Sitting of 11 March 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill.
Bill committed.
PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:
Chatham and District Light Railways Company Bill [Lords].
Bill to be read a Second time.
PRIVATE BILLS,
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect 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:
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Bill (Substituted Bill).
London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (Substituted Bill).
Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Bill (Substituted Bill).
Southern Railway Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    CONTRACTS (PLACING ABROAD).
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London and North Eastern Railway Company has placed large orders for railway tyres in Belgium; and whether, in view of the serious effect that this and similar orders must have on the labour market, he will consider the further extension of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I have no knowledge of the purchases of the railway companies, but I have seen Press statements to the effect indicated in the first part of the question. As regards the second part, I would refer to the answer given by the Deputy-Leader of the House on 6th March to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is good for the country that these orders should go out of England to foreign countries?
    Mr. WEBB: That general question can hardly be discussed by way of question and answer; it is sufficient to say that the Government has no control over the purchases of the railway companies.
    Mr. LINFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British price is 60 per cent. above the Belgian price with both based on the same specification?
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will appoint a committee of representative manufacturers and trade unionists to inquire into the effect upon British industry and employment of the frequent placing of contracts for work abroad?
    Mr. WEBB: I am aware of the difficulties with which, under existing conditions, British manufacturers have to contend in competing for contracts, but, as I have previously indicated, I am very doubtful if any useful purpose would be served by a general inquiry of the kind suggested.
    Mr. HARMSWORTH: Is it not a fact that it is becoming increasingly frequent to place these contracts abroad, and do not the Government think that something should be done in this matter?
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the British railways have just completed a large contract for steel rails at £2 per ton more than the Belgian quotation, and ought not further inquiries to be made as to the reason?
    Mr. SPEAKER: We had an answer to that question before the hon. Member came into the House.
    Captain Viscount EDNAM: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of the contracts are placed in this country at a loss in order to retain the trade?
    Mr. WEBB: It is impossible to give any useful information, on this subject by question and answer, but I believe that our contractors have successfully placed contracts and fulfilled orders for overseas up to some £500,000,000. As to the tenders which they have not succeeded in placing, I seem to remember, some 30 or 40 years ago almost identical complaints being made, and I would suggest that it would be far more advantageous to advertise the fact that we have succeeded in fulfilling orders—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—than to complain in this way.

    BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1914.
    Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will set up a Departmental Committee to consider certain defects in the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, to which his attention has recently been drawn by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce?
    Mr. WEBB: I doubt whether there has been sufficient experience of the working of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, under normal conditions to justify the appointment of a Departmental Committee to
    2098
    consider further amendments of the law, but the proposals made by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce will receive the most careful consideration when any legislation is contemplated.

    TRADE WITH GERMANY.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade what are the total exports for the years 1921, 1922, and 1923 from Great Britain to Germany; and can he also give the imports for the same period?
    Mr. WEBB: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at pages 166, 171, and 176 of the Accounts relating to the Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for January, 1924 (House of Commons Paper No. 12) I think that he will find the desired particulars.

    PATENT FEES.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that, according to the latest statistics issued by the Controller of Patents, the profit made by the Patent Office for the year ending 31st December, 1922, was £74,074, he will consider the advisability of reducing patent fees to encourage inventors?
    Mr. WEBB: The fees paid on the grant of a patent are insufficient to cover the cost involved in the examination of patent applications and the profit made by the Patent Office is derived from the renewal fees which presumably are only paid on successful patents. In view of the fact that this profit has decreased of recent years, I am not prepared, as at present advised, to reduce these fees.

  MERCANTILE MARINE.

    LOAD LINE.
    Mr. GREAVES-LORDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the loss of the s.s. "Okara," the s.s. "Trevessa," and the s.s. "Baron Blantyre," and to the fact that there was in each case evidence that the vessels, though loaded in accordance with the permitted load line, were loaded to a depth which rendered them unseaworthy in the weather conditions prevailing at the time of the loss; and whether he is prepared to promote an

    2099
    international conference to consider the present load line and, if found necessary, to introduce legislation for the purpose of preventing similar losses in future?
    Mr. WEBB: Two of the three cases mentioned in the question have been investigated by courts of inquiry, and I am sending the hon. Member copies of the reports so that he may see the findings of the courts as to the causes of these losses. On the general question of load line, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division on 14th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

