narrower question.
    Supply considered in Committee.
    [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
    NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a number of land forces, not exceeding 170,800, all ranks, be maintained
    1884
    for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: in the first place, may I point out most respectfully what a disadvantage it is to us that these Estimates should he in our hands such a short time before the discussions take place. Unless one is an accountant, it is extremely difficult to deal with the volume of figures in the brief time available. I am indeed glad to find that important economies have been effected in the Army Estimates. I would like to congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the way he has presented the Estimates and on the efforts he has certainly made to achieve these economies. But I cannot help thinking that he, in his heart, shares my view that the economies have been made in a spirit of partiality towards the War Office and its staff at the expense of the fighting units. I am disappointed to see that although the Army, because of economies effected, is a less efficient fighting instrument than it was in pre-War days, yet the overhead charges have enormously increased since 1914, and are, indeed, quite out of proportion to the Army's size. I am certain that all Members of the House who have ever been connected with the Army share my anxiety in this respect. The Estimates for 1914, including £1,000,000 for the Air Force, amounted to £28,845,000. The Estimates for this year amount to £52,000,000, of which £3,500,000 is for terminal charges. That is a difference for current charges of £20,500,000. Of this, we are told that £9,000,000 is accounted for by increased rates of pay. That leaves an increase of £11,500,000 to be accounted for.
    When a business house finds that its expenditure is too great, it looks to its overhead charges and begins pruning at the top. Not so the War Office. Such methods of mere commerce, good for a nation of shopkeepers, are beneath the War Office. It reduces its fighting units: it wipes out the cadets: but the staff thrives and multiplies. The position is that, although the cost per man to-day is slightly less than double the pre-War cost, the cost of administration, for instance in the War Office, is in many cases three and nearly four times what it

    1885
    was in 1914. We have not yet got to the stage of the South American Republic, which counts more officers than men in its lighting forces, but it would seem that one of the lessons taught by the War, one of the axioms to be deduced from many a hard-fought battle, is that it does not matter how much you reduce your troops provided you have an ample supply of generals. We are in the proud position of being able to say to any potential enemy that, although we may he short of privates, we have on the other hand a plethora of Staff officers. We have heard a good deal about the increased correspondence which has necessitated this large staff. The answer of the Geddes Committee to that was that the way to stop this correspondence was to reduce the staff that creates it.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: May I explain to the hon. Member and to others who may have misunderstood me? When I said that the correspondence has doubled I was not referring to staff correspondence at all. It is entirely correspondence from the outside public. That would not be reduced by reducing the staff.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: I do not wish it to be thought that I am blaming the staff for these extravagances. I am certain that many attempts at reform have been made from inside the War Office itself. What I mean is that for these reforms to be effectively carried out a strong impulse from outside is necessary, and I am sure that if such an impulse is provided the staff itself will give the most loyal support to these reforms.
    My contention is that the considerable economies effected on the Army Estimates have been achieved by the wrong methods. The Army to-day is a much less efficient fighting instrument than it was in 1914, but, as I have said, the overhead charges have increased enormously. Whereas in 1914 we could mobilise six divisions in 10 days, we could now mobilise only four divisions in four months. Historic regiments have been dispersed. They are absolutely irreplacable, for you cannot recreate tradition nor manufacture esprit de corps. Regiments which have written their names deeply on the history of our country have disappeared, so that the War Office shall remain full to bursting point, with a distended Army Council, an immense number of general officers, and
    1886
    a horde of civilians, and this enormous head directs our poor, puny, maimed little Army.
    The War Office expends nearly £600,000 more than it did in 1914. That is an increase by more than double, of which £300,000 can be accounted for by higher rates of pay, leaving £300,000 as a net increase. The 1914 figure included the staff of the Air arm. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in introducing the Estimates, invoked the plea of great post-War commitments to explain increased expenditure. I am sorry that he has clone so. If the War Office considers that our commitments are more serious than they were in pre-War days, why has it sacrificed units and kept a large headquarters staff? If it is argued that we have greater commitments now than before the War, the War Office ought to have made every sacrifice to maintain the fighting troops and compass the necessary economies in other directions. I think the Committee will accept with difficulty the statement that our post-War commitments are more serious than our pre-War commitments In pre-War days we bad the prospect of a European war before us. We certainly do not believe that, we have that prospect in view now.
    want to make it clear that I am not advocating any increase in our military units; what. I am objecting to is not the size of the Army but the cost of administering it. Let me quote a few figures to prove that I am not exaggerating. I want to take as standards of comparison our own pre-War expenditure and that, of the French, and to show how the French figures and our own compare to-day. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that the French Army is an organisation so different from ours that such a comparison is meaningless, and I admit that there are differences, the chief being that whereas the French Army is a conscript Army ours is not. But there is no earthly reason why we should not take what is good in the French Army and adapt it to our own needs. Nor is there any reason why we should not compare our Army with theirs. No one can deny that. the French Army to-day is the most efficient. Army in Europe, and unless it can be proved that the problems with which the French have to deal are completely different from ours, I cannot see any reason why such comparisons should not be made. Indeed, I know that many

    1887
    of the problems which the two Armies have to face are identical. The main reason why the administrative cost of our Army is very heavy is that it is mainly a colonial Army. But the French also have a huge Colonial Army of 200,000 outside France, directed from Paris. It was proved during the War that their Army could be organised as efficiently as ours for service in distant theatres.
    8.0 P.M.
    In 1913–14 our defence expenditure on Army, Navy, and Air Force was £80,200,000. In 1922, reduced to pre-War price level, the figure will amount to £102,531,000. That is an increase of 19·2 per cent. Treating the French figures in the same way, we find that the defence expenditure on Army, Navy, and Air Force was 1,807 million francs in 1913, and in 1922 it was 1,664 million francs. That is a decrease of 7·9 per cent. This year the Estimates show a decrease on our defence expenditure of £16,000,000; but we are still very far from having got back to pre-War expenditure, even after making every allowance for the difference in price levels, whereas the French figures, as I have shown, actually show a decrease. Let me give some figures of comparison with the French Army. The French Army for 1923–24 will consist of 659,000 men, including native troops, whereas our Army consists of 160,300 men exclusive of the Army in India. This huge French army is administered from a War Office with a staff of 485 officers and other ranks, and 700 civilian employés, whereas our War Office consists of 375 officers and other ranks, and over 2,000, nearly 3,000, civilian employés. The personnel at the War Office in 1914 was 1,190, including Air Staff. In view of these figures, I think that the House will come to the conclusion that what I have said about staffs is not too far-fetched hon. Members may also be interested to know that the staff at the War Office actually shows an increase on last year.
    In the French Army the number of staff officers is 1,679, and in our Army 1,000. Regimental officers, as well as this House, may be interested to know that the proportion of staff officers to other officers in the French Army is 1 to 20·4, whereas in our Army it is 1 to 9·5. This is a percentage in the case of the French Army of 4·9 staff officers to
    1888
    100 regimental and other officers, and in the case of the British Army 10·5 staff officers to 100 regimental and other officers; that is to say, more than twice as great. In our Army, out of a total of 9,499 officers, exclusive of the Territorial Army, only 5,870 officers are with fighting troops, infantry, cavalry, artillery, tanks, etc., and 3,629 are staff and administrative officers or belonging to the specialist services. It may be argued that a smaller Army is bound to have a higher proportion of administrative and staff officers, and such is the case to a certain extent. In this case, however, with an Army 500,000 less than the French, the number of administrative and staff officers proportionately bears no comparison.
    We have heard a good deal in recent times of economies that have been effected Take the War Office, for example. We were told that the Deputy Chief of the. Imperial General Staff was abolished, but another Major-General, the Director of Military Training, was immediately appointed. I find it a little difficult to talk about his appointment after the hon. and gallant Member for Bute (Sir A. Hunter-Weston) told us that he held this appointment. I am sure with much distinction, in pre-War days, but I cannot help thinking that, as far as post-War commit-merits went, we were getting on perfectly well without this appointment. Then again we were never told that four new Deputy Directors, whose joint pay amounted to £5,582, had been appointed, these appointments having been unknown before the War. I am sure we will be told that instead of a Director of Military Operations and a Director of Military Intelligence we now have one Director. So we had before the War, and these Deputy Directors are a brand new invention. The Department of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff costs £145,348. In 1913 the cost was £60,685, showing an increase of more than double, that is of £84.663. Whilst in 191:3 that Department had nine General Staff Officers 1st Grade, in 1923 there are 15. In 1913 there were 19 General Staff Officers 2nd Grade, and in 1923, 36. Similar increases are to be found throughout the Department, and all this increased administrative personnel for an Army smaller than our pre-war Army! The figures are 183,000 men in 1914, and 160.000 in 1923. The figures of personnel

    1889
    of the Joint Operations and Intelligent. Directorate, in comparison with pre-War days is instructive. This Department shows an increase on the 1914 figure of one Deputy Director, three General Staff Officers 1st Grade, 9 General Staff Officers 2nd Grade, 1 General Staff Officer 3rd Grade, 9 Attached Officers and 30 clerks, making a total increase of 59. This kind of thing can be found in almost every Department with the except ion of that of the newly re-created Department of the Director of Military Training. This Department, it, is only fair to say, shows a decrease on pre-War numbers, but perhaps that is because it has only just started. For instance, the Adjutant General's Department shows an increased cost of 3·7 times the 1914 figure, or nearly four times. Again, take the Department of the Director of Staff Duties which shows an increased cost of £12,139 on the 1913 figure. The figure is £27,589 now as against £15,450 in 1913, and an increase in personnel of 3 General Staff Officers 1st Grade, 7 General Staff Officers 2nd Grade, 1 General Staff Officer 3rd Grade and 1 Quartermaster. I will take one example of the sort of lavishness and extravagance in personnel of which one could multiply instances indefinitely. It takes 1 Assistant; Secretary, 2 Principals, 1 Chief Examiner, 1 First Class Assistant Accountant, 2 Staff Clerks, 1 Minor Staff Clerk, 3 Second Division Clerks, 4 Clerical Officers, 1 Ex-soldier Clerk, Class A, Temporary Civil Assistant, 4 Junior Administrative Assistants (Women), 3 Ex-Soldier Clerks, Class B, 1 Temporary Clerk, Grade III, a total of 25 persons to consider financial proposals connected with establishments and emoluments of the military and civil staffs of the War Office. It is not only within the War Office itself that these examples are to be found.
    To give one last example of the generous, not to say lavish, way we do things compared with other nations, let, me take the ease of Constantinople. There we and the French are lying side by side. The French have the value of about one division of troops, and we have about one and a half divisions. We have out there 1 lieutenant-general, the G.O.C., and on the staff 2 major-generals, 14 colonels and lieutenant-colonels, and 24 other staff officers. Then, of course, we
    1890
    have a major-general in command of the division with his own staff.
    Lieut.-General Sir AYLMER HUNTERWESTON: I think the hon. and gallant Member must remember that we have a Commander-in-Chief there, so they are not quite comparable cases. The British Commander-in-Chief is in command of all the armies.
    Brigadier-General SPEARS: But then you have a major-general commanding the division, and the French also have a general. The staff I have just enumerated is for one division and a half. The French division is commanded by a major-general, and his staff is a colonel with a baker's dozen of junior staff officers. I understand our staff has been somewhat reduced lately. Some people travel for pleasure, some to find softer climes, and others come home so as to be here before the Estimates are published. To touch on another question, as to the proportion of regimental officers in our Army compared to the French, the French battalion forming an independent unit comparable to ours is commanded by a single major, whereas ours has a lieutenant-colonel assisted by three majors The French battery is commanded by a captain, whereas ours is commanded by a major assisted by a captain. I would not quarrel with our very heavy establishment of regimental officers provided it were understood that the supernumerary officers were earmarked to take command of units in reserve or territorials in ease of need, but as far as I know to-day we have really no means of expanding in case of emergency.
    So far I have done a good deal of criticising, and I may perhaps say something now of a constructive nature with reference to the War Office itself. I want to speak with all diffidence, because I am a, civilian now and pretend to no special knowledge of any kind. It does appear to me, however, that the fact that there are two new secretaries attached to the Army Council drawing together salaries of £6,000, as opposed to the secretary of pre-War days who was not a member of the Army Council and who drew £2,000, is quite indefensible. In pre-War days the Army Council cost. £17,500. To-day it costs £28,861. I thoroughly agree with the hon. and gallant Members who said that in their opinion the Master-General of Ordnance should he done away with.

    1891
    I am very glad I am speaking now, because earlier in the day he was looking down on us himself, and I should have found it very painful to refer to him. I think it would be quite possible, and that the Army would be better organised, if you organised the Army Council so that the Adjutant-General had discipline, personnel, and recruiting, in which way he would fulfil the logical functions of supply, clothing and housing. Equipment and organisation would be a branch of the General Staff. What could be more logical than that he who has to train and command the fighting man should also supervise his equipment and armament? Any other arrangement must lead to duplication, contradiction, inefficiency and, generally speaking, waste.
    Should the worst happen and a war of any importance break out, experience has taught us that a Ministry of Munitions would have to be formed. A nucleus of that could be maintained in time of peace by putting the manufacturing Department at present under the Master-General of Ordnance under the civil member instead. It would be his function to have plans ready for expansion in ease of mobilisation. If this suggestion were adopted, the Army Council would at once be much less unwieldy, and the salary of Master-General of Ordnance, amounting to £3,228 a year, would be saved, not to mention the fact of the disappearance of his Department, which costs £105,217, although this would not mean a net saving since some of his functions would have to be taken over by other Departments. I would suggest that the whole question of organisation should be taken away from the Adjutant-General and placed under the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. This is only logical, as it is the General Staff which is responsible for the fighting forces, and it is absolutely illogical that the organisation should not be in its hands. I have given the above simply as an example of what I mean when I say that great economies can be effected in Army administration. Then, again, the same can be said of all sorts of specialized services. I have been hunting down the Army vets. I do not know what they are doing. Whether they are administering pills to tanks or passing aeroplanes as sound I do not know. This country certainly expects the Government
    1892
    to do all it can to reduce armaments. What we want to see is the maximum of efficiency with the minimum of expenditure anti an intelligent use of our resources. Our greatest resource is the large number of trained men that we have as a result of the War. Until these men are too old for military service they constitute a trained mass of soldiers who could automatically form an Army if the emergency arose. This reserve ought to last us over the period of maximum depression through which we are passing and enable us to effect the maximum of economy, especially as we are convinced that no considerable War is likely to take place in the immediate future. A plan ought to be worked out to organise this potential reserve.
    I venture to submit that I have proved that there is something radically wrong with the Army. The system on which it was based, even in pre-War days, was most wasteful and extravagant, and resulted in an enormous wastage of man power, and I think I have shown that our system is even more wasteful and extravagant to-day. To sum up, the question of Array policy and Army expenditure as a whole must, be reviewed. If we cannot afford to maintain more than our present lighting strength, which is very small, we can save enormous sums on overhead charges by bringing these down to the level of our diminished units. To do this, organisation is required. It is our duty to insist that the sums expended on the Army must result in efficiency. I most respectfully ask the Government, and I hope the House will support me, that the whole question of Army organisation and expenditure should be looked into without delay and the plan for such an examination should be laid before the House at the earliest possible moment. It is far easier for a Minister to face Parliament and ask for money than to face his permanent officials and ask for reforms. To face Parliament involves but a storm in a teacup. The waves of our criticism break unavailingly against the solid rocks of the Government majority, and that is an end of the matter. The Minister call return to the placid atmosphere of his Department, where the only excitement take it—though this is a purely imaginative picture—is to poke a little quiet fun at the Treasury by abstracting a million or so when they are not looking. To face

    1893
    his permanent officials is another matter. They have always been there; they know all about it. A Minister, to them, is but a passing shadow. What is a right hon. Gentleman to do when they refuse to be responsible for the results when he makes suggestions for economy. He is in their hands and they know it, and so, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman does what others have done before him. With a sigh he trots off to Westminster to face the storm, consoling himself with the thought of the welcome that awaits him on his return to his cosy office in Whitehall.
    But it is our duty to reverse that state of things. It is our duty by the force of our attack and the vigilance of our scrutiny to make it felt that any Minister would a thousand times rather face all the permanent officials in his Department than face the criticism of the House of Commons. The Government must translate the will of the House into action. We have seen that the great spending Departments are of so tough a fibre and so thick a sinew that the axe that attacks them is blunted in the attempt to lop off some of their unnecessary excrescences. To fact the axe, ceasing to be a cutting weapon on meeting so unyielding a surface, actually turns into a boomerang that hits back at him who wields it. It is a struggle between Parliament and bureaucracy. We are here to assert the will of the people, to relieve them by the only means in our power of the burden that is crushing them, and I think we will win. Otherwise, Members must return to their constituencies, and say that they have failed; that this country is no longer governed by its elected representatives, but must for ever bow under a bureaucracy which substitutes inertia for progress, and for initiative, the iron rigidity of routine.
    Brigadier-General COLVIN: I propose to apply my remarks to the Territorial Army, to which allusion has been made this afternoon. As Chairman of a Territorial Association, I must say that it was with very great regret we heard that the capitation grant for cadets was to be discontinued We have accepted the decision, and we are resigned to it in the interests of economy We intend to do Our best to carry on the work in connection with the cadets without the grant, but we ask one thing, and that is that the War Office will still recognise the cadet
    1894
    force, and will not hand it over to the Board of Education or any other Department. I am quite sure such a step would be fatal to the cadet organisation. If the boys heard they were going to be handed over to the Board of Education they would at once conclude that it meant more lessons, and they would have nothing to do with the cadets. We ask the Under-Secretary that his Department should continue to recognise the cadets and have them inspected and rejected upon annually certainly in the case of cadet, units affiliated to Territorial battalions. Allusion has also been made to the comparatively new formation known as the Divisional Signal Unit. That I consider to be one of the most important. units in the Territorial Army it is a unit of which any Army might well be proud. It is composed of technical experts, and cannot be extemporised; it must be in a state of preparedness and readiness, both as regards training and personnel, and I would submit that every encouragement should be given to it. I notice that in the Memorandum drafted by the Secretary of State for War he mentions that every provision is to be made for the accommodation of the Territorial units to unit requires accommodation more than the signal unit it has most valuable stores—the value of the .stores amounts to something-like £18,000 for .a Divisional Signal Unit. Although the personnel is small, that property is very large, arid to my knowledge, in one particular instance, there is no accommodation For all these valuable stores, and they are scattered about in open sheds. It is necessary that, in training the men of the signal units, they should have access to their instruments, and therefore the stores must not be mere lumber rooms Where thing are hacked away. They must he store rooms where the men can have access to their instruments in order that they can practise with them, and so become efficient. In the same way, there must he proper accommodation for both officers and men, so as to encourage them to join this most valuable unit.
    Some reference has been made by the Under-Secretary to-day to the fact that the Territorial Army will require a. good many men to make rip its proper complement In order to do that it is very important that we should remove all cases of injustice,

    1895
    and I should like to draw the hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to paragraph 660 in the Territorial Regulations. It is with regard to compensation for injuries that may occur to any Territorial man, and it is laid down that compensation shall be paid only if the. man's accident or illness occurs in the performance of his military duties. To illustrate my point, I would like to give a case that came to my knowledge last summer, when a quartermaster-sergeant, who was engaged in his duties, caught a very bad cold, which turned to pneumonia, and he was detained in hospital after the camp was broken up for many weeks. The War Office refused compensation because they said that his illness was due to natural causes. I think that is a great injustice, and I hope it will be looked into, and that this Territorial Regulation will be amended.
    There is another matter which is also mentioned in the Memorandum to which I have referred, and that is with regard to Territorial Associations. They have been reduced, and further reductions in the interests of economy are to be secured by concentrating the Territorial Associations. That, I think, is perhaps necessary and desirable, as the cost of administration in the Territorial Associations varies from 5s. per head to over £3; but I would submit that there is an alternative to this proposal, and that is that further duties and obligations should be imposed on Territorial Associations. I cannot, of course, vouch for it that all associations would be ready to accept further responsibilities, but I believe, knowing the spirit which exists amongst them, that if they knew it was to be in the interests of the country and to save money, they would be ready to take on further duties. The Territorial Associations are composed of men very similar to those who compose this House. They are men of experience, they are frequently experts in many ways, and I think they are capable of dealing with all the duties that are likely to be imposed on them.
    The additional duties that I would suggest would be, in the first instance, recruiting for the Regular Army. It is notorious that the Regular units do not adequately represent, and in many instances do not represent at all, the county whose name they bear and if the men were recruited in the county they would he much more representative. Then
    1896
    there is the clothing of Regular units, which might also be undertaken by Territorial Associations. It has been suggested to-night that the Regulars and Territorials should be brought into closer touch with each other, and I submit that by these measures we should initiate that closer feeling, which is so much to be desired. The acquisition of laud is a matter that could be dealt with very well by Territorial Associations, who have their own surveyors and their own agents, and there is the care of barracks and of ranges, and, in addition, there are, of course, pensions, with which they could very well deal. Then again, work which they carried out successfully and effectively during the War was the separation allowances. There are many inure duties, and amongst them the employment of ex-service men. I submit this scheme to the War Office for their consideration, and I think myself that a beginning might very well be made with the Militia. Of course, it is not proposed to raise them for the, present, but I think they are a very necessary force, and they might be required very badly to assist the civil power. If they were administered by the Territorial Associations, they would be very closely associated with the county in which they were raised, and they would be treated with every sympathy and every encouragement, and, above all, I think it would lead to their officers being raised in the county to which the regiment belonged, which has not been the case of late with the Militia regiments.
    I am encouraged to put this scheme before the representative of the War Office, because I think I was the first person to suggest, some years ago, that there should be a Territorial Air Force, and I am glad to say that that suggestion has now materialised. As to the suggestion of territorialising the whole Army, that is a matter, I think, that ought to be done gradually, by a system of evolution, so that all units and all regiments would be raised from different counties and districts. I believe that that scheme of territorialising the Army is one that would lead to financial economy and to general efficiency, and it is a scheme that is supported by many experienced officers and men who have had more experience and are morn able than myself, and know much more about the subject.
    Major ATTLEE: I want to draw attention to one or two points on these Estimates. First of all, I notice that there is to be a great economy in general education. I think that is the most unfortunate thing that could be done with regard to the Army, because the Army has suffered from this fact that there has always been a sort of feeling that the Army was not the place for any person with any brains. I think that was abundantly demonstrated in the War, in which we went through a series of disasters which were very largely due to the utter failure of the thinking branches of the Army to realise modern conditions of warfare. I am going to make one or two suggestions in regard to promotion in the Army, because I consider if we have an Army, we may as well be as economical about it, and not only economical in seeing that it pays by keeping the cost down, but that we get value for our money. Personally I think the time has come when we ought to do away with all armies, and all wars. I take that position, but I have to realise that there is not very much likelihood of the present Government taking that attitude; in the meantime I want to criticise some of the items. I say that the thing which has been extremely well economised in these Army Estimates has been the brain power The brain power of this country has not been mobilised. To a certain extent during the War period it was, but, broadly speaking, people with brains were not encouraged to go into the Army, and if they got in they were not encouraged to stay there. I remember that when I was serving in the Army I very nearly spoilt the career of a young officer I was asked by the colonel what sort of a man ho was, and I said he was a clever fellow. That settled it.!
    As a matter of fact, Army officers have been drawn from a fairly narrow class, a class that has some great virtues, but many serious deficiencies. If we want to have good men in the Army and good officers, you will have to draw from the whole population for the thinking part of the Army. Of course, during the War the whole Army changed. Before the War had gone very far the Regular Army officers were almost all on the Staff, while the ordinary fighting unit was commanded by temporaries, and the officers of the battalions, or whatever the unit might be, to a very large extent
    1898
    came up from the ranks, and I think they were all the better for it. You found that in a comparatively short time during the War you had got sound regimental officers. You also found that for fighting commands you wanted young men. Many of our troubles during the War came because old men were in authority. That brings me to the matter of promotion. The average officer stands far too long in one place. By the time ho arrives at a position of importance he is practically worn out. I am not now suggesting there are not exceptions to that rule, but, broadly speaking, we got a good many failures because the superior officers arrived at their position far too late, and their ideas were 20, 10, and even five years out of date.
    It has been pointed nut by an hon. Member who spoke from below the gangway that there were serious faults in our Army before the War, and there are serious faults in our Army after the War. These faults are exactly the came, and we are again going to have an old Army. A general whom I served under, a very distinguished man, said that in any war no commander of a company should he outside the twenties, nor the commander of a battalion outside the thirties, while the commander of a brigade or division should be under 40. More often than not in peace time you can add about 20 years to each of those figures. We want to enhance promotion in the Army, with a far quicker clearing out of people when they begin to go. That means that if you are not going to have ark enormously swollen non-effective list you have to have far more brains in your Army, and that means far more general education, so that those retired may move on into other occupations.
    The next point is this, Our Army was unfortunately very largely a. stupid Army. Of course if there are hon. Members in the. House who are Army men I say that there were always exceptions, and, naturally, I shall except hon. Members who are listening to me. But in the old days brains were very largely discounted. I say also we had a class of army officers who had come to be of one class. I think it; is a very unfortunate thing in a democratic State like Ours that an army should be run by one class. It has been suggested, or said, that the Army, I refer to the officers, is like a little family, that there is a family feeling between those

    1899
    in command, and if "Old Bill" made a bloomer steps were taken not to let him down. During the War all that changed. People of every rank of society served as officers, and were very often extremely efficient officers. I know that in the unit I commanded most of the officers came right up through the ranks. How many have stayed in the Army? There seems to me to have been a process of elimination after the War.
    A class army is a dangerous thing in a modern State and in a State that is faced with grave social and economic problems. We on these benches do not want armies, but if we are to have armies, navies and fighting forces, we say that at least they ought to he democratised. If you want to get efficiency you must not have a class-privileged army. You must have a career open to all the talents. It would be far better if every single person who wanted to be an officer in the Army came up first of all through the ranks. I shall be told that there is a need for specialised training, and that the time of officers-to-be is wasted in the ranks. That is all nonsense. The training may be highly specialised in the case of some officers, but I am not aware that officers generally give a. vast amount of time to study. They may have a stiff time of it in the training season, but there are long periods when they have a fair amount of liberty, when they go on leave, and so on. Besides, it is bad form in the Army to be supposed to be thinking too much about the profession, and you could find plenty of time for officers to study far more widely than they perhaps do at present.
    I want also to point out in respect of promotion the ridiculous waste of man and brain power. I could give one instance, amongst others, of an efficient brigadier who served three years commanding his brigade in France and subsequently, four years after the War, accepted a staff captaincy in a Territorial brigade! If you want efficiency in the Army it has got to be a young army—that is to say, if you want an efficient Army, if you expect we are going to have more war. Though, of course, I should like to have it the other way, and say that it is the old people who ought to go cut to fight: that would be more like the thing. I think there should be a regulation that the older men should go to the
    1900
    war. First of all they would be learning the lesson they have been teaching, and in the next place they have had a longer period in which to beget children, and therefore they would not leave their families so badly off; and finally, because they were always the people who used to want war. They were the men who used to say, "Ah, my boy, if only I was twenty years younger, how glad I should be to have your chance." Perhaps we might be able to work it in that way and provide that after they reach their grand climacteric they should descend into an elderly first line, which should be the first in the event of any war. In time of war you get a great widening of the Army, and you get out of that extraordinary and narrow class feeling. It appears to me that you are now coming back to the old narrow lines, and I think we should sweep away our aristocratic or, shall I say, plutocratic units such as the Guards. I think we ought to have a democratic army, if we cannot do the best thing of all, arid that is, see that you have peace at home and abroad, and have no more armies and no move wars.
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Member, who has just sat down. The hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir B. Hutchison) referred in his speech to the staff. Though I greatly sympathised with much that he said, it struck me that I had heard the same complaint made in the Army before the War, and during the War, and it is now being served tip again after the War, namely, that there is a great deal too much money being spent on the staff. I agree that if more money could be spent on the personnel of the Army instead of on the staff it would be a great deal better for the Army, and the commitments the Army has to look after. I want to draw the attention of the House not so much to the point of view of economy, but to the work that our Army has to do.
    The Army Estimates give a few of the little duties and the countries where we are called upon to perform the duty of holding up the British flag. The Army as at present constituted is simply one to police our Empire. We have a few troops at Gibraltar. Malta, Ceylon, Hongkong, North China and other places, and they are not enough to do anything more than simply perform police duty. And now I come to what are

    1901
    on page 20 called armies. When you come to look at their numbers and think what the armies were in the late War or in any war you know of, you are bound to conclude that the troops we have in these particular places are also not more than enough to do merely police duties. The troops we have at the present time at Cologne are well worth the money, not as an army but as a deterrent to the French advancing and they are trusted by the Germans. At present they are about the only unit over there giving us a chance of making peace. Then we have about 4,000 men at Constantinople. When things were very serious there a short time ago and a dangerous situation arose owing to the policy pursued it was saved by the British troops under General Harington. At that time the Turk thought very little of Britain and everything of France and Italy, but owing to the tact of the British Force in Constantinople the British are now considered the one real nation worth treating with, while France and Italy no longer count. That state of things is chiefly due to the behaviour of our troops when they came in touch with the Turks and the Turks with us. I suggest that in a case like Mesopotamia where we have two battalions it is quite absurd from the military point of view to even think of holding a country like that with so few troops, no guns, and a few aeroplanes, and the sooner those troops are withdrawn, and put to places where they are wanted more so much the better.
    You have also to think of India, and there are always dangers there whatever your policy is in India. I think that anyone who has been to the Residency at Lucknow must think of what the British women and children went through there, and we must be very careful about reducing the number of troops in India, as suggested by an hon. Member, for the sake of economy. That is not the only thing in India If you reduce the Army in India, what about India herself, and the Indian Frontier. I would just like to tell hon. Members a little episode to show what things are like en that frontier. On one occasion I was driving through the Khyber Pass, which is open on two days a week by arrangement with the tribes, and I was accompanied by a friend We were just about to sit down on a stone to eat our sandwiches when we noticed that the stone was covered with blood, and so
    1902
    we moved away and sat on another stone. Very soon after this an old man came up with a rifle, and I knew enough of his language to converse with him, and said: "What is the cause of the blood on this stone?" He told me that only the day before the tribes had had a fight over a mealie patch and there were eight or nine people killed. That goes on weekly amongst the tribes. It is their idea of a bit of fun. That is a situation which cannot be dealt with except with an army. I very much deprecate, in any Army Estimates, any cutting down of the numbers of fighting men in India or anywhere else where we are responsible for the safety of the people and are endeavouring to keep their business going.
    I should like to point out the great importance to the Army of keeping up the Militia or Special Reserve. The Militia was the old constitutional force of this country, and, with the exception of the Section D Reserve, there was no other reinforcement for the Army. The Special Reserve, which is the old Militia, was the only thing that enabled our Regular regiments to keep up to strength during the late War, but it never got the credit of that, because it was merged in the new Kitchener's Army, which took a great deal of the credit belonging to those whose job it was to reinforce the Army. I am glad to see that some provision is made for that, and I hope that that sum of £340,000 will not only be expended, as was suggested, in telegraph and transport personnel, but that something will ho done to reorganise the Militia, which, in every war we have had during the last 100 or 150 years, has been the only means of keeping our fighting forces up to strength.
    I should like to say one word about the Territorial Army, which, I think, is now of even greater importance than when our Army was stronger. I am glad to see that, in connection with it, an economy of £1,000,000 or so has been made, as well as in connection with the Regular Army, but I do suggest that in the case of the Territorial Force Associations more money can still be saved without interfering with the organisation of the units, by amalgamating more of the associations together In many cases, anyhow, that could be done without interfering at all with the efficiency of the troops they administer, and the

    1903
    money saved could be spent on personnel to improve the Territorial Army. I think it was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison), who criticised the staff, that the Territorial Army should be much more knit with the Regular Army, and there I agree with him; but he did not, suggest what has always seemed to me to be a natural thing, namely, that there should be a representative of the Territorial Army on the Army Council. I know that that has often been asked for by the Territorial Force Associations. To keep the Territorials in touch with the Regulars, there should surely be a, Territorial officer as a member of the Army Council.
    9.0 P.M.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said that he objected to the cut in education, and I must say that I have very much sympathy with him in that. Earlier in his speech, however, he was running down the present Army, saying that it was nothing like the Army of 1914—that, in fact, we never had such a good Army as that of 1914. I would only like to point out to him that in the case of that Army there was not half the amount spent on education as there is at this moment, even with the present cut. Although I am sorry that any saving has to be made in education, I think that, from the point of view of the efficiency of the Army, much greater military efficiency will be secured by an increase of personnel. I should like to congratulate the Minister in not having greatly reduced the personnel. I hope he will still find means to reduce the staff, and also to save some of the expenses on our military missions, and that he will he able to restore to the Army system an efficient and well-trained Militia.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I should like to join with an hon. Member who has already spoken in expressing regret that these Estimates were not in our hands before Monday morning last. The book is one of nearly 300 pages of figures, needing close examination, and there has not been really a great deal of time to go closely into the matter. The first thing which struck me on a somewhat cursory glance at the Estimates, was the amount shown on page 71 as spent by way of
    1904
    education in some. 27 schools. The net figure shown there as the cost of the various schools is £1,411,900, but, although some 27 schools are shown, I had to go to the trouble myself to take out exactly how many persons attended those schools. It worked out to 4,030 of all ranks, and that gives an average of some £350 for each. On closer examination of the figures I found that, of those 4,030, only 1,829 were officers, 1,371 were men, and 830 were boys. I know sufficient about the Army to know that the cost of training boys in schools, if it is shown at £350, is at any rate a highly extravagant figure and would be so even for men, and I would suggest that the cost accounting staff ought to be put on to that to see if it can be reduced. While on the subject of schools, I turned to page 76. You have there schools for boys. You have the cost of the education of some 510 boys at the Duke of York's Royal Military College. The average per boy is £113 3s. 6d. At the Royal Hibernian Military School, although the number of Boys is very nearly a half, the cot is only £91 10s. 9d. One would rather have thought that where you have a bigger number of boys it should be easier and cheaper to run the school. There is a difference between those two amounting £21 12s. 9d. per boy. At the Queen Vietoria School you have 296 boys, and the cost per head is only £81 9s. 9d. So the difference between the highest- school and the lowest is £31 3s. 9d. per head. I commend that again to your cost accountant to go into and ask why that should he the ease. I do it in the friendliest spirit possible. It is the first thing business men would apply their minds to when they saw for the same art idle a difference of £31 odd per head. If you got the cost of the first and second schools down to the cost of the, third I have calculated that you would save:£18,579 16s. 9d. It is something worth saving. I regret very much that 1086 boys attend these schools at all. I think the age of 18 is quite early enough to implant the military spirit into boys.
    The next thing I want to draw attention to is the record offices I understand the record offices were amalgamated with the pay offices some time ago. What is a record office? One would imagine, in view of the fact that you have a full colonel in charge of a record office, that

    1905
    it was a highly important duty. As a matter of fact, it is the sort of job that in civil life you give a man about £4 a week to do and expect it to be done very well, indeed. These Army Estimates are occasionally tricky, and I could not find in them precisely how many colonels there were, and I had to look at the Army List and worry the thing out. We find they have amalgamated the pay offices and the record offices, but whereas in the past you never had in charge of a regimental office, except during the War, a man holding a rank higher than a lieut.-colonel, you now have a record officer who knows nothing at all about figures in charge of the pay office. Was there ever such a farce, and was there ever such a cost? I find that, at Perth for the records you have a colonel and two lieutenants. At Hamilton—I hope Scotsmen are pricking up their ears—they have a colonel, a major, a captain, and a lieutenant of records. At Preston you have a colonel, a lieut.-colonel, a major, and a captain; and at Shrewsbury, a colonel, a lieut.-colonel, and a major. I find from the Army List you have a total number of officers of 39 in 12 offices looking after records. It would be worth while if you put your cost accountant on to that. The whole lot of these record officers, as I understand the position, ought to be dismissed straight away. Their cost amounts to £33,950 per annum. H would not matter at all if the tragedy did not lie in the fact that you have two million people out of a job. I now come to Chelsea Hospital.
    Captain Viscount EDNAM: On a point of Order. Is Head 3 on the Vote under consideration?
    The CHAIRMAN: It has been the custom on Votes A and I to discuss all subjects connected with the Army Estimates. If Chelsea Hospital is borne on any Army Vote, according to Parliamentary custom it is not out of order to discuss it.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: The first thing which hits you in the eye, to use a vulgarism, is the cost of 558 pensioners at £228 13s. 6d. per head. On the face of it, one would imagine it is rather a delightful place to be in. On an examination of the figures, we find the salaries of the administrative staff are £6,255 per annum, the subordinate staff £9,143, salaries of clerks £20,705, a total of
    1906
    £36,103, or at the rate of £65 per year per head. Every one of these pensioners is costing 25s. per week per head for being looked after by this staff. I find that for rental value, rates, maintenance of buildings, fuel, light and furniture £87,600 is charged, or at the rate of £157 per head. £3 a week goes in that item. Household disbursements, £1,140. That comes to 10d. per man per week. Let us sec what the pensioner gets. He gets his provisions, which amount to £27 16s. 5d. per annum, or 10s. 8d. a week. He gets clothing at £6 8s. 2d. per annum. That is 2s. 6d. a week. He gets his medicine, £2 3s. 8d., which is 10d. a week. Then the pay of in-pensioners, £5 16s. id., is 2s. 3d. a week. In other words, he gets 10s. 3d. a week. Looking at the credit items, the cost of administration of service and post-war disability pensions, transferred to Head VII, Sub-head B, is £20,400. Does that £20,400 consist of pensions due to these men and taken from them while they are in the Chelsea Hospital? If that is the case, we find that the net cost of Chelsea Hospital is £4 8s. a week. This is how it goes. Rental value, rates, etc., £3; salaries of staff, £1 5s.; household disbursements, 10d. That is £4 5s. 10d. a week, and the cost of each pensioner is 16s. 3d. per week, 9s. less than the administrative charges. If I understand this aright, the amount taken off the pensioner is 14s. id. He gets 10s. 3d. and puts in 14s.1d. The Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, and I hope, for the sake of the country, that that is not true.
    I come to Woolwich. That is on page 40 of the Estimates, and was the subject of so much comment by Sir Eric Geddes at the time he attempted to use his axe. I find the net cost, as shown at the bottom of the page, to be £87,300, but looking higher up I find an item, "Allowance to Gentlemen Cadets," £18,980. That cannot be the amount the father remits, because that is shown below under "Sums receivable — payments by parents," £30,500 As a matter of fact the sum receivable from the parents is not £30,500 at all, because they have to be debited with £18,980. The payments by the parents of £30,500, less allowances— which most people get form their parents if it is pocket-money, and is £18,980—leaves, a total of £21,520. That means that the average cost to the parents of