    LASCAR CREWS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the following vessels sailing from Hull to the East have carried coolie crews from February, 1922, namely, the steamships "Hindoo," "Othello," "Ariosto," "Urbino," and "Lepanto," although prior to this date they carried white men, who were largely recruited from Hull resident seamen; whether he is aware that the engagement of the men deprives many Hull seamen of employment; what is the attitude of the Board of Trade in this matter; and whether any steps can be taken to restrict the employment of Asiatic crews to vessels trading east of Suez only?
    Mr. WEBB: Four of the five vessels named in the question are trading regularly between India and this country, and, like other vessels employed in this trade, carry lascar crews. The employment of lascars on these particular ships commenced at various dates in 1921 and 1922. The fifth vessel is trading between India and the United States, and has an Asiatic crew not wholly composed of natives of India. There is nothing unusual or irregular in this method of manning vessels trading to India. The suggestion contained in the last part of the question would require legislation which would be controversial, and certainly could not be undertaken this Session, but the point will be borne in mind.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that careful steps are taken to prevent aliens coming in here to take the work on
    2100
    shore? Why should only the seamen be penalised in this matter?
    Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Are those men or are they not citizens of the British Empire?
    Mr. WEBB: I was going to reply that the term "lascar" is accurately used to men who are natives of British India; consequently they would, in that sense, be citizens of the British Empire. The term is, I am afraid, somewhat loosely used; but the men on these ships are citizens of India.
    Mr. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the wages paid to these men are not commensurate with good citizenship at all?
    Mr. WEBB: That is a question that can hardly be dealt with by the Government. I think the hon. Member will realise that that is a matter for the trade unions and the employers.
    Mr. B. SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has given us a definition of the word "lascar." Will he explain the meaning of "Dago"?

    ALIEN SEAMEN.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on 1st March the s.s. "Solan" at Hull engaged four Chinese in the catering department in preference to four Hull men; and whether he intends to take any steps to prevent this practice which deprives British seamen of employment at British ports?
    Mr. WEBB: The four Chinese cooks referred to in the question were engaged at Singapore, one in place of a cook who was discharged sick, one in place of a cook who deserted, and two because some supernumerary officers were being given a passage to the United Kingdom. The master is under an obligation to return the men to Singapore, and no objection could be raised to their being employed on the ship on the passage out.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Arising out of the reply given I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the hon. Member's suggestion was put into effect would this not be a form of protection?
    Mr. WEBB: I really am not able to say what would be included under "protection."
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there not a resolution passed by the Trade Union Congress to the effect that British ships should be manned by British seamen?
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of alien seamen employed in the British mercantile marine, with comparative figures for the years following the end of the late War; and whether he will confer with British shipping employers with a view to reducing unemployment among British seamen by arranging for the gradual substitution of British for alien seamen?
    Mr. WEBB: Statistics of alien seamen employed in the British Mercantile Marine during 1923 are not yet available, but I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT some statistics relating to seamen engaged at ports in the United Kingdom, for service in British merchant ships, during the past ten years. The proportion of aliens among these seamen has been falling steadily and is now less than 5 per cent. I doubt whether conferences with owners, who are well aware of the position, could have much material result.

    LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the Government is taking steps to make the necessary alterations in the existing law affecting the use of life-saving appliances on the lines of the recommendations of the Report of the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee; and when the necessary regulations will be laid before Parliament?
    Mr. WEBB: Amended regulations have been drafted, and the draft is being settled by the Board of Trade in consultation with the Advisory Committee. The draft raises some difficult questions which require very careful consideration, but I hope it will be possible to lay the new rules before Parliament in the course of a few weeks.

  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

    COMPULSORY ARBITRATION.
    Mr. BLACKasked the President of the Board of Trade what information he can give as to the results of compulsory
    2102
    arbitration in trade disputes among any nations who have adopted the principle; and whether, in view of the experience of the last 25 years in the boot industry, the Government will inquire into the possibility of preventing suicidal national upheavals through strikes or lock-outs by the legislative enactment of similar provisions in all the organised trades?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I have been asked to reply. As the answer is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The operation of compulsory arbitration in countries in which it is or has been in operation has by no means indicated that it is successful in preventing stoppages of work. Moreover, in no country in which such legislation has been tried are the conditions of industry similar to those in this country. The whole subject was reviewed by the Committee on the Relations between Employers and Employed presided over by Mr. Speaker, and they declared themselves to be opposed to any system of compulsory arbitration. I am aware of the considerable success which has attended the joint arrangements for conciliation in the boot and shoe trade, especially the provision by which, in cases of deadlock between the two sides, an independent chairman is called upon to preside with a view to facilitating a settlement. It is the duty of the chairman to endeavour to secure agreement between the two sides, and he has no power to give or to compel the acceptance of a decision. Agreement has, in fact, been secured throughout, and the voluntary agreements thus achieved have been consistently observed, and have enabled peace to be maintained in the industry as described by the hon. Member. A standing agreement by the parties to call in an independent chairman in cases where they have failed to agree is a course which provides a most favourable means of securing agreement and obviating stoppages of work.

    GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Prime Minister whether he proposes, in view of the constantly recurring industrial

    2103
    troubles, to introduce machinery which will enable the Government to intervene with its good offices at an early stage of all disputes, instead of waiting till its intervention is invoked on the eve of a crisis?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave yesterday in reply to questions on this subject, to which I have nothing to add.
    Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister made a speech on this matter to the Free Church Council last week, and are we to understand that he has no practical solution to offer, but merely vague generalities?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the possibility of obtaining, for the information of the House, a report on the working of the system of enforced publicity in Canada?
    Mr. CLYNES: The Government is well aware of the system prevailing in Canada, but, short of compulsion—for which no party to these quarrels is prepared—there is adequate machinery now at our disposal for intervening in these disputes.
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can we have, for the information of the House, such information as to the working of the system as is in the possession of the Government?
    Major COLFOX: In view of the statement made a short time ago by the Postmaster-General, that during an industrial dispute he was unable to get at the leaders of the strike, will the Government make it obligatory on the strike leaders on such occasions to grant audiences to His Majesty's responsible Ministers?
    Mr. B. SMITH: We will consider it.

  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

    FABRIC GLOVE FACTORIES.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of
    2104
    fabric-glove factories in Great Britain in the years 1921 and 1924, respectively?
    Mr. WEBB: As I informed the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) on the 19th February, I have instituted inquiries on this matter of the interests concerned, but the requisite information has not yet been received. So soon as it is received, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

    DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS.
    Mr. LINFIELDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is prepared to circulate the Report of the Committee appointed by his predecessor to consider the working of the Safeguarding of Industries Act and the amount of additional employment created thereby?
    Mr. WEBB: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No such Committee was appointed by my predecessor, but certain investigations were conducted within the Department, which were, in fact, not brought to any conclusion; and the information is now more than a year old, and no longer adequately represents the facts. The question of further investigation will be considered.

    CUT GLASSWARE.
    Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the dissatisfaction due to the detention by the Customs officials owing to the difficulty of differentiating between cut glassware which is subject to import duty under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether it is the practice to submit specimens of such glassware for decision to competitors of importing firms?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware either of the dissatisfaction or the difficulty referred to in the first part of the question, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any case that he has in mind, I will cause inquiry to be made. As regards the second part of the question, the answer is in the negative.

    GAS MANTLES.
    Mr. FOOTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received an application for the appointment of a committee

    2105
    under the Safeguarding of Industries Act (Depreciated Currency) to consider the removal of the duty of 33⅓ per cent. imposed on imported gas mantles, on the ground that the German currency is now on a dollar basis; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. WEBB: I have received an application of the nature indicated by the hon. Member, and am awaiting some further information for which the applicants have been asked.

  TRADE FACILITIES ACTS (GUARANTEES).
  Mr. FRANKLINasked the President of the Board of Trade what loans under £10,000 in all were guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts during 1923; what amounts under £10,000 have been guaranteed during the operation of the Act; and what proportion does the aggregate of loans under £10,000 bear to the total amounts guaranteed?
  Mr. GRAHAM: The hon. Member will find particulars of the guarantees given under the Trade Facilities Act in the quarterly returns presented under the Act to which I would refer him. Four loans of £10,000 or under have been guaranteed, and in one of these cases the taxpayer has already been called upon to make payment under the guarantee.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the largest amount that has been loaned to any particular company?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot recall the exact amount; the largest amount runs to one or two millions, in, I think, one of the railway undertakings; but I give that reply subject to correction.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not the fact that however small the application it is favourably considered so long as the conditions are observed?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that that is exactly the course pursued by the Advisory Committee.

  SUGAR (EMPIRE PRODUCTION).
  Mr. LUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade what countries produce the 21·2 per cent. of the sugar
  2106
  crop of the world, which is grown within the British Empire, and in what quantities?
  Mr. WEBB: The answer contains a number of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  Of the output of sugar in 1923–24 within the British Empire, estimated by Messrs. Willett and Grey at approximately 4,000,000 tons, the following statement shows the chief areas of production and the estimated crop in each case:

  Tons.