    1907
    the Cadet is only £83 a year. Again, I stand subject to correction if I have made a mistake. I now look at page 41—in fact, I am looking for a summary which you have not got—and the summary there shows me that they had no less than 39 instructors and teachers to these Gentlemen Cadets, of whom there are 260, or one instructor to teach rather less than seven cadets. Now we go back to page 40. There are these items, "Military subordinates," £7,335, and "Civilian subordinates," £18,265. The Estimate does not give us any figures, and I do not know where the costs accounting comes in at all, but I should have thought the Estimate would have shown the precise number of military and civilian subordinates. Then one could have worked out a calculation to show how much the pay was. I have worked out a rough calculation, and I find that every two of these Gentlemen Cadets has one full-grown man to look after him.
    I now go back to page 42, and look at the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. I have examined the accounts there, and I see the same thing, "Allowance to Gentleman Cadets," £49,240. I add that on to the net cost, which is said to be £192,900, and 1 find the average cost per cadet per annum is £361. How much do the parents pay? They pay rather something less than £100 a year. On the other side, I look at the instruction staff, and find that there is one instructor or teacher to less than 10 cadets. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the bottom portion of Page 43, which throws rather a sidelight upon the manner in which boys get into Sandhurst. The first item is "King's Cadets." They get in for nothing, and I pass that by without any comment at all. The next class of boy who gets in is the sons of "Deceased officers and men whose families are in pecuniary distress." I pass that by. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I want to take the Committee to those which I shall not pass by. The third class is "Certain deceased officers and men, and serving and retired officers up to Major." I pass that by. When I come to the next rank, I find sons of "Serving or retired Lieut.-Colonels or Colonels "—men getting well over £1,000 a year. If they send their boys to Sandhurst they save £120 a year. If the lad's father is a Major-General or a Lieut.-
    1908
    General he saves £105 a year. If he is a General, he saves £90 a year. Did you ever in your life sea such a bolstering up of a class to feed the, Army? They are kept at this place for something less than £100 a year, and then they go into a profession and get a job at about. 2380 a year. No wonder thy; hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) stated that today the Army was the best paid profession in the world.
    Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Sandhurst is 88 below strength.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: You will have your chance later. [HON MEMBERS: "Order"] I am sure I meant that very respectfully, but one has not the advantage of the Treasury Bench on which to put one's Papers.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member should address me, and not any Minister.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I am very sorry, Sir. I made the same mistake before, but I will try and do my best. I now take the Committee to page 26. It will be seen there that the cost per head in the Royal Army Pay Corps is £368, totalling 2319,792. I add to that the cost of the corps of military accountants, which is £297 per head, totalling £234,630. Then, I add the cost of the financial staff at the War Office, which I get from page 243, and which is £169,310. To that, I add what I find on page 244, "Department of the Finance Member, financial staff at out-stations," and that comes to £122,911. I also add one of the Permanent Joint Secretaries of the War Office, whose work is purely finance, and who receives £3,000 a year. I will not add on the 21,500 a. year for the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but we have a total of 2849,634 a year for accountancy in the Army.
    On page 10 the number of men on the establishment of the Army is given at 160,300. Therefore accountancy in the Army costs per soldier per annum £5 6s. This is just. £66,577 less than the total cost of the Army Ordnance Corps, with a personnel of 3,546, and just a little more than half the whole of the Army Service Corps of 7,572 men. While I am on that point, I want to draw attention to the fact that there is a difference in the cost per head of the Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountancy

    1909
    of £71 a head. Accountancy, as I understand it, is an exact science, and I really suggest that they should get down to costing themselves, and find out where that ell goes. In regard to the comparison of officers and men, I find that to one officer in the Pay Corps you have 5·1 men, and in the Corps of Military Accountants you have one officer to 6·5 men. It has been suggested that these two bodies should be amalgamated. What was said when the suggestion was made that they should be amalgamated? I refer to the first, second and third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. This is a question put to a gentleman responsible for the finances:
    "When you get your new system complete, will it be possible to amalgamate these three—meaning the Corps of Accountants, the Paymasters and the Army Ordnance Corps, and the reply was that Paymasters are an old-established corps. The system of paymasters is absolutely indispensable, and we cannot throw them into confusion, and amalgamate them with a body like the military accountants, while they are a temporary and experimental Department."
    Is it still considered to be an experimental Department? They have been going on for four or five years, so far, experimenting with £232,000 a year, and they have not found out yet whether they are any good or not. That is rather trifling, and it shows your kind of financing. observe the hon. Gentleman laughing at me, and that confirms what I think. These things are introduced in an offhand manner when there are as many as five or six present on the Government Benches, and that is their measure of regard for the expenditure of the country.
    I now draw attention to page 71. One of the most delightful things in that summary is that there is a school for nearly everything under the sun except accountancy. There is a school of electric lighting, a school of signallers, an R.S.C. College, an R.A.M. College, hygiene and pharmacy instruction schools, a school of music, and a school of farriery for shoeing horses, hut no school of accountancy. I said that not a fortnight ago in a speech I made to this House on the constitution of the Pay Corps, and the only reply I got from the Minister was that it was an interesting speech.
    A. few days ago I put a question to the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in I asked him how many officers had been transferred from other corps to the
    1910
    Royal Army Pay Corps since the Armistice, and how many so transferred are either chartered or incorporated accountants. The answer was that the number of commissions granted was 36—presumably granted to men who joined the Pay Corps during the War. I have nothing to say against that. They may have done good work, but when I find that the principle, ever since the Pay Department has been in existence, has been to transfer men from the combatant arm of the Service to the Pay Corps, one would have thought that by now they would have had their lesson and said that that would not do. I find that, since the Armistice, the number of men transferred is 14, and one was a chartered or incorporated accountant, I do not know why, leaving 13 men 'transferred from the combatant arm of the Service. It would be interesting to know if he was one of the Sandhurst or Woolwich gentlemen who cost us so much to train, and who is put into a Department that he knows nothing about. I would like to read to the House the supplementary question I put to the Minister. I asked —
    "Is it considered to be in the interests of sound financial administration that men should be transferred from the combatant arm of the Service to the financial department of the Army? "
    I got no answer. On the same day I put another question. I asked the Financial. Secretary to the War Office what was the total amount per annum of the pay and allowances of a lieut.-paymaster which is the most junior rank in the pay department. The answer I got was that the total pay and allowances was £468 a year if the man was single, and £534 if married. That is a good job. I then put a supplementary question:
    "Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the average pay in a City of London office to-day for a newly qualified chartered accountant is £250 per annum, and does lie consider that, in the interests of his Department, commissions in the Royal Army Pay Corps should be given only to men qualified in view of the high salary given? "
    I got no answer. I hope he will give me an answer to-night. I am not doing this for fun. I am going to considerable trouble in doing it. I desire to help in the interests of sound administration. It is not the hon. Member's fault; he has only been in office three months.
    While I am dealing with this point, I want to draw attention to the position

    1911
    of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Pay Corps. They are a fine body of men—the salt of the Pay Department. There are sergeant-majors promoted to the rank of assistant-paymasters. When I got the information that there were 14 men who have been transferred from the combatant branches of the Service to the Pay Department since the Armistice, I naturally looked to see if any of these sergeant-majors had been granted commissions. They are men who, it is well known, are the best qualified men. I found that only three commissions had been given, and those, in 1920, to sergeant-majors. That is not good enough. That is what our constituents are sending us to this I louse to try to level up, and I maintain that before any more transfers are made from the combatant ranks to the Pay Department, these sergeant-majors should be taken into consideration.
    These assistant paymasters, by some rule—I do not know how old it is, and I do not care—never rise beyond the rank of captain, except two who became majors, and they can never become staff paymasters. They can never hendle m ney. If a man happens to be a ranker—I use the term respectfully—and he obtains a commission in a fighting regiment and then transfers his services to the Pay Department, he may rise to the rank of a full colonel in that. Department, with pay of about £1,450 a year. I do ask the Financial Secretary to consider wiping out that rule. it is putting an absolute discount on the energies of men who are the finest men in the Department. The Department cannot go on without them; that is well known. Nevertheless, these men, work as they will, cannot get higher in the ordinary way than the rank of captain, and never can they aspire to he staff paymasters. I suppose the idea is that they should not handle money. I think that sort of theory ought to he disposed of.
    Now I want to deal with the question of MeGrigor's Bank, but before doing so I may say that since the last speech I made on this subject. I have received several letters from men in the Pay Corps, expressing regret and surprise that I should have delivered myself as I did. I have no personal feelings against any of them. I have nothing but friendship for them. I desire to see the Department
    1912
    administered properly, and I make that statement in this House so that they shall know. They are the victims of circumstances. If I happened to be in their place I would take the job, just as they have done, but that is why you get high cost.
    Viscount EDNAM: I have looked through the index, but I cannot find any mention of McGrigor's Bank. Is the hon. Member in order?
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: My friend, I am referring to the OFFNIAL REPORT.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member must not distinguish between friends and enemies.
    Viscount EDNAM: Does reference to McGrigor's Bank come within the, scope of this Debate?
    The CHAIRMAN: I presumed that the hon. and gallant Member was going to refer to some 'responsibility of the War Office for the, transaction with McGrigor's Bank.
    Lieut.-Colonel HODGE: I think I am right. I did speak about the bank, but I deemed it to be my duty before leaving the subject to refer to my old friends in the Pay Department, and I wanted to explain that. I bear them no ill-feeling I suggest that the Noble Lord is rather premature. In the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th November, 1922, on page 482, there is an answer in connection with McGrigor's Bank which was given to the hon. Member for. Holborn (Sir J. Remnant) to the effect that the War Office had intimation on the 6th October that McGrigor's bank was in difficulties. That either means something or it does not. If a. man is in the city in business and there is a sum of £13,000 to be paid over and there is a risk of its being paid into the wrong quarters, he would consider what he ought to do. What actually happened in this case? On the 13th of the month, the Paymaster-General who, after all, is only the agent of the War Office, paid over that money to McGrigor's bank. I hold the view that there is a moral responsibility on the part of the War Office for the whole of MeGrigor's debts. I am not going to argue about that to-night; but what I do say is that, so far as that £13,000 is concerned, there is an absolute obligation en the part of the War Office to pay that to whomsoever it was due at this time. That

    1913
    sum of money was in respect of pensions, payable in arrear and not in advance, in cases many of which were hard cases. In respect of these payments, the Paymaster-General was the agent of the War Office, who should have advised him not to pay to McGrigor's bank, but they did not so advise.
    The War Office was absolutely liable For every penny of that money, and they ought to pay. This incident reveals the weakness of the whole system. There is no liaison between one Department and another where finance is concerned. There never has been. We get that revealed only as far back as last October. I suppose the Financial Secretary will say that we have had an amusing speech, and he may say that my speech has been interesting. What I ask him to do is to try to answer the statements which I have made. I am perfectly willing that they should if possible be disproved. I hope that some of the things I have said may be wrong, and. that my reading of this hook may not be absolutely accurate. If it be accurate, then it is a shameful state of affairs. I ask the hon. Member to answer the things I have said, because they have been said with the greatest respect, and with a desire to help.
    Viscount EDNAM: I hope that the Financial Secretary will understand that I am putting forward my suggestions only with a desire, if I can, to help, and not in any way to hinder or embarrass him. I am not going to be as critical as the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. I am afraid I am not so good at arithmetic as he, and for that reason 1 shall not go into so much detail. Great credit. is due to the War Office in having been able to effect economies amounting to nearly R,l0,000,000 over the Estimates of last year. In spite of this, I gather from the Estimates that the strength of the fighting forces has been slightly increased. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) pointed out that the Estimates of this year were still twice. as large as the expenditure on the Army in 1914, but he did rot mention the fact. that this expenditure is due practically entirely to the increased pay of the Army. And it is only right that he should have mentioned that.
    As to whether the establishments provided for in this year's Estimates are sufficient for the defence of our Empire,
    1914
    for the maintenance of law and order and to cope with any unforeseen situation which may arise in the near future, I do not intend to give an opinion. The Under-Secretary of State for War said that he thought that we were running very great risks owing to the smallness of our present establishment. I hope that that is not the opinion of the General Staff. If I may say so with respect, I do not think it possible for any Member of the Committee to give as sound an opinion on that subject as the General Staff, considering the mass of information and technical knowledge which they have at their disposal. But if the General Staff think that we are taking any great risk in having so small an Army, the Committee ought to know exactly the extent of that risk.
    I do think that it is the duty of the Committee, however large or small the Army may be, to ensure that it is as efficient as possible and administered at the lowest possible cost to the taxpayer. On this point. I repeat what I said on the Estimates last year—that I cannot see the reason why the staffs of the War Office and commands, and the ancillary, auxiliary and miscellaneous services should have increased to such a vast extent as compared with the 1914 establishments, at the expense of the fighting Services. I think that the same remark applies to a. certain extent to the Estimates for this year. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said that he considered that the ancillary and auxiliary services had been cut down. at the expense of the fighting Services and that. that was wrong because those services could not be improvised in the case of necessity for expansion. I do not agree with him. All the evidence points to the fact that the fighting Services have been cut down at the expense of the ancillary and auxiliary services. Moreover, from the knowledge and experience that I have it seems to me that the auxiliary services such as the Royal Medical Corps and the Royal Army Service Corps could more easily be improvised in times of necessity from outside sources than the fighting Services, which cannot be improvised at short notice.
    With regard to the War Office staffs and the staff of commands, I do wish that the War Office or the Army Council would just make one more effort to weed

    1915
    out some of the vast number of people with soft jobs and turn them into fighting soldiers. Again comparing with the 1914 Estimates, this year there are in the War Office and command staffs 1,173 of all ranks to administer an army of 160,000 odd, as compared with 788 of all ranks in 1914 to administer an army of 186,000. These figures do not include civilian staff, which I gather have been also largely increased as compared with the 1914 establishments. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that these increased staffs are due to the winding up of the legacies of the War, and that various Committees which are now sitting are exercising close scrutiny with a view to further cutting them down. May I suggest humbly that since the War was ended four and a half years ago it is time that, these legacies were wound up I hope that the Committee will make a further effort to get these staffs cut down.
    Last year I pointed out the increase in the number of Chaplains, but I notice that in this year's Estimates there is a reduction of only 4. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans), who was Secretary of State for War last year, told me in reply to my speech that there was a Committee then sitting, and he believed that as a result of their inquiries the number of Chaplains would be cut down to the pre-War figure. I would like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to tell me why the right hon. Gentleman's hopes have not been justified, and what the lie-port of the Committee was. The cost to the taxpayer is £105,900. It does seem to me that a great deal of the work performed by these reverend gentlemen cannot be unduly heavy, and might very well be undertaken at a reduced cost by civilian clergy. I think that the number could be reduced without, to use the hon. and gallant Gentleman's phrase, falling within the line of great danger.
    I see in the memorandum of the Secretary of State that the personnel of the Veterinary Corps has been reduced by five officers and 64 other ranks. But considering the abolition of the boarding-out scheme for horses in the Territorial Army and the vast reductions that have taken place in Cavalry and horse-drawn artillery and transport, I do not think that the Veterinary Corps has been reduced sufficiently, and I cannot see why
    1916
    there should not be a further reduction. One further point It does seem to me to be odd that whereas in 1914 511 military police were sufficient for the disciplinary needs of an Army of 186,000 men, 766 are now required for a very much smaller Army, at a cost. of £151,000. The case of the Army Pay Corps a Corps of Military Accountants has already been mentioned. Their Establishments seem to me to be still very large. They have been reduced from last year only by 200 of all ranks, and they are still twice as large as the pre-War establishments. If as I suspect, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell me that the increased establishments are due to war accounts. I suggest to him that it is time that some of these accounts were closed down.
    The next point is the amalgamation of cavalry regiments. I do not believe that it is a sound scheme. I am not in favour of reductions in Cavalry, in spite of the deprecating remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for New castle-under-Lyme about the cavalry's work during the War But if reductions have to be made. I consider that it is very much mote humane to kill a certain number of regments with one fell blow rather than to let them die a lingering death by trying to graft, a squadron to another regiment. They cannot possibly live. The identity-of a regiment is the regimental headquarters. You cannot keep up the traditions of a regiment by making a certain number of officers and men wear the badges of that regiment, although they are living with, and are administered by, a completely different regiment. In time they are- bound to assimilate the traditions of the regiment to which they are drafted. What happens I understand, is that when an officer or an N.C.O. or man in a headquarter regiment is due for promotion, he can be drafted into the squadron of the other regiment, and made to wear its badges, although that officer or man may have spent the, whole of his service in the headquarter regiment. The whole thing has become a farce. It means merely that it makes administration, maintenance of records, and so on, very much more difficult and more costly. I hope that the War Office are realising this, and will revert to the old system of whole regiments.
    10.0 P.M.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme raised the ques-

    1917
    tion of officers' pay, and said that it should be cut down. But I noticed that he made no mention whatsoever of the pay of non-commissioned officers and men. He appeared to be trying to draw some sort of class distinction. I am of opinion that the whole scale of pay for the Army is very much too high, and I hope that next year it will be revised. Certainly I think it would be very wrong to cut down the pay of officers without cutting down the pay of non-commissioned officers and men in proportion, or indeed vice versâ. I raise this point only because, as a fact, the pay of the non-commissioned officer and men was raised by a very much higher proportion than the pay of the officers. The Army Council, at the time when they raised the pay of the Army in 1919, were rather shortsighted. Nothing was good enough for the people will; had won the War, and, presumably, this action was taken in order to benefit them. But it did not benefit them. The only people who benefited were the boys of 18, who joined the Army after the War and of whom the post-War Army was constituted. It was also a very bad thing and a great waste of money, as all those who have had experience of post-War soldiering will agree. Before the War a private in an infantry battalion got 1s. a day when he joined. With that 1s. he had to do a great deal more than the private soldier of to-day, who gets 2s. 9d. when he joins and 3s. 6d. after two years' service. These figures are, of course, exclusive of any proficiency or additional pay which ho may earn. As I have said, a private before the War had to do a great deal more for his 1s. He had to keep up more kit, including his full dress kit, and to subscribe towards his messing expenses.
    The unmarried boy in the Army to-day, the boy under 20, is not in the least affected by the cost of living. He has everything found, and this extra 2s. 6d. a day is pocket money. This sort of thing tends towards a great deal of absence without leave. These lads save their money, and go off for a "bust." They do not mind doing their turn at cells, when they come back. But it does not tend towards the maintenance of discipline. The pay of a lance-corporal in the same way has increased from 1s. 3d. in 1914 to 4s. 3d. now. The pay of a second-lieutenant was increased from 7s. 6d. to
    1918
    only 13s. I mention these figures so that the Committee can see that the second-lieutenant's pay has not been increased in proportion to the man's pay, although he is to a certain extent more affected by the increased cost of living. I hope that when the scales of pay come under revision this year or next there will be a very much greater distinction drawn between the married officer and man who is affected by the cost of living, and the unmarried officer and man who are not affected. In conclusion, I wish to express my gratification, which I believe is shared by all Members who have had the honour of serving in the Army, that the affairs of the Army, in so far as they concern the Members of this House, are in the hands of the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who represent this Department, and who themselves in the past have had so close a connection with the Service and such a very distinguished war record.
    Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown), speaking about the cost of the various armies and police in different parts of the Empire, touched upon the cost of the Army in Constantinople, in Iraq, and places of that. description But I noticed that he made no mention whatever of the cost of policing in Egypt. I find on reference to the Estimates that there is an army of 12,000 men stationed in Egypt, at a cost of over £3,000,000 per annum, while on the Rhine, in enemy country, we have an army, I believe, of less than 10,000 men. What I want to call attention to is, that it appears to me that the use of thee, 12,000 men in Egypt is totally unnecessary, that although reduction has been made in the number of the personnel of the Army, they can he still further reduced, and that if the Army now Were reduced the cost to the country would he saved of over . £3,000,000 per annum. I take it that from the point of view of equity, we really have no right in Egypt, at all. We have been pledged, time and time again, to evacuate Egypt. As a, matter of fact, as far as our pledges are concerned, and as far as the policy of the Government has gone, we have gone out, of our way to declare that Egypt was an independent State. In spite of all that, we still have an army of 12,000 men, casting, as I have said, over £,3,000,000 per annum. My opinion is, that if the people whose interests we

    1919
    are out in Egypt to safeguard want the army maintained, they should pay for it themselves, and not place it on the backs of our taxpayers. I do not think it can be said that we have gone there in the interests of the Egyptian people, or that we are remaining there in the interests of the Egyptians. My opinion is, that we are there in the interests of the Egyptian bondholders.
    All the objects for which we asked the Egyptians to fight have been denied to them. During the War we placed Egypt under martial law, established conscription, enlisted 1,000,000 men, and placed one-thirteenth of the total population in the Egyptian labour corps, and similar bodies. They played their part in attempting to achieve liberty for the Czecho-Slovaks, but seem to have lost it themselves, because, although we have promised to them time and time again their independence, we are still there maintaining them under martial law, and it would appear we have stretched the law by the imprisonment of Zagloul .Pasha. In 1914 His Majesty stated:
    "I feel convinced you will be able in co-operation with your Ministers and the protection of Great Britain to overcome all influences that are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt."
    In December, 1921, the independence of Egypt was proclaimed. Since that time we have gone on, it appears, from bad to worse, and now the state of Egypt is something synonymous with the state of Ireland a little while ago maintain that from the point of view of equity, and from the point of view of policy, the country might easily be saved the amount we are now spending in Egypt provided only that we were prepared to keep the pledges we have given. I hold that we have no right there at all, and the sooner we evacuate Egypt and leave it to be governed by its own people in concert with its own desires the better for all concerned. Reverting to the question of pledges we have given to the Egyptian people, we have been offering these for over 40 years. Various statesmen have given their pledge, and still we remain there spending money, wasting men, imprisoning men who ought to be free, for the purpose of protecting the interests of people who neglect their real responsibility. We shall get no peace whatever, we shall not be able to do the thing we
    1920
    ought to do, until Zagloul is released, martial law is abandoned, the legislative assembly is elected, British troops are withdrawn, and Britain ceases to claim the sole control of the Sudan. The solution of the Sudan problem appears to be the federation of Egypt and the Sudan and the sooner we clear our troops from there the better, and so save the expenditure of millions of money.
    Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: I wish to raise a question of some importance to a large body of our troops. I have again and again addressed questions to both the War Office and the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to why our troops in Cologne are not paid in sterling. I have had very evasive answers. I gave notice to Mr. Speaker that I would raise this question on the Adjournment of the. House, but as I find that this occasion is quite suitable for the purpose, I will raise it now. The answer I received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer last time I addressed a question to him in this House was:
    "To pay troops stationed abroad in sterling is not only contrary to the established practice, but quite unnecessary from the point of view of the men whose expenditure is in local currency.''
    That is just the point; it is not so. Our men in Cologne suffer from a great injustice in that they are paid in German marks. A rate per £ sterling is fixed on a Friday morning at a rate more or less in conjunction with the commercial rate, and that rate is the value per £ which the man has to make his budget upon for the following week. His accounts at home in this country are debited in sterling, but that man has to buy the various commodities he requires in marks because he is paid in marks. Our canteen, however, will not sell to that soldier any goods at all during the week except on a sterling rate. Perhaps I am over-stating the ease. It is all goods other than those bought by the canteen in Germany. All goods that come from this country or any other outside Germany have to be paid for in sterling. The result is that for the last three years, owing to the continuous depreciation of the mark, they have suffered a very serious loss week by week. In addition to that they are up against the fact that our officers are paid in sterling and need only translate that sterling into marks on the day on which

    1921
    they want to make their purchases. That is a great hardship on our non-commissioned officers and men. I doubt very much whether there is any legality in the system whereby they suffer this loss, but whether it is legal or not, it is a great hardship. Further than that, the War Office began to buy marks in the market, and when you begin to buy millions of marks to pay the troops on a Friday, it is perfectly obvious to anyone who knows the working of the exchange that you have to begin to buy on Tuesday. You buy on the Tuesday, the Wednesday, and the Thursday, for payment to the troops on Friday, and the result of that can be appreciated when it is remembered that the slump in the mark is going on in a greater or lesser degree. The War Office is charging the taxpayer with the loss involved in the buying of the marks because of having to fix the rate for the men on the Friday. Not only do our soldiers lose money, but the British taxpayer also loses money.
    I understand it is proposed to change hack to the old system of requisitioning marks, but I question very much if the German Government will allow the British Government to requisition marks. Whether that be so or not, the injustice to the men remains, and I ask the War Office to make an arrangement with the Treasury to pay these troops in sterling, as is only reasonable and just. I may say that when the American troops were there they were paid either in dollars or marks at the choice of the men. That is a reasonable and just arrangement, and I do not see why we should not pay in sterling or marks at the option of the men. If, from the Treasury point of view there are reasons for not having our currency on the Continent, I suggest it would almost meet the difficulty if the men were allowed to purchase their commodities in our canteens in Cologne at the same rate per £ as the rate at which they are paid in marks on the Friday. They receive their pay on Friday at the rate of so many marks to the £, and in justice they should be allowed to purchase goods in the canteen, which is a War Office affair, at the same rate as the rate at which they receive their pay. They-should also, in fairness, be allowed to buy savings certificate—which they are able to buy at Cologne—at this rate. Instead of having to translate the marks at the commercial rate from day to day into ster-
    1922
    ling, they should be allowed to buy these certificates, provided it is a genuine purchase for saving purposes, at the same rate as that at which they are paid.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Lieut.-Colonel Jackson): It may be for the convenience of the House if, at this juncture, I reply to some of the questions which more directly concern the Department for which I am responsible. No one representing the War Office can complain of the tone of the Debate or of the criticisms which have been made in various quarters of the House. I am sure these criticisms are intended to be helpful. One hon. Gentleman to-night made a most interesting speech, though I must say I found it somewhat difficult to follow the details of it very closely and he told us he had made that speech with the intention of having it published. I have come to the conclusion that was really what he intended. Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the speech which has just been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir R. Hutchison), on the question of payment in sterling on the Rhine. There has been a certain amount of feeling on the subject, and I think it is right that a statement should be made upon it as soon as possible. I was interested in the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that the rate of exchange should be fixed, as far as the canteen was concerned, week by week, so that the soldier when he received his pay would thereby have a regular rate at which he could make his purchases at the canteen for the whole of that week. It would neither go up nor down. At first sight, that appeals to me very strongly, and I personally, and I should think my hon. and gallant. Friend the Under-Secretary of State as well, would be quite prepared to recommend that for the consideration of the Secretary of State, in the hope that he would recommend its adoption on the Rhine.
    There is a great difficulty in regard to actually paying in sterling on the Rhine. The Treasury have had the matter in front of them time after time, My hon. and gallant Friend has worried them very considerably, and they have considered it time after time, but they have always come to the conclusion that they cannot do it, and that it would not altogether be advisable. There is one consideration I would like to point out, and

    1923
    that is that pay is credited to both officers and men in sterling. The pay may be credited to the agent in London of the officer, and to the pay sheet of the man in the same way. If he does not want to draw the money out, he can say that that money shall be credited to his account in sterling.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Under the new Army Order an officer can draw his pay from the Army Paymaster in sterling, and therefore on the Rhine he can draw his pay in sterling, whereas the man cannot draw it in sterling, but only in marks.
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I was not aware of that. I will verify it, and if I am wrong I will apologise. If a man does not want to draw his pay it is in sterling, and he can have it sent over here if he likes. A remark was made as to the cost to the taxpayer of buying marks, but I believe the loss is very small indeed. There is a considerable difference in the ups and downs, but I believe that on balance the loss to the public is very small. After most careful consideration, the opinion has been formed that on balance it would not be advisable to exchange from a system of paying the troops in marks on the Rhine, and I think it will be generally agreed as being in the national interest, if the requisitioning of marks goes on satisfactorily, that the services we are rendering on the Rhine should be paid by the Germans themselves in money which it is calculated will come to as much as £600,000 a year, and it is just as well that we should get that money for those services. May I just refer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Preston (Colonel Hodge), a speech that I tried to follow with great interest, for the reason that any remarks by the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be received with respect, as being based on knowledge. I notice that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is a barrister and an accountant—a most terrifying combination. I do believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was in the Army Pay Department early in the War, and spent the better part of the War years in that Department. Therefore, he ought to have very good knowledge of all that goes on inside that Department. I tried hard to follow him, but I must confess that I
    1924
    could not quite make out exactly what he was getting at. There are, however, one or two points made by him to which I propose to refer. He said he was open to accept correction if I could offer it. The £20,000 for pensions in connection with Chelsea Hospital, which is about 16s. 3d. per head, are not for pensioners at the hospital only, bat for pensioners of all kinds all over. The calculation, therefore, that he made is entirely wrong. Let me next refer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He wanted to know about certain things in connection with the Estimates and the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary. My hon. and gallant Friend will himself deal with the subjects which more directly concern his Department. I will not attempt to deal with those. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite wanted to know about the non-effective services of £7,500,000 for pensions, retired pay, and so on. He asked whether a large sum was included in this total for compensation to "axed" officers. I am told that except for retired pay there is no compensation for "axed" officers included in this sum, and that it is the amount required to pay pensions, retired pay, etc., as specified in the. Estimates, page 80. He also wanted to know about the terminal charges, which he thought rather large, and asked how soon they were going to be decreased and disappear altogether Next year the terminal charges, the item for making medals and other matters, will be much smaller and some of them will go out of the Estimates altogether. With regard to stores, it has been stated that £11,000,000 worth were issued, and only £8,000,000 charged in the Estimates, hut the amount is really about £2,500,000.
    The question of the Blandford School has been raised. That school is looked upon by the Army Council as one of the most important schools we can possibly have because it is a place where boys train as tradesmen for the Army. Today it is necessary to have these tradesmen in order to be able to run the machine of warfare efficiently in these modern days. The buildings at Blandford have been purchased from the Disposal Board and consequently the taxpayer receives the money back again This is rather a roundabout method but it is necessary in order to keep proper

    1925
    accounts. It is true that some houses will have to be built at Blandford which will cost a considerable amount of money. With regard to McGrigor's Bank, I have been asked if we are quite satisfied with the arrangements with the Army agents. I think it would be very difficult to find a bank service in a greater position than Lloyd's Bank, who have taken over Messrs. Cox's Bank, and Messrs. Glyn, Mills and Co. who have taken over Holt's Bank. Without saying too much on that point, I think the Committee will be satisfied that it would be difficult to find any agents we could employ more safe and more sure to do their part properly than those two banks. It must be clearly understood now that the officers are not forced to bank with these agents, but they are at liberty to do so if they like and it is a matter for their own judgment whether they draw it from the agents or
    A great deal has been said on the question of cost accounting, and I think it may be desirable if I say one or two words about, that, because it seems to interest everyone, and nearly all who have spoken about it have agreed that a system of cost accounting of some kind, if it is desired to carry on the War Office properly and economically, must be adopted in that Office just as anyone wanting to run a business with any chance of economy and success would, naturally, insist upon having a really good system of cost accounting in that business, so that he might be able to know exactly what was being done. Everyone knows the history of the introduction of cost accounting into the War Office. I remember very well that in this House, in 1917, there was an application for the formation of a Committee in order to go into the national expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) took a great part in getting that Committee set up, and I think it was proved, when the Committee on National Expenditure had been set up, that it was of very great importance and did a great and good work. That Committee went into the question of cost accounting, and had before them Sir Charles Harris, the head of the Finance Department of the War Office; and they were so impressed by the scheme which he put before them that they did not hesitate to recommend that it should be adopted immediately in the
    1926
    War Office, and that it should have a proper trial. That was done, and accounts were created throughout the Army, where they had been absolutely no accounts before. The Committee on National Expenditure reported upon it, and also the Public Accounts Committee twice blessed the scheme, and it was, naturally, given a chance to go.
    It has now been running for three years, and, as has been pointed out by several speakers to-day, it is about time that something definite should be done about it, and that it should either be adopted or scrapped. It is not necessary that I should weary the Committee by going very closely into what cost accounting is supposed to do; everyone knows what it is supposed to do. The most important thing that is happening in regard to it at the present moment is that it is being considered by a Committee of experts, set up by the late Secretary of State in the last Government, under Sir Herbert Lawrence. That Committee will come to conclusions which will decide as to what is to happen as regards the cost accounting system in the War Office. It will decide whether the system is to go on as it is at the moment, or whether it can be pruned down, as many people think it can, and made more economical. At the present moment it is costly, as everyone must admit, hut at the same time it will not prove to be too costly if, as I personally believe, it will be proved that the system, if only it is properly and carefully worked, is of enormous advantage and the greatest possible means of effecting economy in the Army.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Has there not not been a Committee, under General Robb, that has already reported on the matter within the last year or so?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I do not think so—not on cost accounting.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking to the Committee that no fundamental change in the present system of submitting Estimates will be carried through without the consent of the House of Commons?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: I hope the hon. Member will not ask me to give an undertaking.
    Sir G. COLLINS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an undertaking to consult the Committee on National Expenditure or the Estimates Committee before a fundamental charge is made?
    Lieut.-Colonel JACKSON: The Public Accounts Committee, I suppose, will be consulted. I was saying it was costly. Any new system that is introduced into the Army like that, where there has been no system at all, is bound to be costly as long as it is experimental. Perhaps it has been experimental too long, but the Committee will soon reports upon it so that something definite shall be settled as to whether it shall go on or not. I have heard many hon. Members find very considerable fault with it at various times, and I have found great fault with it myself. I went to the War Office a few months ago very much prejudiced against cost accounting because of what I had been told by friends who thought they knew something about it. But I inquired of Sir Charles Harris as to what it all really meant. I put it to him definitely that I thought it would be costly and there would be a lot of overlapping. He was perfectly open and straightforward and ready to admit that undoubtedly it was costly, but a lot of improvement could not easily be made in the system as it was then. There were the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountants running side by side. The Royal Army Pay Corps had to, be kept going. They are the cash accountants. There is no doubt, in the judgment of Sir Charles Harris and others who thoroughly understand cost accounting, that amalgamation can take place, and if it does you will have a system which will prove both economical and efficient.
    I have been asked a question with reference to the military police, which shows an increase over the 1914–15 establishment. It includes over 200 police on the Rhine who are under the Rhineland Commission. Therefore it accounts for a great deal of the increase over the 1914 period. With regard to the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, I am told that, compared with before the War, that force has been brought down.
    There is one other point. The hon. and gallant Member for Preston (Lieut.-Colonel Hodge) referred to the Royal Army Pay Corps, and to some questions
    1928
    which he put to me in this House, with the answers to which he was not satisfied. I remember one question very well, and that was the last to which he referred. He put a supplementary question, and another hon. Member on this side of the House asked me another thing. Mr. Speaker said they had better go out and settle the question in the Lobby, so I never got a chance of answering it. The question was with reference to the transfer of combatant officers to the finance side of the War Office. The hon. and gallant Member took tremendous exception to the combatant officers going to the finance side. I took the trouble to go very carefully into that question when I saw it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. What did I find? That these transferred combatant officers were all selected for their suitability for Pay Department work. I maintain most emphatically that because an officer is a combatant, and fights at the front, that does not dull his skill as an accountant when he comes back. We are proud to think that among the military accountants at the present moment we have two or three of these officers, who came in on temporary commissions. They are skilled men, who went out and fought, and came back as military accountants. One of them received the highest honour a man can get on the field, the Victoria Cross. I only state that because it is not fair to many of these officers who are serving now. We do not want to cast aspersions on them, and to say they are no good and cannot deal with finance. These transferred officers do their work extremely well and no fault is to be found with them. We are naturally watching them with great interest to see what the result will be, when compared with the Regular officers, who have been in the habit of going into the Pay Department. They are doing very well, and there is every chance of their continuing to do so. I think now I have answered most of the questions put to me. If there are any other points which hon. Members wish to put I shall be glad to deal with them.
    Mr. GATES: I wish to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the question of the grants which used to be made by the War Office to the cadet corps. That was a very valuable thing, and the entire sum was only something under £50,000. The grants were made