  British India

  3,025,000

  Australia

  279,700

  Mauritius

  200,000

  Natal

  180,350

  British West Indies

  166,000

  British Guiana

  90,000

  Fiji Islands

  35,000

  BREAD (PRICES).
  Mr. WILLIAM ROBINSONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will inquire into the causes under which the price of bread has recently been increased, making it 100 per cent. over pre-War level?
  Mr. WEBB: The most usual price of bread in London during the first half of 1914 was 5½d. per 4 lbs., and the prices prevailing at the present time in London are 8d. and 8½d. per 4 lbs. The advance in price in London is, accordingly, 45 to 55 per cent., not 100 per cent. The information given in the recently issued Report on Cereals, Flour and Bread of the Departmental Committee on Distribution and Prices of Agricultural Produce appears to render it unnecessary to institute any further official inquiry at present.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Has not one of the main causes been the fall in the dollar value of the £ since the Election?
  Mr. WEBB: I am not quite sure whether the fluctuations of the dollar value of the £ are accurately reflected in the retail price of bread.
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that though wheat is grown under the noses of the Americans, the price is double that in England?

  ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL (ENEMY DEBTS).
  Mr. GREAVES-LORDasked the President of the Board of Trade how many cases which have been heard before the German section of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal are awaiting judgment, and the dates when such cases were heard?
  Mr. WEBB: I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The number of cases which have been heard before the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal and now awaiting judgment is 14. The dates when such cases were heard are as follows:

  January

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  February

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  April

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  May

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  May

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  June

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  October

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  November

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  December

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  December

  …

  …

  …

  1923

  February

  …

  …

  …

  1924

  February

  …

  …

  …

  1924

  February

  …

  …

  …

  1924

  February

  …

  …

  …

  1924

  In two of these cases the judgments are written and will be delivered immediately. In one case, negotiations for an amicable settlement are proceeding and judgment has been postponed. In four cases, further information from the parties is required before the final decision can be given, but, in all these four cases, interlocutory judgments on points of principle have been delivered.
  Mr. GREAVES-LORDasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state whether a Second Division of Arbitral Tribunal (Enemy Debts) has recently been set up, if so, on what date; how many times has it sat; and how many cases has it settled?
  Mr. WEBB: With the hon. and learned Gentleman's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The Second Division of the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal was set up at the end of October, 1923. It sat for the first time on 6th November, 1923, and up to the 4th March, inclusive, sat on 27 days. The number of cases that it has decided and disposed of is 56. During the same period the President of this Division and the British member, with the substitution of an Austrian or Bulgarian in place of the German member, sat on 12 occasions to hear Austrian and Bulgarian cases.
  Sir JOHN PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade on what dates the Enemy Debt Clearing Office and the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal were set up; how many cases had been lodged by 15th March, 1923; how many had been disposed of on that date; and what the number of cases lodged and disposed of now are?
  Mr. WEBB: With the hon. Gentleman's permission, I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The British Clearing Office was established on the 10th January, 1920, and the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal on the 15th November, 1920.
  The number of cases lodged with the Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal to 15th March, 1923, was 1,775, of which 97 were disposed of by judgment after trial, and 215 by consent judgments or withdrawals. The total number of cases lodged with the Tribunal from the date of its establishment to the 1st instant is 2,444, of which 202 were disposed of by judgment after trial and 716 by consent judgment or withdrawal.
  In order to dispel any confusion which may exist, I desire to point out that the Mixed Adbitral Tribunal is an independent International Court, and forms no part of the Clearing Office organisation.
  Sir J. PENNEFATHERasked the President, of the Board of Trade if he will state the cost of maintaining the

  2109
  Enemy Debts Clearing Office and of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal for each year since they were set up?
  Mr. WEBB: I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:
  The cost of the Central British Clearing Office up to the 1st instant is as follows:

  £

  s.

  d.

  From 10th January, 1920, to 31st March, 1921

  231,212

  10

  1

  From 1st April, 1921, to 31st March, 1922

  339,526

  13

  11

  From 1st April, 1922, to 31st March, 1923

  203,857

  0

  8

  From 1st April, 1923, to 1st March, 1924 (approximate)

  170,000

  0

  0

  These expenses are defrayed out of a percentage charge upon payments to creditors and claimants, and impose no burden upon public funds. In considering the cost of the organisation, it must be borne in mind that the Central Office clears the debts and claims of the whole of the British Empire through 43 local clearing offices established in the Dominions and Colonies.
  The British share of the cost of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals is as follows:

  Anglo-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1919–20

  798

  19

  9

  1920–21

  4,063

  0

  9

  1921–22

  7,351

  16

  5

  1922–23

  7,268

  13

  10

  Anglo-Austrian, Hungarian and Bulgarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunals.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1921–22

  3,303

  19

  0

  1922–23

  4,068

  7

  4

  Sir J. PENNEFATHERasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total amount of the awards made to British subjects by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal up to 31st December last, and the total amount paid to them by the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts)?
  Mr. WEBB: I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Arising out of the answer that is to come, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on earlier occasions suggestions have been made that an auxiliary tribunal should be set up for the reason that, owing to the pressure of work, many of the cases that ought to have been heard have been held up?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly answer that question without notice.
  Following is the answer promised:
  The information asked for will be supplied to the hon. Member as soon as the figures have been ascertained, but the return will take some little time to prepare owing to the fact that upwards of 90 per cent. of the awards made by the tribunal are in respect of settlements effected by the Clearing Office through its Berlin branch, and are submitted for formal judgment only, without the necessity of lodging memorials with the tribunal. The hon. Member will also bear in mind that, whereas some claims are paid in full, others rank for dividend only, and to give the information asked for involves a careful dissection of the awards.