    1929
    for the annual camps, and for a certain amount of training to lads of all sorts. I have had experience of being in camp with the lads' brigade, and, speaking for myself, I can truly say that it was an invaluable training for the lads. They got a certain amount of discipline, equipment was lent by the War Office, and certain grants were made. I am sure the camp was of real value, both to their moral and to the material of the nation. I see that £112,300 is put down for money to be spent upon officers' training corps. I do not know if I can bespeak the consideration of the Labour party with regard to that £112,300, which apparently, is to be spent by the War Office on training of young officers. I do not see why £20,000 should not be spent in training boys in any class of life. I hope the Under-Secretary will show me some consideration in this matter, and that the War Office will reconsider the question and allow this paltry sum of £50,000 to be granted for this purpose.
    Major WARING: I only want to ask a question in regard to the policy to he pursued by the hon. Gentleman in respect to barrack accommodation. He tells us that he intends to withdraw cavalry from outlying stations and concentrate them in the larger cavalry depots. I am certainly not going to criticise any administrative action which may tend to efficiency and economy, but I would like to point out that the standing Army plays more than one role, and that apart from its primary duty as a defensive force it represents some of our historic traditions. When the hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going to vacate altogether the barracks at Dunbar, then I am bound to say I think it is a pity that he should sever the very long connection this town has had in the Army and that this historic spot from the military point of view was not in future to provide a home for some of His Majesty's land forces. There is, admit, a more material side to this question. I feel that so long as everyone constitutes in taxation to the standing Army, the Army should endeavour to distribute itself throughout the provinces, consistently, of coarse, with Army efficiency. The Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggested that these buildings should be taken over for other purposes. These buildings are situated in a seaside resort, they were only completed a year
    1930
    or two before the War, and the whole district around has unrivalled facilities for the training of troops. I do hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision to abolish Dunbar Barracks altogether.
    I do not think the hon. Gentleman can altogether justify his action on the ground of economy until such time as he has decided to vacate those barracks which are situated in the most expensive residential districts of London. The troops have disappeared from Knightsbridge Barracks for a long time, but we find that the hon. Gentleman proposes to house half a battalion there. These barracks occupy a fine residential and commercial site. I would not like to give an estimate of what they may be worth, but I should be right in saying not less than £250,000, and possibly £500,000. The hon. Gentleman is keeping £20,000 a year locked up in these barracks. That would meet the cost, pre-War, of a regiment of soldiers. The hon. Gentleman might take his half battalion of Foot Guards to some less fashionable district of London. They might be taken to Hounslow; the Cavalry could make room for them. The barracks at Knightsbridge could then disappear and the taxpayer would be saved a very considerable sum of money, which may not be increased if the hon. Member would extend his activities to Wellington Barracks, where he would not in any way incur the criticism which has fallen upon the unfortunate Bishop of London in respect to his City churches. I hope the hon. Member will be able to tell me what he has decided to do.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like to put a few questions on the subject of the medical services, which have not been referred to this evening, and which are liable to be forgotten. The medical services during the War were the subject of much interest amongst the civilian population at home, and very largely amongst the Forces, not simply from the humanitarian point of view, but mainly from the point of view of efficiency. Therefore, it is only right that this House should examine with the greatest possible detail, and most critically, the provision made for the medical service. I want to ask a question about the Army Dental Corps, which is very vital for the purposes of the Army. I am glad to sec that there is a

    1931
    slight increase in the provision for the Army Dental Corps, which is the smallest of all the corps in the Army, but extremely vital from the point of view of efficiency. Those of us who served as medical officers to the forces during the War know how vital dental work was and what a fruitful source of invaliding and inefficiency was the absence of proper dentures. Very frequently insufficient provision for the dental condition of the troops, and the recruits in the first instance, resulted in the loss of enormous sums of money, due to the fact that they had to be invalided through digestive and nutritive troubles which arise through defective teeth. Therefore, I am glad to see that there is some increase in this Estimate for the Army Dental Corps, although it is a small provision.
    11.0 P.M.
    I should like some reply on a question, in regard to which there has been no reply through the ordinary channels, namely, the question of the Army dental surgeons who served during the War. It was extremely difficult to get dental surgeons to serve in the Army during the War, because there was a very small number of them, and they were required in their practice, but certain provision was made for Army dental surgeons, who were encouraged to go into the, Army as officers. When it was decided as a new departure in the permanent Army to have a certain establishment of dental surgeons, the men who served so well in the Army during the War were encouraged and urged to join the Army permanently. The Army cannot attract people from the technical professions purely on its financial merits; it does so on general grounds, the amenities of life and society, the company and the general patriotic spirit. But in addition, you have to give a man certain financial considerations which they balance up against other things. Therefore it becomes of material interest to them whether they are going to get the gratuities or not. Dental surgeons like medical officers serving temporarily with the forces were under contract to get a gratuity when they left the Service, but that is taken from them when they enter the permanent service. There are only 83 of them, but it was a great grievance to them to have to give it up.
    1932
    It is definitely laid down in Army Council Instruction 131 of 1919:
    "Approval has been given to the issue of gratuities to temporarily commissioned dental surgeons on the termination of their service. The gratuities will be at the rate of £50 for each completed year or part of a year and will be subject generally to the conditions laid down in respect to gratuities of contract doctors,"
    The contract doctors have been allowed to retain the gratuities when those doctors took on permanent service. Therefore, the dental surgeons feel that they have an equal claim to retain the gratuities. The British Dental Association have gone to the War Office, and the Army Council repudiated the agreement made under Instruction 131, and refused to refund the gratuity. I would ask for a reply on this point from the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
    The Army Medical Corps of the Territorial Army is a difficult subject. The original idea was that when they were reducing it they should keep up the cadre of all the different units, so that in the event of war, as in the case of the late War owing to the scheme initiated by Lord Haldane, there could be complete expansion. It was neglected under Lord Kitchener. The arrangements for expansion in war ought to be complete for all purposes, and this holds good with regard to the medical service units. Perhaps the chief requirements for expansion are the requirements of the big general hospitals. The general hospital in war is capable as regards the ordinary technical medical and surgical work of obtaining what is needed from civil practitioners. The real requirement is the military organisation of the hospital to make the organisation work smoothly. So you want to have the establishments kept up in peace time so that you may be able to get to work at once.
    I would remind the Committee that, at the beginning of the late War, there was an outcry, "Why are the hospitals and transport not ready'? Why is the accommodation so bad? Why were the casualty clearing stations not ready? "You want to have everything ready for expansion when the need arises. There is always the idea that there will he six months in which to get ready. That is not right from the point of view of the hospital or the medical corps. You can do what is

    1933
    necessary, without undue expense, by having the nucleus of these units. The nucleus of the Territorial Army medical units is the general hospital. They have been cut down. There was one general hospital for each Territorial division and that provision has been cut down. Instead of there being 14 general hospitals there are now only three. There is one general hospital in London, one in Edinburgh, and one in Manchester. In the rest of the country the doctors have no experience of the organisation of a general hospital. It would be infinitely better to have the cadres of 10 big general hospitals in the big centres in order that a fresh set of young medical officers might have training in the organisation and running of a hospital, than to have three large hospitals in three large towns.
    As to the Royal Army Medical Corps, there is a point where something is wrong. Since the South African War the corps has held a very high position. In fact among the medical services of the Crown it has attained to the premier position, and it proved its worth during the Great War. But when the last examination was held for 15 vacancies in the corps there were only four applicants. One was not qualified and only three passed the test. All four were, given commissions, and the remaining 11 commissions were left vacant. Why this falling off in the popularity of the corps? I do not understand it. It is for the War Office to explain. If they cannot get men to fill these places, and they have to take a man rejected on examination, it shows that the corps is going down. No one will mind during peace—only the poor and unfortunate Tommy, and he will not be heard much. But when war breaks out again there will be the usual outcry. It is not a thing about which to make any dogmatic statements. In the case of the technical professions, you have to remember that the Government has to compete with civil practice, and you must have comparable terms and conditions. I imagine that some of the conditions in the Royal Army Medical Corps do not correspond sufficiently well with the prospects in civil life, and that that is one of the results of economy. I am as keen on economy as any one, and I am very glad to see that the War Office have managed to economise during the past
    1934
    year. But, at the same time, you have always to expect that where you are economising you will get some bad results. The Royal Army Medical Corps is a fine corps with fine traditions, and it is extraordinarily efficient. Now it has to be saved.
    That brings me back to my last point. I have referred to it every year since I became a Member of this House. The Committee that reorganised the Army medical service in 1902 proposed advances of various kinds. All these, one after another, were adopted, with one exception, with the result that the corps was so good. The one exception was that the time had come when the medical service, so vital to the efficiency and the strategy as well as to the ordinary life of the whole Force, required a man to be responsible for the whole medical service, and that connected with the health side of the Army work he should have a seat on the Army Council. The Esher Committee went into it, and after great deliberation eventually decided not to recommend it on the ground that the Army Council was large enough. But since that time, and as the result of the War, Lord Esher, himself, publicly, in the "Times," has revoked his opinion and said he was perfectly certain that the only way in future to get proper administration of the medical and health services throughout the Army was for the Director-General of the. Army Medical Service to have a seat on the Army Council. I know the difficulties, that you want to keep the Council small, that there is pressure from every side to provide seats on the Council. I believe the Director-General of the Territorial Army is being given a seat on the Army Council. I know the difficulties, but I say that health is so vital all the way through the activities and organisation of the Army that the only way you can prevent the constant trouble, loss of life, and lack of co-ordination you have had at the beginning of every war—you had it most disastrously at the beginning of the last war and you will have it at the beginning of the next—is to organise properly and give your Director-General of the Army Medical Service a seat on the Council.
    This brings me to the point which I hope we shall he able to develop in a later Debate. It is the question of how far that co-ordination of the Services, Army, Navy, and Air Force, is going to

    1935
    affect the medical Services. In raising the general question, we were met with the difficulty of the gigantic size of the problem, but the Cabinet Committee under, I believe, the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond), which was appointed to inquire into the question as far as it concerned the technical Services, did report, I believe some time last summer, on the subject of the medical Services and how far it is possible to get union, fusion, or cooperation between the medical Services of the three fighting Services I asked last year whether that Report would be published, and I received no reply. I ask again now whether it can be published. It would be invaluable, because the civil medical service will give any amount of help in getting this fusion, for which they are always working. But for this purpose they must have the facts in possession of the Government. I believe the result has been so far satisfactory. It is possible that you cannot fuse them in advance of the general fusion of all the fighting Services, but it is bound to come, and the sooner the better it ought to be prepared for, and I should like to know how far it is being prepared for and how far what is obviously the necessity of fusing the three into one medical Service can be and is going to be carried out.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1923–24.
  NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a number of land forcers, not exceeding 170,800, All ranks, be maintained for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1924."
  Mr. FRANK GRAY: There are two matters to which I desire to refer very briefly. There is a national expenditure to a considerable amount for marriage allowances to the wives and children of lower ranks of the Army. That being so, I expected to find the item and some notes
  1936
  upon that expenditure in the Army Estimates. I do not find any reference to the expenditure there at all. At the present time there is a marriage allowance varying from is. to 28s. 6d. per week —7s. for a wife without any children and 28s. 6d. for a wife with seven children—and it is proposed, on the basis of the index figure in the present year, to make a reduction whereby the figures will run from a minimum of 7s. up to 26s. a week. That is to say, for the largest families of seven dependent children, there will be a reduction of 2s. 6d. per week and varying reductions will be made for smaller families down to 6d. per week, I believe, in the case of one child. The aggregate reduction is very small indeed because the main reduction relates to families of seven dependent children and there are very few families in that category. The saving to the country is very small but the reduction of the allowance to large families is a matter of very considerable concern to such families, of whom I happen to know several. I do not like to suggest that a saving should be made in the higher rather than the lower ranks, but I hope the Ministry will find a way of making this small saving in some other direction.
  The second point I wish to make is of quite a different character. The number of battalions in Northern Ireland is a subject on which I ventured to address a question to the Under-Secretary for War a short time ago, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman informed me that the number of battalions in Northern Ireland at the present time was ten, which was going to be reduced, I think, on 1st April—a somewhat unfortunate date—to five. I should like to think the reduction is being made as a result of the question submitted by me. What I specially desire to bring to the attention of the House, however, is the fact that Sir James Craig, Premier of Northern Ireland—whom I view as an even greater warrior than statesman—stated in the Northern Parliament in regard to this reduction, that he had arranged with the Secretary of State for War that although the number of battalions was being reduced from ten to five, he had persuaded the Government of this country to keep up the same number of barracks, which means we are to defray the additional establishment charges involved in maintaining barracks

  1937
  for ten battalions, when in fact we only propose to have five battalions in the country. In addition to having apparently pledged ourselves to the expense, we have also quite recently undertaken an entirely new expenditure of £1,500,000 to maintain another force which must be deemed to be a military force—the armed special constables in Northern Ireland. It is in the Civil Estimates of expenditure this year. I raise this point, firstly, because it is an item of expenditure about which we are deeply concerned, but the keeping of an unnecessary military force in Ireland, and particularly the special constabulary, is not only an expense to this country, but a danger which I believe it has been used in the past—and I speak with some knowledge, having been in Ireland at the time —to provoke difficulties with the South. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs laughs because he understands it. What I am going to tell the House will not be news to him. It probably will be to a large number of other members of the Committee. I happened to be present at those very important battles of Pettigo and Belleek, fought, I think, in the summer of last year. There was considerable controversy as to the way in which those battles, which no doubt the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was associated with and could enlighten me upon, were engineered, but it was the belief, and the firm belief, of those in the South that the special constabulary provoked their men on the frontier in order that an excuse might be provided to bring in the British Army and the British artillery, which I notice is referred to—
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow a discussion on the constabulary in Ireland.
  Mr. GRAY: I was dealing with part of the military force, as I know they are taken to be in Ireland.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I would like to ask one or two questions. It will be remembered that in the autumn of last year considerable military operations took place in the Dardanelles, and I have been expecting that the House would have an opportunity of discussing those events on a Supplementary Estimate for the cost, which was estimated by the late Secretary of State for War at £2,500,000. Where is that Estimate to be found? Is
  1938
  it included in these Estimates, or last year's, or in a Supplementary Estimate that is yet to come before the close of the present financial year? If it has been dealt with by savings or by the diversion of funds from one account to another, I think it is very improper, because a first class operation of that kind, which was the outcome of an important Cabinet decision, should be presented to the House in some manner which is susceptible of discussion and decision in this House. If we are told that it has been done by savings on the Estimates in the present financial year, I say it is an invasion of the duty of the War Office towards the House of Commons as the controlling financial power.
  The second point I want to put is this. On page 30 of the Estimates we have a charge of £1,888,000 for the Army on the Rhine. This charge is, on page 5, lumped together with other charges under Head I, and the other charges under Heads I-VII make £61,000,000 odd. On page 202, against this expense, there is a set-back of certain contributions and appropriations-in-aid, and hon. Members will there find that there are receipts in connection with the Army of Occupation on the Rhine estimated for the forthcoming financial year to be £1,250,000. Is this a real sum? Is it really expected that we will receive £1,250,000 towards the cost of these Estimates from, I presume, the Reparation Fund? I think it is an extremely optimistic view to take, but if we are not going to get the money these Estimates are not what they pretend to be, and they are Estimates, not for £52,000,000, but Estimates which in this particular must be increase by £1,250,000. What reason have we to suppose that we could get a million and a quarter from the German government? Will it come direct from Germany or from the Reparation Commission? Large additional charges it is expected will fall on the Reparation Commission for the Ruhr Occupation. On the other hand the German Exchequer is drying up because the Germans have ceased to pay. Thirdly, the Americans here put in a claim for about £50,000,000 for the cost of their army, and this must be defrayed, if from anywhere, from this dwindling or perhaps non-existent Reparation Commission Fund. Is it reasonable—will the Financial Secretary tell us 1—to say that this item of one and a. quarter

  1939
  millions will be a contribution in aid out of the 55 or 56—I am told it is 52 millions! Shall we be faced afterwards with a Supply Estimate?
  Mr. BUCHANAN: An hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite shows a very rosy picture of a very rosy future upon which I desire to make a few remarks. I do not know how soon the future he has pictured is coming to pass, but it is anticipated that it will be in the course of a few years. I hope when it comes that the war will not, as before, be confined to the young, but will include the older men—the bishops, the clerics, the rich people and others. My memory goes back to the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the representation of my constituency (Mr. G. N. Barnes), a very able and a very sincere man. In 1915 he came into the division, and said that he had given up his former beliefs in internationalism, and that the country was now at a very dangerous stage, our resources had to be pooled, so that we might fight the Germans. I remember well the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, the single-mindedness; and—if I may say so—he was correct in that.
  Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. Are these- remarks relevant to the question before us?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am waiting patiently for the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: I like these wonderful points of Order. Certain people can talk for an hour, and not be pulled up. To me the points of Order are entertaining, and what leads up to them. However, I must come to the point: That is, that all this criticism was suppressed because we thought the country was engaged in the last War. It was the end of militarism both at home and abroad. Yet I find hero in these Estimates the Government patting itself on the back that these Estimates are absolutely less than twice what they were in 1914! And this is the end of militarism! With these large Estimates, you must remember that we have still in the country a large number of men who are capable soldiers, and who, because of their past training, could to-morrow be turned into very useful
  1940
  soldiers. So that while the Government are priding themselves on the fact that the Estimates are only twice what they were in 1914 we should still remember the material we have in case of another outbreak of war. Not only is our army being used and all this expense incurred for future military purposes, but this Estimate is being asked for to cover such purposes as the arrest of men in this country for deportation to Ireland.
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow a discussion upon Ireland under this Vote.
  Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not in order to discuss the action of the competent military authority who ordered the deportation of these men?
  The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not come under this Vote.
  Mr. BUCHANAN: At a time when you are cutting down expenditure in every other direction you find that our military needs are costing the country a very large sum of money. I smile sometimes when I hear the Members of the right wing of the Liberal party preaching economy, seeing that they belonged to the most expensive Government that this country has ever known. The present Government was elected on economy and I hope they will practice it; and nothing affords the Government a better opportunity for economising than the military services which are no use to defend the homes of the poor people of Glasgow who have no work to do. My contention is that these Estimates are still too high, and I hope the Government will utilise their time and their capabilities—especially those of young and vigorous members of the Government like the Under-Secretary of State for War who is a very capable member of the Government—in the direction of seeing that this Estimate is decreased, and I trust that if there be another war. the Government will so arrange things that both the bishops and Members of Parliament take part in it, and do not shirk it.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The last phrase of the hon. Member who has just sat down seems to indicate that he does not share the view of so many of his colleagues that war is a thing of the past. The hon. Member spoke about future wars, and that to me seems rather to be

  1941
  an answer to his argument that the Army contributes nothing to our material well-being. if we had not possessed an army during the late war not only should we not have had any national well-being now, but we should not have had any national being at all. As I find myself to some extent in agreement with the hon. Member, I will not follow his speech into its other subjects, on which, perhaps, I might not find myself so much in sympathy with him.
  Mr. SHINWELL: Say a word about the bishops!
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I want to try, answer some of the many points of criticism that have been advanced against the Estimates, but the Debate has ranged over so many different topics that I am afraid that, even without answering such interruptions, my remarks must be something like an omnibus. To begin with, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) asked why no Supplementary. Estimate had been laid for expenditure on the Dardanelles. It is quite true that last Session it was stated that the House would have an opportunity of discussing this matter, and I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will bear me out that there has been ample opportunity, even without any special Estimate being laid from the military point of view. We have had many discussions on foreign affairs, anti it was really only from that point of view that there was any ground for laying a Supplementary Estimate. There was no question of virement whatever. The money had been provided under various heads. The most considerable item was that of sea transport, and there was a margin for that under Head 6. Supplies were not much more costly in the Near East than elsewhere, and there was a margin for them under Head 1. The accommodation for troops, which was chiefly in tents and hutments, was covered by Head 5, and the financial purists could make out no case of virement against the War Office.
  Captain BENN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what was the grand total? The House of Commons exercises control over expenditure. It is no use our talking about it without the amounts, because expenditure is our line of control.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: When the hon. and gallant Member asks what was the grand total for this expedition, I should like to know a little more definitely what he includes—whether he includes troops already out there, troops that came from Egypt, troops that came from this country, and so on. There would be no impossibility in getting the figure, if he would give me notice. If he will put a. question down, I will do my best to try and get an answer, but I am sorry that I cannot at the moment separate out the costs which he would think it necessary to include under the rather indeterminate description of the cost of this expedition.
  Captain BENN: The late Secretary of State for War announced during the Election that he knew the amount, and named the figure.
  Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the House debate and control expenditure when all that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to give us is a reply to a question?
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The expenditure on these troops can be controlled under the various sub-heads.
  Mr. MACLEAN: That is not what we want. We want an Estimate.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I have not been told exactly what is to be included. The House will debate this again on Report, and if the hon. and gallant Gentlemen will let me know exactly what he wants included in the figure, I will do my best to get it for him.
  Then the hon. and gallant Member asked whether there was any prospect of our getting the £1,250,000 which was to be received in aid of our Army expenditure from the Germans. I think there is a very good prospect. The arrangement last spring was that we should get £2,000,000, but it was subject to reconsideration, and I believe £1,250,000. was a very conservative estimate. We have already certain assets in this direction. The question of paying the troops in marks has an important bearing on the payment towards the cost of our Army because we requisition those marks in Germany and they are set off against the payment due from Germany towards the cost of the Army of occupation, and I understand probably £500,000 of this sum is in sight from that

  1943
  one source alone. Anyhow, I think this sum of £1,250,000 should in the ordinary course be increased.
  We have had a good many criticisms as to the constitution of the Army Council and it has been suggested that changes should be made in the personnel and in their functions. The drafting of constitutions and schemes of organisation is an unfailing source of joy to people of a theoretical turn of mind, but if the House feels anxious on the subject I would remind them of the organisation of the British Government. The admirable report of Lord Haldane's Committee on the machinery of government shows how haphazard has been our organisation, but in spite of that it seems to work quite as well as the Government of any other country. But Army organisation has not grown up like that. It has been deliberately adopted after careful enquiry by the Esher Committee, and I am sure the view of the majority of the House would be that it has stood the test of war remarkably well. The trouble is that these theoretical schemes are apt sometimes to ignore the human load-line, You may abolish the Master-General of Ordnance and obtain by that means a more symmetrical scheme and transfer the Director of Fortifications and Works to the Department of the Quartermaster-General from that of the Master-General of Ordnance, but is it realised that if you were to do so you would give to the Quartermaster-General the responsibility for controlling about four-fifths of Army expenditure outside the Vote for pay and non-effective services? I believe you would overload and very much hamper the efficiency of the Quartermaster-General's Department. In the same way the suggested transference of functions to the General Staff might prove to be piling too much responsibility on the Chief of the Imperial General Staff.
  Another suggestion which has been made is that the Army Council should include the Director-General of the Territorial army. The hon. and gallant Member for Newbury (Brig.-General Clifton Brown) suggested that, and the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lt.-Colonel Fremantle) wished to see the Director-General of the Royal Army Medical Service upon the Army Council. My answer is that members of the. Army
  1944
  Council have never sat as representing particular groups or kinds of soldiers. They sit as representing groups of functions. It is true that there are instances in our War Office organisation which seem to support the opposite principle, such as' the Director of Supply and Transport and the Director of Equipment and Ordnance Stores who are each of them virtually commandants of certain corps and administer the personnel. I think there is a certain case, as has been suggested this afternoon, for transferring the control of all personnel to the Adjutant-General. It is in accordance with the principle I have mentioned that the Army Council should be organised, not to represent men but functions. If you adopt this view we should surely discourage the separation of the Army into water-tight departments. If we are going to give representation to the Territorial Army and the Royal Army Medical Corps we shall have the same claim made for the Royal Engineers.
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: May I point out that is just the actual mistake that is constantly being made and contended against. The desire and recommendation of the Committee, in 1902, and, again, of Lord Esher, when he wrote to the "Times," was that the Director-General of the Royal Army Medical Corps should be on the Army Council, to represent the Health Services which function throughout the Army. Those who serve in the Army, like the Under-Secretary, know perfectly well that the Director-General is responsible for the whole of the Health Services in all quarters of the Army Administration.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I quite realise that a good many people, as the hon. and gallant Member says, hold the contrary view, but I suggest that all these matters can best be considered by such a Committee as that of Lord Weir, which is going into the whole of the Establishment, and the organisation which controls it. My own feeling on the Territorial Army—for which I have a special responsibility in the War Office—is that we ought to do all we can to break down the division between it and the Regular Army. We have got to keep our County Associations and the valuable factor of local interest. Consistently with that, however, we should try to assimilate it

  1945
  with the Regular Army as much as we can, and to make it a real Second Line.
  Complaints have been made that the Army Council do not sit sufficiently often, and I think hon. Members must imagine that the Army Council takes up its time, or should take up its time, in making plans and conducting War. As a matter of fact, that is the function of the General Staff. The Army Council is really more in the nature of art administrative board. Several hon. Members have suggested that we should have a new Esher Committee set up. I do not think that really is necessary. One hon. and gallant Member mentioned the admirable work which is being done by Lord Weir, and he suggested in his speech that he was the type of man who should look into Army organisation. I do not think we could do better than leave this task in the hands of this Committee, and we take it that Lord Weir will be helped by two colleagues, one possessed of long experience of Imperial Defence problems, and the other with an exceptional knowledge of work and organisation in the War Office.
  The hon. Member for Greenock (Sir F. Collins) drew attention to the fact that the number of the War Office staff had increased. I gave the figures, showing that the cost has decreased. The explanation, which ha will find, if he looks at the other side of the paper, is that in the year in which the comparison is made there were a large number of officers who are now borne on a different Vote and also that we now employ on the staffs of the Commands more non-commissioned officers and less officers. I think that is a sound change and one justifiable in the interests of economy, Another figure for which the hon. and gallant Member has asked is in connection with the Dardanelles expedition. I am told that the total cost of the Dardanelles is £1,750,000 and that that is met on the normal Vote of Supply.
  Captain W. BENN: That is to say, the Estimates presented by the War Office to Parliament last year were £1,750,000 in excess of what was necessary.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The system of estimating for the public services 15
  1946
  months ahead invariably and inevitably involves a safe figure. I think it is a better way to make these savings than to estimate too low and have to come to the House of Commons continually for supplementary Estimates, The hon. and gallant Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) asked about the reduction of establishments in India. That question is still under consideration. So far we have agreed to the reduction of infantry battalions out there which will bring about a saving of 5,000 men. The question of the reduction of cavalry and artillery is still under consideration. We cannot agree to the reduction suggested in the Indian government in the number of units, but we are discussing possible savings by cutting down establishments. It must be remembered that the British regiments in India are all part of our reserve-making machinery. Their reduction must delay the building up of our reserves, and also has a serious effect upon our power of mobilisation. If we agree to the Indian government making excessive decreases, it must mean eventually further cost being thrown on our Budget for making up reserves in other ways.
  The hon. Member for Oxford {Mr. F. Gray) asked about battalions in the North of Ireland. He complained that five battalions had been left in Ireland. I do not think that is an unreasonable number, in view of the fact that Ulster is raising four battalions. As she makes this contribution to the British army it is not surprising that the British flag should be shown over there. No additional cost is thrown upon the Building Vote through leaving the troops in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Preston (Lieut.-Col. Hodge) asked about the Record Offices and complained that a lieutenant-colonel was in command. The Record Offices are an important part of our military organisation, and mobilisation depends in a very great degree upon their efficiency. The hon. Member for Epping (Brigadier-General Colvin), and also the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Gates) raised the question of cadets. The Army Council has decided to withhold the grants formerly made to cadet corps with the very greatest reluctance. They fully recognise the excellent work which this move

  1947
  ment for training boys in habits of discipline, strength and self-control has done, but, unfortunately, the military value of this movement is only indirect. The cadet force is more in the nature of a welfare movement than a military organisation. In view of the very great risk which we are taking by the reductions that have already taken place in our establishment, the Army Council do not feel justified in continuing this expenditure, which was equivalent to the reduction of a battery of Royal Field Artillery. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General spears) compared our expenditure on our staffs with that expended in France. All these military missions are being carefully watched, and are being kept down as much as possible; but we have signed Treaties with our Allies, and must take our share in enforcing the conditions. If I may venture the opinion, I would say that the hon. and gallant Member's comparisons of our staff with the French Staff are somewhat illusory. Many functions are performed by the Staff of the British Army which in France are carried out by officers not classified under the heading of staff. I do not know whether he included the Corps d' Intendance. I am advised that the officers classified as staff are only half of the total numbers employed in carrying out the duties corresponding to the duties of our staff officers.
  Brigadier-General SPEARS: I only included purely staff officers.
  12 M.
  Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) referred to promotion from the ranks. Last year we started at Sandhurst a class for non-commissioned officials to be trained as officers. I agree with what the hon. Member for Limehouse said as to the necessity for democratising our army. The conditions at Sandhurst are that these non-commissioned officers enter before the age of 24, and they must have obtained previously a first class education certificate. The conditions In will be made rather higher when the scheme is developed. These men obtain a free outfit and messing, and the pay of their rank, all of which, except. 2s. per day, is treated as .deferred pay. I think that the
  1948
  hon. Member has no foundation for any suggestion that there is any jealousy, on the part of officers in the Army, of these men who rise from the ranks by merit and ability. The commanding officer wants to find efficiency and advances the men who are capable of bearing responsibility. It is necessary to bring in these men young because if you promote non-commissioned officers when they are older they are always handicapped in competition for promotion. You may push selected men on by accelerated promotion for exceptional merit, but that is suitable only in the case of very brilliant men; and unless these non-commissioned officers, who come in at a later age than is proposed, are strikingly above the average, you cannot pick them out, and you get them very much handicapped, and that is a very natural cause of discontent. The hon. Member said that we ought to do away with all armies and all wars. With that sentiment I agree with certain modifications, because I think that in our case the Army is mainly for defence, and we must accept his advice in the opposite order to see that all danger from war is done away with before we weaken our Army, and lessen the security of our Empire.
  Mr. PETO: There is one matter to which I wish to refer. It was indicated to me by the Deputy Chairman (Captain Fitzroy) as being a matter that would be more appropriate on the following Vote, but I think that for the convenience of the House, since we have listened to the very extensive recapitulation of the Under-Secretary of State for War, and there has been no reference to the question of service pensions to revert to it now. We have been congratulating ourselves on saving £10,000,000 on the Army, but if we look at page 204 of the summary of Estimates we find that over £1,000,000 is accounted for by a reduction in retired pay. I think that it was in September, 1919, that. an army order was issued offering modified pensions for 14 years of continuous service with the Colours, and I have had brought to my knowledge the case of several men who have had, say, twelve years, and in one case more service, with the Colours; over 11 years abroad with every medal and distinction possible. They went into the

  1949
  Reserve three or four years before the outbreak of the War. They rejoined from the Reserve and served 4½ years giving them a total war service of over 20 years, including their four years in the Reserve. We gave modified pensions because it was in the general national interest to reduce our Army, but there is nothing for them. It does not seem to me to be satisfactory to save £1,000,000 on service pensions and retired pay and yet to treat unfairly the men who came to serve their country voluntarily through the Reserve, and who have a longer service, although broken by four years in reserve when they were always liable to be called up, and that they should have nothing. It suited the pocket of the taxpayer to offer these modified service pensions, only to get rid of men who would otherwise be an additional drain on the Exchequer.
  I appeal to the Under-Secretary to consider these cases. We are all glad to see £10,000,000 saved on the Army, but let us at least deal fairly with the men who served the country well during the War. They have not all got disability pensions. I have here a letter from the War Office, written on behalf of the Under-Secretary. It refers to the case of a soldier who was mobilised from the Army Reserve for War and was demobilised with less than 18 years' service. I am told that he is not eligible for a service pension unless he has been awarded a permanent pension for disablement by the Ministry of Pensions, It comes to this—that a. man is not eligible for a service pension unless he has another pension; that if he does not happen to have a disability pension, all his years of service, including service in the War, are lost, and he is not entitled to a service pension. I do not think that that is right. I feel bound, even at this late hour, to call attention to this very grave injustice to a very limited body of men who have given magnificent service in every part of the globe.

  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Resolved,
  That a sum, not exceeding £20,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for defraying the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during
  1950
  the year ending on 31st day of March, 1924, namely:—

  Heads of Cost.

  Amount required.

  —

  —

  £

  Head I.—Maintenance of Standing Army

  12,000,000

  Head II.—Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

  2,000,000

  Head III.—Educational, etc., Establishments and Working Expenses of Hospitals, Depôts, etc.

  2,000,000

  Head IV.—War Office, Staff of Commands, etc.

  500,000

  Head V.—Capital Accounts

  700,000

  Head VI.—Terminal and Miscellaneous Charges, etc.

  800,000

  Head VII.—Half-pay, Retired pay, Pensions, etc.

  2,000,000

  Total to be voted

  £20,000,000 "

  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next..

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923, the sum of £1,209,098 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.''—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  Resolved.
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending en the 31st day of March, 1921, the sum of £171,183,700 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Colonel Leslie Wilson.]
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  BASTARDY BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
  It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening. Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eight Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

EDUCATION.
  OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES.
  OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES.
  CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION.
  CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION.
  TRAINING COLLEGES (GRANTS).
  TRAINING COLLEGES (GRANTS).
  DENOMINATIONAL TRAINING COLLEGES.
  DENOMINATIONAL TRAINING COLLEGES.
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (TIPTON, DAIILASTON, AND WEDNESBURY).
  SECONDARY SCHOOLS (TIPTON, DAIILASTON, AND WEDNESBURY).
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  UNCERTIFICATED TEACHERS.
  ENGINEERING STUDENTS (BATTERSEA POLYTECHNIC).
  ENGINEERING STUDENTS (BATTERSEA POLYTECHNIC).
BUDGET.
  SINKING FUNDS.
  SINKING FUNDS.
  TAXATION (STATISTICS).
  TAXATION (STATISTICS).
  LOANS CONVERSION.
  LOANS CONVERSION.
  SUGAR AND TEA DUTIES.
  SUGAR AND TEA DUTIES.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.
  LINEN-DUCK (GOVERNMENT WAR SURPLUS).
  LINEN-DUCK (GOVERNMENT WAR SURPLUS).
  BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
  BRITISH DEBT (UNITED STATES).
  GOVERNMENT SURPLUS WAR STORES.
  GOVERNMENT SURPLUS WAR STORES.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF WORK GRANTS.
  RELIEF WORK GRANTS.
  SPECIAL REGISTER.
  SPECIAL REGISTER.
  DOCK LABOURERS (SALE OF STAMPS).
  DOCK LABOURERS (SALE OF STAMPS).
  RELIEF WORKS, STIRLING (WAGES).
  RELIEF WORKS, STIRLING (WAGES).
  EXCEPTIONAL DISTRESS (CERTIFICATION).
  EXCEPTIONAL DISTRESS (CERTIFICATION).
  ALIENS (AMERICAN BANDS).
  ALIENS (AMERICAN BANDS).
  ARMY ESTIMATES.
  ARMY ESTIMATES.
FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.
  CHEMICAL FACTORIES.
  CHEMICAL FACTORIES.
  INTERNATIONAL WORKING-CLASS CONFERENCE.
  INTERNATIONAL WORKING-CLASS CONFERENCE.
  BRITISH AREA (RAILWAY AGREEMENT).
  BRITISH AREA (RAILWAY AGREEMENT).
  CENSORSHIP.
  CENSORSHIP.
  BRITISH TRADE.
  BRITISH TRADE.
  TURKEY (WAR MATERIAL).
  TURKEY (WAR MATERIAL).
  CAIRO (SADIK BEY HEININ).
  CAIRO (SADIK BEY HEININ).
  PALESTINE (ARAB ELECTORATE).
  PALESTINE (ARAB ELECTORATE).
  EASTERN GALICIA.
  EASTERN GALICIA.
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (WAR MEMORIALS).
  ROYAL NAVAL VOLUNTEER RESERVE (WAR MEMORIALS).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS (EASTERN MIDLANDS).
  REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS (EASTERN MIDLANDS).
  OFFICERS (PERMANENT PENSIONS).
  OFFICERS (PERMANENT PENSIONS).
  PENSIONERS (DEATHS).
  PENSIONERS (DEATHS).
  STOPPAGES.
  STOPPAGES.
  EX-SERVICE MEN (MENTAL CASES).
  EX-SERVICE MEN (MENTAL CASES).
AGRICULTURE.
  ALLOTMENTS (LLANELLY).
  ALLOTMENTS (LLANELLY).
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  TITHE RENT-CHARGE.
  ACCIDENT, GOMERSAL, LEEDS.
  ACCIDENT, GOMERSAL, LEEDS.
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (ARREARS).
  MAINTENANCE ORDERS (ARREARS).
  PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.
  PRISONS AND BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS.
INDIA.
  CIVIL SERVICE (PAY).
  CIVIL SERVICE (PAY).
  CURRENCY.
  CURRENCY.
  TOGOLAND AND THE CAMEROONS.
  TOGOLAND AND THE CAMEROONS.
  IRAQ (HINAIDI CAMP).
  IRAQ (HINAIDI CAMP).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  CUTLERY.
  CUTLERY.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
  AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
  HATS.
  HATS.
  WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES (INDEX FIGURES).
  WHOLESALE AND RETAIL PRICES (INDEX FIGURES).
  WHEAT AND BREAD (PRICES).
  WHEAT AND BREAD (PRICES).
  SUGAR (IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION).
  SUGAR (IMPORTS AND CONSUMPTION).
  BROADCAST LICENCES.
  BROADCAST LICENCES.
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).
  FLYING SCHOOL, NETHERAVON.
  FLYING SCHOOL, NETHERAVON.
  TECHNICAL STAFF, FARNBOROUGH.
  TECHNICAL STAFF, FARNBOROUGH.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  AIR MINISTRY.
  CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).
  CHINA (BOXER INDEMNITY).
  EASTERN AVENUE, WANSTEAD ALLOTMENTS).
  EASTERN AVENUE, WANSTEAD ALLOTMENTS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The Loan CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Ministry of Health relating to Abergavenny, Cardigan, Lindsey, Sedgley, Stoke-on-Trent, and West Hartlepool, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
Bill referred to the Examiners.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
OAKHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SHROPSHIRE, WORCESTERSHIRE AND STAFFORDSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendment reported (according to Order).