  COASTGUARDS (PAY).
  Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are 200 coastguard stations with station officers in charge at a pay of 57s. 9d. per week, and 130 stations in charge of the senior coastguard officer at a pay of 47s. 3d., plus 1s. per week for extra duty at the station; that the senior officers perform the same duties as the station officers; and if he will consider increasing their pay from 1s. to a minimum of 3s. 6d. per week?
  Mr. WEBB: There are 185 station officers in charge of stations with pay commencing at 59s. 5d. a week, and 97 stations under senior coastguards with pay commencing at 48s. 8d. The work at the latter stations is not of sufficient importance to justify the appointment of station officers, and it is not possible to consider any increase in the charge pay of 1s. a week, which was introduced on the 1st January of this year.
  Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty gave 1s. per day, not 1s. per week; and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that 1s. per week is very small remuneration?
  Mr. WEBB: I am not aware of those facts, but I will look into them.

  NITROGEN FIXATION.
  Mr. HAYDAYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the French Government has recently concluded an agreement with the German Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik for the exploitation of methods of manufacturing synthetic ammonia; and whether, in view of the great importance of being independent of foreign supplies of nitrates, the British Government has taken or intends to take similar steps?
  Major MOULTONasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the acquisition by the French Government of the patents and technical information necessary for the production of nitrates by the Haber-Bosch process with a view to that Government producing such nitrates on a very large scale; and whether the British Government proposes to take any and what steps to promote large scale production of nitrates in this country?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Stephen Walsh): I have been asked to reply to these questions. My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to in the first part of the questions. Similar steps have been taken by the British Government in conjunction with a British firm.
  Major MOULTON: Is it not a fact that the steps which have been taken by the French Government are producing 120,000 tons of nitrates each year?
  Mr. WALSH: I can only say that this is a matter of great public interest and at present as it is entirely confidential it is not in the public interest to give any further information.

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether,
  2112
  in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action, he will state the attitude of the Government towards the large number of belated claims?
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade what action it is proposed to take with regard to belated claims for compensation for damage by enemy action, particularly with regard to claims sent in by seamen, through their unions, in ample time, but which have been treated as belated owing to the forms required by the Department not having been sent in till after the advertised time for closing the lists?
  Major BURNIEasked the Presi dent of the Board of Trade what action he proposes to take to settle the belated claims of seamen and dependants referred to in the Report of the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action?
  Mr. WEBB: I will answer these questions together. The matter will be carefully considered and a statement made as soon as possible. I would add that, while I cannot say anything definite at present, I am hopeful in the matter.
  Mr. WHITE: In view of the largo number of these belated claims, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an early opportunity of expressing its opinion as to whether this further Vote should be given?
  Mr. WEBB: I would suggest that the hon. Member should await the promised statement.
  Mr. HARMSWORTH: Will the right hon Gentleman be able to make a statement on the subject if I raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment?
  Mr. WEBB: I cannot say at this moment. The hon. Member knows that certain forms have to be gone through but I can assure him, if he will have a little more patience—we have not been in office long—he will get the information. This is not a new question and if the hon. Member will have patience for a day or two I will get the information.
  Mr. B. TURNER: What has the President of the Board of Trade been saying? We have not heard a word on this bench.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    LIGHT HORSE BREEDING.
    Major EDMONDSONasked the Secretary of State for War if it is intended that the War Office shall at an early date take over from the Ministry of Agriculture the light horse-breeding scheme in Great Britain?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes, Sir, the War Office is to take over this work on 1st April next.
    Major EDMONDSON: Will the War Office continue the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture as far as co-operation with the National Horse Breeding Society is concerned?
    Mr. WALSH: Yes, it is our intention to continue on almost identical lines the policy of the Ministry of Agriculture, especially in connection with hunters and the National Light Horse Breeding Society.