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2:
Summary trial of adults charged with certain indictable offences.
2.—(1) Where a person who is an adult is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an indictable offence being one

387
of the offences specified in the Second Schedule to this Act, the court, if they think it expedient so to do, having regard to any representation made in presence of the accused by or on behalf of the prosecutor, the character and antecedents of the accused, the nature of the offence, the absence of circumstances which would render the offence one of a grave or serious character and all the other circumstances of the case (including the adequacy of the punishment which a court of summary jurisdiction has power to inflict), and if the accused when informed by the court of his right to be tried by a jury consents to be dealt with summarily, may, subject to the provisions of this section, deal summarily with the offence, and if the accused pleads guilty to, or is found guilty of, the charge may sentence him to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine:
Provided that—
(b) where in any case the prosecution is being carried on by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the solicitor of a Government Department, the court shall not deal with the case summarily without the consent of the Director or solicitor, as the case may be;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE) moved, in proviso (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "or by the solicitor of a Government Department." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I promised to consider this point during the Committee stage and I think it is better not to give "the solicitor of a Government Department" any privilege in this matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, lines 15 and 16, leave out ("or by the solicitor of a Government Department").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I desire to thank the Lord Chancellor for having accepted at this stage an Amendment which I suggested when the Bill was in Committee. I felt very strongly that a prisoner should be put under no disability in regard to having an accusation dealt with at petty sessions because the prosecution was being conducted by the solicitor of a Government Department. I recognise that where the prosecution is being conducted by the Public Prosecutor different considerations arise. I may add one sentence. I have troubled your Lordships somewhat about this Bill, but it
388
has to do with a very important matter—namely, our criminal jurisdiction and procedure. I thank the Lord Chancellor for having adopted this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("or solicitor as the case may be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3:
Abolition of grand juries at quarter sessions.
3.—(1) As from the date on which this section comes into operation, grand juries at courts of quarter sessions shall be abolished, and thereafter an indictment may be presented to a court of quarter sessions without having been found by a grand jury, if it is an indictment against a person committed for trial at that court for the offence charged by the indictment.
(2) Save as aforesaid an indictment presented in pursuance of this section shall be presented and shall be proceeded with in the same manner as it would have been presented and proceeded with before the commencement of this section, and all enactments and rules of law relating to procedure in connection with indictable offences shall have effect accordingly, subject only to such modifications as are rendered necessary by the provisions of this section.
(3) An indictment against any person presented to a court of quarter sessions in pursuance of this section may contain, in addition to the counts for the offences specified in the caption of the depositions, any further counts founded on facts or evidence disclosed in any examination or deposition taken before a justice in the presence of the accused.
A court of quarter sessions may in any case direct any such further counts as aforesaid to be added to any indictment presented to the court.
(6) No precept shall after the commencement of this section be issued for the summoning of grand jurors to any court of quarter sessions, nor thereafter shall any grand jurors be summoned to any court of quarter sessions, and if any such precept or summons has been issued before the commencement of this section, it shall he void so far as it relates to the summoning of grand jurors to attend at courts of quarter sessions on or after the date of the commencement of this section.
LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD moved, at the beginning of subsection (1), to insert "Save as hereinafter in this

389
section provided." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this and the following Amendments which stand in my name on the Paper are designed to do away with the necessity of summoning a grand jury to the Central Criminal Court in the City of London except in certain specified cases. I should like to say that I am moving these amendments in accordance with the unanimous resolution of the Aldermen of the City of London—who as your Lordships know, are Commissioners of the Central Criminal Court and consequently have some special knowledge of the requirements of that Court—and in accordance also with the unanimous resolution of the justices of the County of London. In view of the great expense and inconvenience caused to grand jurors summoned to the Central Criminal Court from that County these justices have resolved that they are strongly of opinion that grand juries are unnecessary in the administrative County of London and should be abolished. As both these bodies met last Friday to consider the matter, it was impossible for me to bring the resolutions before your Lordships on the Committee stage of the Bill.
In the debate last Thursday, it may be remembered, the Lord Chancellor, distinguishing between quarter sessions and assizes, favoured the retention of grand juries at assizes. He specially mentioned the cases of the larger cities and London, and I venture to think that he thus implied that in London and in large cities there might be perceptible hardships involved in the continuance of grand juries. It is because the Central Criminal Court differs in so many important respects from assizes in the provinces that it is sought to retain grand juries at that court only in certain cases to which I will presently allude. In the provinces as your Lordships are aware assizes are held but three times a year, with additional assizes for Lancashire and 'Yorkshire only, and in many assize towns the calendar is inconsiderable.
There are twelve sessions each year in the Central Criminal Court, and at each of these twelve sessions from sixty to seventy persons are summoned to serve on the grand jury from the area of its jurisdiction, which, as the House may be aware, comprises parts of Middlesex, Essex, Kent and Surrey, as well as London. Happily or unhappily, these
390
grand jurors are not always, as in the provinces, county magistrates and men of leisure. They are merchants, bankers, professional men, withdrawn from their vocations and suffering materially in the matter both of time and of money. Further, the witnesses for the prosecution in each case are often called from great distances to appear before the grand jury on the first day of the session, though perhaps the trial does not come on for two or three weeks. These persons have either to stay in London or return to their homes, in many cases a long way off. In the Report of the Committee on Alterations in Criminal Procedure it is stated that between £10,000 and £12,000 per annum have been saved within the Metropolitan Police district alone through the absence of grand juries during the war, and that the utility of the grand jury is largely discounted "by reason of the very careful preliminary investigation before justices and the minuteness with which proofs of guilt are there tendered."
I would remind your Lordships that the Central Criminal Court differs from courts of assize in the country in that some 90 per cent. of the cases sent to that Court have been carefully investigated by stipendiary magistrates, and the remainder by Aldermen of the City of London and other justices, with the expert legal advice at their command, thus rendering the more cursory preliminary investigation of the grand jury all the less needful. A further great safeguard to the liberty of the subject is the Press, which, in London, is well represented in the courts where the preliminary investigation by the magistrates is made. There is a yet further difference in the fact that all criminal cases in the City of London come to the Central Criminal Court, whether they be crimes which would ordinarily be tried at quarter sessions or not, because the quarter sessions of the City of London do not try criminal cases. Magistrates in the rest of London may refer minor cases to the London Sessions, where, if this Bill becomes law, there will be no grand jury. In consequence there would be the anomaly of what are really similar quarter sessions cases being tried at the London Sessions without a grand jury and at the Central Criminal Court with a grand jury.
May I now refer briefly to the exceptions in which my Amendment provides for a grand jury at the Central Criminal Court? They are cases of treason and treason felony. For this there is, I believe, the precedent of Scotland, where no grand juries exist except for such cases. It is obvious, I think, that these exceptions might be desirable in cases where the defendant might be entitled to the privilege of a bill of indictment going before the grand jury. I have omitted the crime of murder, because the class of evidence of murder does not materially differ from that of lesser crimes, and also because unfortunately there is a case of murder at nearly every session of the Central Criminal Court, so that to include murder would render these Amendments practically worthless. There is a further exception regarding the right of a person, proceeding under the Vexatious Indictments Act, or of his own motion, to present a bill of indictment direct to the grand jury. Such cases are, as your Lordships are aware, infrequent and generally frivolous, but it has been thought that while such rights are preserved at assizes it might be considered a source of complaint were persons within the area of the Central Criminal Court alone to be deprived of such rights, for what they are worth.
As a layman and a comparatively new member of your Lordships' House, I must claim your Lordships' indulgence if I have failed to lay the reasons for this Amendment clearly before your Lordships. I may, however, pray in aid the opinions of Sir A. H. Bodkin, Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. Herbert Austin, Clerk of the Central Criminal Court (both of whom served on the Committee on whose Report this Bill is, I believe, largely based), as strongly in favour of the abolition of grand juries at the Central Criminal Court. I may also pray in aid the fact that I am not proposing any daring innovation, seeing that during the late war no grand juries sat at the Central Criminal Court, and yet, so far as can be ascertained, no injustice was done to anybody in consequence. I trust that at this stage I may have the support of some of your Lordships more capable than myself in legal matters, and that your Lordships may think fit to adopt the proposals which I have outlined.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, at the beginning of subsection (1) insert ("save as hereinafter in this section provided").—(Lord Marshall of Chipstead.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the question of principle arises conveniently on this Amendment, and therefore I wish to say a few sentences upon the subject. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will regard this proposition sympathetically, because the position of the Central Criminal Court is a very peculiar one. There are four assizes in the year throughout the country, but there are twelve sittings of the Central Criminal Court. Persons summoned to sit on the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court are busy men, drawn from the City and its surroundings. The evidence is not always ready, the delay is very great, and a great deal of expense is involved, so that the question arises whether just the same kind of reason does not apply as applies in the case of the quarter sessions.
I say "just the same kind of reason," because there is a difference between the cases which go to the assizes and the cases which go to the Central Criminal Court. In the case of the assizes the cases first go before lay magistrates, who do their best, although it may be said that the inquiries which they make are not upon the level of inquiries made by trained legal experts. In the case of the Central Criminal Court, however, the preliminary investigations are made by the London stipendiary magistrates, who are men of great experience and capacity, and who certainly are likely to make at least as good a preliminary inquiry as a grand jury has the opportunity of making. As the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has pointed out, minor cases go to the Sessions in London. They are the more serious cases which go to the Central Criminal Court, and these are investigated in the way I have described by stipendiary magistrates, who are trained lawyers and generally men of large experience.
In these circumstances surely every reason that applies for the abolition of grand juries at the quarter sessions applies equally here. It is true it may be said that this Amendment comes more naturally in a Bill dealing with grand juries on circuit, but we have no such Bill

393
at present before the House, and there is an opportunity by a short clause, which fits in with the scheme of the Bill, to deal with the Central Criminal Court on the same footing as the other matters dealt with in the Bill. In these circumstances I venture to submit to the House that the reasonable course to take is to give effect to the strongly expressed desire of the City that this grievance, which is a very real one, should be dealt with.
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment only this morning, and I do not, know that I can be said to have formed any very long considered opinion as to the desirability of its introduction; but as one who has adopted with some hesitation the principle in the Bill that grand juries should be abolished at quarter sessions, I am disposed to examine closely anything which extends that principle beyond the quarter sessions. So far as I follow the speech of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, and the speech of Lord Haldane, I think the main, if not the sole argument is that it is inconvenient for busy men to attend, and that this Court sits very frequently. There is the further argument that the cases which come before the Central Criminal Court are investigated as a rule by stipendiary magistrates, and therefore one of the arguments in favour of maintaining grand juries does not apply with equal force. I should point out in connection with that last argument that although the large majority of the cases which come before the Central Criminal Court are investigated by stipendiary magistrates, there are other cases, from Middlesex and the surrounding counties, which are examined by lay magistrates.
As regards the question of convenience, although the sessions are more frequent, and the cases more numerous, than at the assizes, equally the grand jurymen available for the Central Criminal Court are more numerous, and are drawn from various counties. Therefore I am inclined to doubt whether any individual juryman is subjected to more inconvenience than the individual grand juryman at assizes. As to the other point, it is the fact that the majority of cases are committed for trial by stipendiary magistrates. I want, however, to put this point. Accepting the
394
position that grand juries are not required at quarter sessions, and that it is desirable they should be maintained at assizes, I may point out that the Commission of the Central Criminal Court covers everything that can be tried at assizes. It is fully as extensive as the Commission of Assize, and it is not very easy to see why you should distinguish between the Central Criminal Court and the assizes. It is rather because I feel hesitation about the whole principle that I do not want to see it extended beyond that which is reasonably necessary.
Further, I am under the impression (though I have not yet had time to look up the point) that there are certain classes of indictment for offences by public servants abroad—Governors and others—in which the indictment under the present law has to be found at the Central Criminal Court, and it might be necessary to consider whether those classes of offences should be examined to see whether special provision should not be made for them. But the thing which really troubles me is that the Central Criminal Court has the same powers as the assize court, and tries the same cases.
I am not one of those who think that it is by any means the same thing for counsel for the prosecution not to offer evidence against a man liable to be discharged on his trial, or for the Judge to direct the grand jury to acquit, as it is for the grand jury to say that the man should not be put on his trial at all. I have known cases, though not many, in which I have thought that the grand jury has been a very valuable safeguard. They are very rare, and I do not know that they ought to negative the principle which is embodied in this Bill. But I really do not see on what principle you can exclude from the provision that maintains grand jiffies at assizes that which also maintains the grand jury at a Court which has the same powers as a court of assize and tries the same class of case. I confess I shall be guided by the views of the Lord Chancellor on that point, but I do think these are considerations which ought not, to be overlooked in dealing with this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment has been moved by the

395
noble Lord, Lord Marshall, in a speech of great force and absolute clarity, for which, I am sure, no kind of apology was needed; and it comes to your Lordships strongly recommended, because it is supported, I understand, by the Court of Aldermen, and by the magistrates for the County of London. It also provokes some natural sympathy from me, because I think the very fact that the demand for the application of our proposals is growing, and that there is a wish to have the principle extended, shows how right we were to make the proposals in the first place. Therefore I naturally approach the Amendment with a good deal of sympathy.
But there are one or two points which I should like the House to consider. This Amendment comes rather late in the progress of this Bill. I do not blame the noble Lord for that, because, no doubt, the body he represents did not meet in time to put forward this proposal at the Committee stage. But there is this consideration: the Central Criminal Court performs really the functions of a court of assize. I do not say that it is technically an assize court, but for all practical purposes it performs all the functions of an assize court, not only for the City of London, but for the whole, of the County of London and some places adjoining London.
It is part of the principle of this clause that it applies only to quarter sessions, and I have given the House on more than one occasion reasons for that distinction. Now it is proposed to extend the clause to a Court which is for all practical purposes an assize court; that is to say, a Court where very serious charges are tried which cannot be tried at quarter sessions—charges not only of treason and treason felony, but of murder and of other very serious offences, which Parliament has deliberately excluded from the jurisdiction of quarter sessions. For the first time it is now proposed that those charges may be brought forward against a defendant without any recommendation by a grand jury.
We ought to consider, too, that at the Central Criminal Court justice is administered by the Recorder and, in the more serious cases, by a Judge of the High Court—a Red Judge, as we call him. That distinguishes that Court from the quarter
396
sessions with which the clause deals, and I am bound to remind the House that the Judges, by a very large majority, have shown themselves opposed to the abolition of grand juries at the Courts over which they preside. There has been no time for me to ascertain the opinion of the Judges on the proposal to abolish the grand jury at the Central Criminal Court, and I really think that the opinion of those who are so experienced in the administration of justice at that Court ought to be ascertained before your Lordships take this step. There has also been no time to ascertain the opinion of the Recorder who usually presides at that Court or of the Common Sergeant, and I should like to know what is the opinion of those learned Judges upon this proposal.
Further, the proposal is so new that it has never yet been discussed in this House or, I think, elsewhere in public, and there has been no chance of ascertaining what is the public opinion of London on this matter. All these things lead me to speak with some caution and some hesitation, and to suggest to your Lordships that you should not come to a hasty decision. It is also the fact that the form of the Amendment (though I do not dwell much upon this) wants a good deal more consideration than it has received. My advisers are not satisfied with its form, but that, of course, is a minor matter, which can be dealt with later.
Were we to adopt this Amendment today we should give away the principle which animates the Bill. As between my sympathy for the general view which the noble Lord has expressed and my natural caution, for the reasons which I have given to the House, I am, of course, in some difficulty. What I should most like would be for the noble Lord not to press his Amendments here, but have them moved in another place by someone representing the City of London. If, after full discussion in another place, the Amendments are pressed and adopted, then I do not suppose for a moment that your Lordships would desire to oppose them. But I think it would be rather hazardous for this House, upon this first Motion, to assent to the Amendments. Therefore I would ask my noble friend, if he thinks fit, to withdraw the Amendments to-day, and to be content

397
with the debate which we have had and with the public discussion which is certain to ensue.
LORD MARSHALL OF CHIPSTEAD: In deference to the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4:
Provisions as to reading over, etc., of depositions and as to statement of accused on proceedings before examining justices.
4.—(1) Where any person is charged before examining justices with an indictable offence, the justices shall, as soon as may be after the examination of each witness for the prosecution has been concluded, cause the deposition of that witness to be read to him in the presence and hearing of the accused, and shall cause him to sign, and shall themselves sign, the deposition, and shall forthwith bind him over to attend the trial in manner directed by Section twenty of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, as amended by this Act.
(4) Whatever the accused states in answer to the above questions or either of them shall be taken down in manner shown in a form to be prescribed by rules made under this Act in substitution for Form N in the Schedule to the Indictable Offences Act, 1848, and shall be read over to the accused and signed by him if he so desires, and also by the examining justices, and shall be transmitted to the court of trial with the depositions of the witnesses in manner provided in Section twenty of the said Act.
(6) On the trial the statement of the accused taken down as aforesaid, and whether signed by him or not, may be given in evidence without further proof thereof, unless it is proved that the examining justices purporting to sign the statement did not in fact sign it.
(8) Where a charge is inquired into by two or more examining justices, the deposition of a witness or the statement of the accused shall for all purposes be deemed to be sufficiently signed if signed by any one of those justices.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "and shall themselves sign." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment and the other Amendments on Clause 4 are really of a formal character, and deal with the signing of depositions.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("and shall themselves sign").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the end of subsection (4), to insert as a new paragraph:
"On the trial the statement of the accused taken down as aforesaid, and whether signed by him or not, may be given in evidence without further proof thereof, unless it is proved that the examining justices purporting to sign the statement did not in fact sign it."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the omission of subsection (6).
Amendment moved—
Page 6, lines 3 to 7, leave out subsection (6). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit "Where a" at the beginning of subsection (8), and insert:
"The depositions taken in connection with any charge for an indictable offence shall be signed by the justices before whom they ire taken in such manner as may be directed by rules made under this Act, and where any such."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("where a") and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHARNWOOD LORD CHARNWOOD had on the Paper an Amendment, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:—
". In all cases in which a committal for trial is made, a court of summary jurisdiction shall inform the accused of the provisions of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903, and shall warn him that reserving his defence may prevent legal aid from being granted under the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry to bring forward this Amendment on this stage of the Bill, but it is not altogether my fault. I am sorry also that it should appear on the Paper in a somewhat cumbersome form, and I should prefer, with your Lordships' per-