    SIZE AND COST.
    Mr. G. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War what is the size and cost of the Army to-day, what it was on 1st April, 1914, the total numbers and cost on both dates of the military and civilian staffs of the War Office, and the respective numbers of fighting troops?
    Mr. WALSH: As the answer contains a great many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The total of Vote A and of Army Estimates respectively are 186,400 men and £28,845,000 for 1914–15, and 157,500 men (excluding Indian troops under the Air Ministry) and £45,000,000 for 1924–25. To the last figure should be added, for purposes of comparison, a sum of £398,000 borne on the Colonial Office Vote in respect of the Middle East garrisons.
    The total of the Regimental Establishments included in Vote A are 177,271 for 1914–15 and 147,940 for 1924–25.
    The figures for the War Office Staff, including financial staff at outstations, for the same years are:

    1914–15.

    Numbers.

    Cost.

    £

    Military staff

    251

    144,190

    Civilian

    1,611

    306,000

    1924–25.

    Military staff

    402

    340,000

    Civilian

    2,387

    654,000

    The figures for civilians include the civilians and ex-soldiers employed in the Military Departments.

    CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS.
    Mr. G. WHITEasked the Secretary of State for War the number of civilian employés, including temporary employés, on 1st April, 1914, and at the present time, and the comparative amounts in salaries, etc., of this personnel; and how much of the difference in the latter figure can be attributed to the difference in the cost of living?
    Mr. WALSH: I regret that the terms of the question submitted by the hon. Member are too indefinite to enable a specific answer to be given. If he will give me further detail, I will endeavour to give him such information as I can.
    Mr. WHITE: I was only referring to the War Office.
    Mr. WALSH: Yes, I know.

    CAVALRY DIVISIONS (COMPARATIVE STRENGTH).
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the active service strengths of a British and a French cavalry division in men, horses, rifles, machine-guns, artillery, and auxiliary fighting services, such as armoured cars, light tanks, and aeroplanes?
    Mr. WALSH: With the hon. Member's permission I will circulate the figures for a British cavalry division in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I regret that I am not in a position to give similar information for a French cavalry division.
    Mr. LUMLEY: Am I to understand that the War Office have not got the particulars of the French cavalry divisions?
    Mr. WALSH: I would not like the hon. Member to deduce that idea. There is a great difference between giving the figures relating to our own Divisions and giving those relating to a foreign nation. The hon. Member will realise that this kind of information should not be lightly given.
    Following is the reply:
    The following are the figures of a British cavalry division:

    Men:

    Officers

    424

    Other ranks

    9,193

    Total (all ranks)

    9,617

    Horses and mules

    9,179

    Rifles

    6,020

    Machine guns

    217

    Artillery (13-pounders)

    18

    No auxiliary fighting services are included in the composition of a cavalry division.

    GARRISON, JERSEY.
    Mr. LUMLEYasked the Secretary of State for War what are the military reasons which require a garrison to be maintained in the island of Jersey?
    Mr. WALSH: The battalion at Jersey is part of the establishment of the Regular Army at home, and is quartered at Jersey, mainly for reasons of economy, as barracks exist there, whereas no accommodation for an infantry battalion is available elsewhere at home.
    Sir B. FALLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are empty barracks at Portsmouth, and no sea to cross'?

    CLERICAL LABOURERS (WOOLWICH).
    Mr. PALMERasked the Secretary of State for War in what circumstances clerical labourers in the Royal Army Ordnance Services, Royal Arsenal and Dockyard, at Woolwich, are employed to the prejudice of the clerical staff known as writers; will he explain why the disparity of wages between £2 6s. per week for the former and £2 14s. 6d. per week for the latter obtains; and whether he will take steps to give equal pay for equal work?
    Mr. WALSH: I am not aware that the employment of labourers upon clerical duties in the storehouses of this depot operates to the prejudice of the writers employed in the establishment. The wage of the former class consists of the labourer's rate plus a regulated addition in respect of simple clerical duties. That of the writers, who are mainly engaged in the central office of the depot, is fixed
    2116
    upon a different set of considerations. As at present advised, I do not consider that the nature of the work of the two classes and the circumstances in which their duties are carried out are such as to justify an approximation of the pay rates. Under the recently announced improvement in the wages of certain industrial grades at the Royal Arsenal and Dockyard the figure of £2 6s. quoted becomes £2 9s.
    Mr. PALMER: Does my right hon. Friend consider £2 9s. an adequate wage in every case?
    Mr. WALSH: I do not see that that arises out of the question at all. I am asked to explain the disparity in wages. I am not called upon to say whether I consider it a fair wage or not.

    CONTRACTS.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in placing contracts, the War Office adheres to the principle reaffirmed by Resolution 3, subsection (2), of the last Imperial Economic Conference?
    Mr. WALSH: It is the practice of the Department to give preference within reasonable limit to goods and materials produced within the Empire, but the question of formal adhesion to the resolution referred to is not one for the War Office to decide.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the same undertaking that Lord Derby gave at the Imperial Conference that in every case applications from Dominion sources of supply will be considered?
    Mr. WALSH: I have not sufficient knowledge of what Lord Derby or any other Lord said to answer the question. The matter of the Imperial Conference, as everyone must know, is not a matter for the War Office to decide.
    Sir. P. LLOYD-GREAME: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as set out in the Blue Book of the Imperial Conference, that the Secretary of State for War stated what would be the policy of the War Office?
    Sir HENRY COWAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman define "reasonable preference"?
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: On a point of Order. Is it possible by any means in your power to defer questions put by hon. Members opposite till the meeting at Drury Lane is over and the now Tory leader is elected?

    CAVALRY UNITS (INDIA).
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether an agreement has yet been reached with the Government of India over the question of the number of British cavalry units in India?
    Mr. WALSH: The answer is in the affirmative. The agreed number of regiments in India is six.
    Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Where are those superfluous regiments to be transferred?
    Mr. WALSH: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put the question down I will give him the information.

    WAR OFFICE (COLONEL COBB).
    Mr. GRAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council, when reappointing Colonel Cobb to his present position, was aware that, despite all casualties during the War and since, the field of selection remaining at that date comprised 350 valuers, of whom over 100 were ex-service men, many of whom had served; and whether the claims of the members of the staff were considered before the appointment was made?
    Mr. WALSH: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Mr. Hogge) on 26th ultimo. All relevant considerations and claims were borne in mind in making the appointment referred to.

    ROYAL ARTILLERY RECORD OFFICE.
    Sir K. WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can make any statement concerning the future location of the new Royal Artillery record office?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Lawson): The question of the future location of the Royal Artillery record office is still under consideration, and I am not in a position to make a statement at present.
    Sir K. WOOD: In view of the anxiety of these men, will the hon. Gentleman give due regard to their representations, and will he state when he will be able to give a reply on the matter?
    Mr. LAWSON: We have given a guarantee already, that while we cannot discuss policy, at least we can discuss their future.

    SADDLERS (WOOLWICH DOCKYARD).
    Sir K. WOODasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the rate at which saddlers at Woolwich Dockyard are working 47 hours a week, namely, 1s. 1½d. per hour, is the official trades union rate?
    Mr. LAWSON: No, Sir, the 53s. a week which these men now receive is a rate applicable to the workmen of Woolwich Arsenal and Dockyard as a whole.
    Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dispute on this matter? Has he received any representations concerning it?
    Mr. LAWSON: I am not aware that there is any dispute on the matter at all. As a matter of fact the Secretary for War and I received a deputation representing the whole of the men in the Department. I understand this matter has never been questioned.

  ROE GREEN GARDEN VILLAGE (MORTGAGE).
  Mr. THURTLEasked the Secretary of State for War whether with regard to the sum of £158,000 advanced on mortgage by the War Office to the Roe Green Garden Village, Limited, Middlesex, in September, 1919, at 6 per cent. interest, the principal being repayable at the rate of 2½ per cent. per annum, he will state if payment of the interest and repayment of the principal have been kept up to date?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I understand that interest, which is at the rate of 5½ per cent. per annum, has been paid up to 22nd December, 1920, and, as regards the principal sum due, I am advised that no part of this became repayable until two years after the official date of the expiry of the War on 31st August, 1921, and then only after a re-valuation of the buildings

  2119
  had been made, on the amount of which re-valuation the principal sum to be repaid depends. The re-valuation has been made, but discussion with regard to it is still proceeding with the Roe Green Garden Village, Limited.
  Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Under what circumstances was this loan given by the War Office?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is a very long story, but, in a sentence, it was associated with the production of munitions of war. I can give the Noble Lord much fuller information later.

  NECESSITOUS AREAS.
  Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are now in a position to state their reply to the recent representations made on behalf of necessitous local authorities; and, if they cannot accept the proposals submitted, what steps are they going to take to relieve the situation existing in many areas due to the continuation of abnormal unemployment?
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made last night by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour.
  Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply rather more definitely to the second part of the question, and amplify the very indefinite statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary last night?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: I think it would be only fair that the hon. Member and other Members of the House should have an opportunity of studying the speech to which I have referred before assuming that it does not meet the point.
  Mr. THOMSON: The words used specifically last night were that the Government were to extend—
  Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot now debate that. Will the hon. Member please put his next question?