399
mission, to alter it by leaving out the words "Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903," in the last line of the Amendment, and substituting for them the words "that Act." That alteration makes no difference to the sense and it certainly renders the Amendment a little less clumsy.
As your Lordships are aware, provision is made by the Act of 1903 for the defence of poor prisoners in certain cases at the public charge. That defence may be granted to them either by the committing justices or the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions- after the reading over of the depositions. There is an impression abroad that a certain number of poor prisoners who might with advantage receive the benefit of that Act do not, in fact, get the benefit of it. It is rather difficult to ascertain to what extent that really happens, but there are reasons for supposing—in fact, we know—that it is not unlikely to happen in a certain number of cases. A Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions, in deciding whether a poor prisoner shall be thus defended or not, is to have regard to the nature of the defence set up by that prisoner as disclosed in the evidence given, or the statement made by him, before the committing justices. There is, I understand, nothing in those words to prevent a Judge from granting such legal aid even where the prisoner has said nothing.
But in the case of a prisoner who had reserved his defence before the committing justices, the Judge or Chairman of Quarter Sessions would naturally be disinclined to think that he ought to be aided at the public expense in putting forward a defence which he has not thought fit to disclose before the magistrates who committed him. Moreover, it might often be the case that a prisoner might be able to state before the committing justices some particular reason which would make it expedient that he should have the benefit of the Act; and the first part of my Amendment requires the committing magistrates to call his attention to the effect of the provisions of the Act.
The matter, however, does not rest there. It is a common practice of experienced gaol birds to reserve their defence before the committing magistrate, and there is, I imagine, among people who either commit crimes or whose
400
circumstances are such that they might be tempted to commit them, a sort of tradition that this is the sound and sagacious course to follow. It does not seem to be a very likely course for any honest man to take, though it is one which, through listening to bad advisers, an honest and innocent man might take—to keep his mouth shut on his first appearance in court when he might more wisely make a clean breast of whatever he has to say. His silence on such an occasion will obviously prejudice his chance of securing the benefit of defence under the Act to which I have alluded, for the reasons that I have already indicated.
And the matter goes even a little further than that, because, as I understand, it is the existing practice, or is required by the words of the Bill, that the magistrates who hear a prisoner in the first instance shall warn him of the risk he may incur in reference to anything that he chooses to say. That is a risk more formidable to a guilty than to an innocent man. The suggestion of the second part of my Amendment is that the committing justices shall also warn him of the risk which he may possibly incur by keeping silence—namely, that he may, in fact, though not necessarily in law, shut himself out from obtaining the benefit of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, which might otherwise well be given to him on his trial. I think I have made clear the object of my Amendment. It seems to me that there are these dangers to the possibly innocent person of not getting the benefit of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act. How far they operate I cannot say, because I have small knowledge of courts of justice; but I do not see what harm the adoption of the procedure under my Amendment can do, and I hope my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
". In all cases in which a committal for trial is made, a court of summary jurisdiction shall inform the accused of the provisions of the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act, 1903, and shall warn him that reserving his defence may prevent legal aid from being granted under that Act."—(Lord Charnwood.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I sincerely hope that this Amendment will not be accepted. In the first place, I think it is based on an entire misapprehension of

401
the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act of 1903. It is a matter which constantly arises before one at quarter sessions, and I have never heard it suggested that the reservation of defence was a ground for refusing an application under the Act if, on other grounds, it was properly constituted. The noble Lord has pointed out—I think he has also admitted that his experience is not very great in these matters—that there is nothing in the Act which makes a poor prisoner's defence dependent upon whether he has or has not reserved his defence. That being so, I very much dislike the proposal that a warning should be given to a prisoner on a matter which, after all, is a question of discretion and does not depend upon the terms of the Act at all. It ought to be open to a prisoner, if he is so advised, to reserve his defence, and he ought not to be warned that if he reserves his defence he may suffer under some disability which Parliament has not, in fact, imposed upon him.
LORD CHARNWOOD: May I explain? I am not suggesting that he should be told that he incurs any disability. Of course he does not, but he does incur the risk that if the court above cannot see that he has any defence they may refuse him legal aid.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think he incurs risk of any kind, but whether he does or not—I look at it entirely from the point of view of the person accused—to warn him not to reserve his defence on the ground that a discretion, which is not a condition of the Act itself, may possibly be exercised against him, is against his interest. On the whole I think it is an extremely doubtful matter, and one that ought not to be sanctioned. I speak entirely in the interests of the prisoner, and particularly of the poor prisoner for whom, no doubt, the noble Lord is speaking on the present occasion. I therefore hope the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will not accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment has, I think, made clear what his purpose is. The Poor Prisoners' Defence Act provides that having regard to the nature of the defence set up by a poor prisoner, as shown in the evidence given or statement made by him before
402
the committing justices, the justices, if they think right, can certify, to put it shortly, for legal aid to be given to the prisoner when he is tried upon the indictment. In a case where the prisoner charged at petty sessions makes no defence the power does not arise. The Act does not enable you to give aid to a prisoner who lays no foundation for it. He may hold his tongue because he is afraid of speaking, or because he is advised not to make any defence, and in those cases you cannot give him legal aid.
I confess that I have often felt some regret that in some cases I could not grant legal aid. I do not mean cases where a man reserves his defence, because where a prisoner does that either he is an old hand who knows how awkward it is to say anything at all if he is guilty, or he has already legal aid and his solicitor has advised him to say nothing. In those cases I do not feel any solicitude for the accused, But I do feel a little solicitude for those cases where a man, undefended, has held his tongue because he is afraid to say anything at petty sessions, and has afterwards perhaps petitioned the Judge or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions for legal aid, and has given some reasonable explanation of the case against him. In those cases one would like sometimes to grant legal aid. Of course it can be done by the Judge, who can always order counsel in his court to defend a prisoner.
But although I have that feeling I must say that I should not like to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, because it seems to me it might have very serious consequences. The humane principles of our law differ in this respect from the laws of other countries. The principle of our law is to give a man, if I may so put it, a fair run, and in no way either to invite him or press him to make any statement which might adversely affect his chances. The House knows perfectly well the course taken. It is reflected in Clause 4 of this Bill. The examining justices address to the accused the following words, or words to the like effect:—
"Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge, and do you plead guilty or not guilty? You are not obliged to say anything in answer to either of these questions unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence upon your trial."

403
Further, the Bill provides that before the accused makes any statement in answer to the above questions the examining justices shall state to him, and give him clearly to understand, that he has nothing to hope from any promise of favour, and nothing to fear from any threat which may have been held out to him to induce him to make any admission or confession of his guilt, but that whatsoever he then says may be given in evidence on his trial notwithstanding the promise or threat.
If the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted you would be pressing the prisoner to make a statement, and it is not desirable that an ignorant man should be pressed or invited to make a statement which might very seriously injure his defence. I am most unwilling to direct that to be done, because it might, in some cases, turn out to be a trap for a man. If the noble Lord proposed to amend the Act by giving a wider discretion to the Judge after committal that would be another matter, but I am afraid it would not be in the interests of the prisoner to accept this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Venue in indictable offences.
6.—(1) A person charged with any indictable offence may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in any county or place in which he was apprehended, is in custody, or has appeared in answer to a summons charging the offence, as if the offence had been committed in that county or place, and the offence shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place:
Provided that if at any time it appears to any examining justices during the course of any proceedings taken against any person before them in pursuance of this subsection that the accused would suffer undue hardship if he were indicted and tried in the county or place aforesaid, the examining justices shall forthwith (but without prejudice to their powers under Section twenty-two of the Indictable Offences Act, 1848), cease to proceed further in the matter under this subsection.
(2) Where any person is charged with two or more indictable offences, he may be proceeded against, indicted, tried and punished in respect of all those offences in any county or place in which he could be proceeded against, indicted, tried or punished in respect of any one of those offences, and all the offences with which that person is
404
charged shall, for all purposes incidental to or consequential on the prosecution, trial or punishment thereof, be deemed to have been committed in that county or place.
(3) Where a person is charged with an offence against the Forgery Act, 1913, or with an offence indictable at common law or under any Act for the time being in force, consisting in the forging or altering of any matter whatsoever, or in offering, uttering, disposing of or putting off any matter whatsoever, knowing the same to be forged or altered, and the offence relates to documents made for the purpose of any Act relating to the suppression of the slave trade, the offence shall for the purposes of jurisdiction and trial be treated as an offence against the Slave Trade Act, 1873.
(4) Nothing in this section shall affect the laws relating to the government of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Forces.
(5) This section shall not apply to the trial of offences otherwise than on indictment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 42 and 43, leave out subsection 5.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12:
Court of quarter sessions on appeal to state case on point of law.
12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of a court of quarter sessions, on the application of any party to the proceedings, to state a case for the opinion of the High Court on any point of law arising in any appeal against a conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction or the sentence imposed on such a conviction.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert the following subsections:—
" (1) After the determination by a court of quarter sessions of any appeal against a conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction or the sentence imposed on such a conviction, either party to the proceedings may, if dissatisfied with the determination of the court of quarter sessions as being erroneous in point of law, make an application in writing to the court of quarter sessions at any time within three days after the date of the determination of the appeal to have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court on the point of law.
Any such application may be made by delivering it to the clerk of the peace, and for the purpose of the making of any such application, the court of quarter sessions, if not adjourned, shall be deemed to have been adjourned until the next subsequent sitting of the court.
(2) The applicant shall, before the case is stated and delivered to him by the court of quarter sessions, enter before a justice having jurisdiction in the county or place for which the court of quarter sessions acts

405
into a recognisance, with or without sureties and in such sum as the justice considers proper, conditioned to prosecute the appeal without delay and to submit to the judgment of the High Court, and pay such costs as may be awarded by that court, and the applicant shall before the case is delivered to him pay to the clerk of the peace his fees for and in respect of the case and recognisances."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment in order to meet a point taken in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor. I think that there was a good deal in what the noble and learned Lord said. The effect of this Amendment is not to compel the court to state a case, but it says that the parties may within three days make an application in writing to the court of quarter sessions lo have a case stated for the opinion of the High Court. I think that in this form my noble and learned friend will not object to the Amendment, and I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, lines 33 to 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said subsections.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Lord Chancellor for moving this Amendment. I expressed on the Committee stage my view as to why the clause as drawn dealing with this matter could not be effectively worked. I have very carefully considered the proposed Amendment, and it appears to meet all the objections to which I called your Lordships' attention at the previous stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAMPDEN VISCOUNT HAMPDEN moved, after Clause 27, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) The justices of the peace for the county of Hertford shall in every year hold alternately within the Hertford division and within the Liberty of St. Alban division of the said county courts of general or quarter sessions of the peace for the whole county of Hertford:

(a) An Epiphany session within the Hertford division in the first week after the twenty-eighth day of December;

(b) An Easter session within the Liberty of St. Alban division in the first week after the thirty-first day of March;

(c) A Midsummer session within the Hertford division in the first week after the twenty-fourth day of June;

406

(d) A Michaelmas session within the Liberty of St. Alban division in the first week after the eleventh day of October.

(2) The said justices shall, on each occasion after holding in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section a session in one of the said divisions of the county, hold a session by adjournment in the other of the said divisions.
(3) Every court held under this section shall he a court of quarter sessions for the whole county of Hertford, and shall have power to hear, determine, and dispose of all business accordingly.
(4) The justices resident in the Hertford division shall from time to time at sessions held under this section in that division elect persons to act as chairman and deputy-chairman of the court of quarter sessions of the county of Hertford when the court is sitting within the Hertford division, and the justices resident in the Liberty of St. Alban division shall from time to time at sessions held under this section in that division elect persons to act as chairman and deputy-chairman of the said court when the court is sitting within the Liberty of St. Alban division.
(5) Section five of the County of Hertford Act, 1878, shall have effect as though for the references to the Hertford division quarter sessions and the St. Alban division quarter sessions there were respectively substituted references to the sessions for the county of Hertford held under this Act within the Hertford division and the sessions for the said county so held within the Liberty of St. Alban division.
(6) This section shall come into operation on the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-three."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I can explain the object of this Amendment in very few words. Some fifty years ago in Hertfordshire there were two divisions of justices of the peace, and an Act was passed which provided that the quarter sessions should be held at Hertford and at St. Albans. The first sitting is held on the first Monday in the quarter at Hertford and then the court is adjourned to the following day, Tuesday, when they are held at St. Albans. The proposal of the Amendment is that instead of having quarter sessions held at Hertford and St. Albans on Mondays and Tuesdays on four different occasions in the year they should be held the first Monday in the quarter at Hertford and then adjourned to St. Albans six weeks after. Instead of adjourning for one day only we shall adjourn for six weeks. The whole of the criminal business of the county ready for trial would be taken on one day and then the court would be adjourned for six weeks.
In order to meet the requirements of the Bill we should have, in addition to the eight ordinary quarter sessions, four adjourned quarter sessions, and that would mean summoning about 480 jurors during the year, excluding grand jurors. If the Amendment is carried we shall be able to carry out the work by summoning 320 common jurors as we do to-day. This will effect considerable economy in time and money in the attendance of jurors and also some economy in time and money in the attendance of Judges and officials. We are simply asking for power to reshuffle our domestic arrangements. The question has been very carefully considered in the county and it is the unanimous opinion of all who have to do with the administration of the law in Hertfordshire that this arrangement would not only be convenient and fair but would go a very long way to meet the reform proposals of the Government in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 27, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Hampden.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount makes out a strong case for the new clause. The County of Hertford is under some special Acts, and it is obvious that in this particular respect they do not work very well and cause considerable expense. I think your Lordships, therefore, will probably feel disposed to accept the new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule (Indictable offences by adults which may be dealt with summarily):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My lords, my Amendment to this Schedule deals with small offences which may very fairly be dealt with by magistrates summarily.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 24, at end insert:
"13. Offences in relation to stamps issued for the purpose of National Health Insurance or Unemployment Insurance under the provision; of any enactments as applied to those stamps."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Enactments repealed.

Session and Chapter.

Short Title.

Extent of Repeal.

5 & 6 Vict. c. 38.

The Quarter section Act, 1842.

In section one, paragraph 9. and the words "bigamy and" in paragraph 10.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my first Amendment to this schedule is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, lines 8 to 10, leave out ("and the words 'bigamy and' in paragraph 10"). —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: My Lords, my Amendment is consequential upon the adoption of the new clause which I proposed.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, after line 28 insert:

("37 & 38 Viet. c. 45.

Country of Hertford and Liberty of St. Alban Act, 1874.

Sections nine and thirteen.

41 & 42 Vict. c. 50.

County of Hertford Act, 1878.

Section four")

—(Viscount Hampden.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My second Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 22, at end insert:

("10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 81.

The Administration of Justice Act, 1920.

In section four the words "or quarter sessions" and the words" or clerk of "the peace as the "case may be.")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EXPLOSIVES BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

ALIENS IN PALESTINE.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether 19,293 aliens, not having abandoned their foreign nationalities and being allowed to retain their foreign passports, have been granted certificates by the Government of Palestine entitling them to vote in the recent Palestine Elections, and how many such aliens have voted.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, when it was decided in August, 1922, that steps should be taken in the direction of forming a Legislative Council in Palestine which should consist of elected as well as official members, it became necessary to decide who should be qualified to vote in the Elections. Simultaneously with the Palestine Order in Council an Electoral Order in Council was passed on August 10, 1922. This Order provided that every male Palestinian citizen over twenty-five years of age should be entitled to vote at the primary Elections unless he were subject to certain disqualifications. One of these disqualifications was that the individual concerned claimed to be under foreign protection.
No person will technically have the status of a Palestinian citizen until a nationality law has been passed in Palestine; but for the purpose of this Electoral Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship the following persons were deemed to be Palestinian citizens:— (a) Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of the commencement of the Order: (b) All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date who should, within two calendar months of the said date, make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as might be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
In the case of individuals applying under (b) all that could be done was to require from them a statutory declaration at the time of their application to the effect that they intended to apply For Palestinian citizenship when this became possible. Such a declaration was
410
tantamount to a renunciation of any claim to foreign protection, so far as the individual was concerned, even though it might not technically remove him from the protection of his Government. I have inquired of the High Commissioner how many individuals applied for provisional certificates of nationality and how many provisional certificates were in fact given. I am expecting to get the information within the course of the next few days and F shall take an early opportunity of informing my noble friend of the result of my inquiry.
LORD LAMINGTON: Can the noble Duke tell we whether people who are not of Turkish nationality have to hand over their passports when they have made their declaration? That is the salient point—whether they have to hand over their passports to the Palestinian Government and so deprive themselves of the nationality they had when they entered Palestine.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I am afraid I am unable to answer my noble friend, but I will make inquiries on that point as well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I move that your Lordships do now adjourn until Tuesday next.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn until Tuesday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, on the Motion that the House do now adjourn I should like to ask my noble friend a question with regard to business. On Thursday of next week I have an important Notice on the Paper (respecting the attendances of Peers) in which a large number of noble Lords are interested. I fixed that date in conjunction with them a long time ago, and it would be a great inconvenience if we are unable to bring it forward on that day, because we shall have no further opportunity to do so this side of Easter. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he would be good enough to give me an undertaking not to take the Second Reading of the Bill which is coming up from the House of Commons on that day, or, if he is unable to give me that under-

411
taking, perhaps he will be good enough to promise that he will not put it down as the first Order on that day.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, your Lordships are Aware that the Government have not complete control of the business of your Lordships' House, as they have in another place, and I do not think it will be possible for me to enter into an absolute engagement that my noble friend's place on the Paper should be maintained, for some other Peer might come in before him. But so far as the Government are concerned we shall do our very utmost to meet my noble friend. There is a Bill which I mentioned yesterday, the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which we expect to have in your Lordships' House even earlier than I predicted yesterday. We hope it will arrive on Tuesday. I desire to take this opportunity of consulting your Lordships' convenience in respect of that Bill. I do not know yet how far it might be controversial, but I imagine that it would not at any rate be controversial so far as the Second Reading is concerned. In that event the most convenient course, if it please the House, would be to take the Second Reading on Wednesday; that is, the day after it reaches your Lordships' House. This would allow of considerable interval between that stage and the Committee stage, which would be the critical stage, for your Lordships to take whatever steps may seem good to you in putting Amendments on the Paper if you desire to do so.
If that course commends itself to the House we propose to take the Committee and remaining stages on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the following week, Thursday being, as the House knows, the day upon which, according to present arrangements, the House will adjourn for the Easter Recess.
412
Perhaps it will not be possible to take the Bill on Thursday, because Amendments might have to go back to the Commons, but shall we say that we will deal with the remaining stages on Tuesday and Wednesday? There will also be a Monday sitting that week, so that there will be ample opportunity to deal with the Bill. If it suits the convenience of the House, therefore, I propose to take the Second Reading on Wednesday next.
LORD ASKWITH: Is the noble Marquess able to inform the House whether the Unemployment Insurance Bill is a financial Bill or not, and whether it will be feasible to make Amendments?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It will be rather difficult to give an opinion on that point until we have seen the exact tenour of the Bill.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, like the noble Marquess opposite I do not know whether there is likely to be any opposition to the Bill, but generally speaking I think the arrangements which he has suggested will meet the convenience of your Lordships' House. Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to make the same appeal as has just been addressed to him by the noble Lord who sits behind him, that any Government measure which is put down for Wednesday should come at the end, after any Notice already on the Paper, because there is an important Question on the Paper for that date.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot enter into any engagement with either of my noble friends. I can only promise to do my best.
LORD NEWTON: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.