  SLUM CLEARANCE.
  Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view
  2120
  of the inadequacy of the present annual grant appropriated to slum clearances in England and Wales, he will increase the same during the forthcoming year by 50 per cent., as he has promised to do in the case of Scotland?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: The provision for grants towards the deficit on schemes of slum clearances asked for in 1924–25 is the full amount estimated to be required in respect of all schemes on which deficits are likely to be incurred during the year. No object would be served by increasing the proposed provision by 50 per cent.
  Mr. PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present rate of grant, it will take 100 years to clear up the slums?
  Lord E. PERCY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for some time past there has been no limitation of the annual grants for slum clearance?
  Mr. WHEATLEY: Hon. Members seem to be labouring under some misapprehension. The sum referred to here insufficient to meet the demands on the fund. If it is desired that slums should be cleared more quickly, it is the demand that must be increased. In the meantime, no object will be served by increasing the fund.

  TREASURY AND BANK OF ENGLAND RETURNS.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon what day of the week the weekly Treasury Return is usually issued; what is the terminating day of the previous week covered by the Return; what day of the week the weekly Bank of England Return is usually issued; and what is the terminating day of the previous week covered by that Return?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Snowden): The weekly Treasury Return is published in the "London Gazette" every Tuesday. It covers the period up to the preceding Saturday night. The Bank of England Return is published, every Friday, and covers the period up to the preceding Wednesday night.
  Mr. SAMUELalso asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether in order to facilitate a more accurate estimate

  2121
  of the national financial position he will arrange for the weekly Treasury Return to be published on Saturdays and for the weekly Bank of England Return to be published on Thursdays, and that the Return in both cases should cover the week ending on the previous Wednesday?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not see any advantage in this proposal, and there are obvious disadvantages. I am not prepared to adopt it.
  Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if the public is to form, from the two complete Returns, a correct idea of what the figures mean, it is necessary that the Returns in question should cover the same period of time?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: It is not possible to form any adequate estimate of the financial position from these weekly Returns, which, of course, cover only a very limited range. Further, there are objections, which should be obvious to the hon. Member, against the publication of these Returns as suggested.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS (MEANS LIMIT).
  Mr. ERNEST BROWNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what would be the additional annual cost of old age pensions if the present sliding scale was abolished and the maximum means' limit fixed at £49 17s. 6d., so that all pensioners received the full rate of 10s. per week?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: To provide all persons having means not exceeding 19s. 2d. a week with a pension of 10s. a week would in itself cost about £700,000 a year. But it would clearly be impossible to leave persons having means of 19s. 3d. per week without any pension whatever, so that the proposal would in fact entail a wholesale, reconstruction of the pension system, involving an additional cost of many millions a year.

  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is aware that certain working men's
  2122
  clubs are being taxed on the grounds that concerts are occasionally given on the premises for the entertainment of the members; that no charges are made for admission to these concerts; that only members and their friends are admitted; that the artistes receive no fees; and that the only payments made are occasional collections for local charities; whether he can state if a similar tax is levied on political clubs in London on the ground that political speeches are delivered in them; and what is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue on this question?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Entertainments Duty is chargeable under Section 1 (4) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 7916, on such part of the subscription to any Club as represents payment for the right of admission to taxable entertainments. As regards the last part of the question, I am advised that a political speech, however entertaining it may be, is not an "entertainment" as defined by law for purposes of the duty.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the third part of the question, are we to understand that the London clubs which give concerts and other entertainments are taxed in this way?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Every club which systematically gives concerts has to pay this tax. An estimate is made of what proportion of the subscription might properly be set down as entrance money.
  Sir ALFRED BUTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has been able to fix any date for the reception of the representatives of the entertainment industry who wish to lay before him reasons for the total abolition of the Entertainments Duty; and whether he will instruct his Department to investigate the claim put forward by the theatrical interests that no other policy will bring real relief to their branch of entertainment?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: A date has not yet been fixed for this deputation, but I hope to be able to receive it shortly. All the representations that may be made by various sections of the trade will be duly considered.

  RECEIPT STAMPS.
  Mr. BECKERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the loss incurred by the revenue through receipt stamps not being affixed to receipts for purchases sold over the counter in shops; and will he take steps to see that the law is strictly enforced regarding receipt stamps?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: The attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is constantly being called to cases where receipts which ought to have been stamped have been given without a stamp, and suitable action is taken by them in each case. The document commonly given in the larger shops when goods are sold and paid for over the counter is a form of voucher which does not constitute a receipt for the purposes of the Stamp Acts, being more in the nature of an accounting convenience to the shop, and which, consequently, is not liable to duty. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that a stamped receipt must be given to any customer who asks for it if the amount of the payment is £2 or more.

  BUILDING MATERIAL.
  Mr. SULLIVANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tariff, if any, is put on building material coming into Great Britain from other countries?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: So far as I am aware, no material used for building purposes is liable to Customs duty on importation into this country. If my hon. Friend has any particular article in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

  RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL.
  Major MOULTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the Rent Restrictions Bill becoming law, a revaluation of house property effected for the purposes of rating and taxation will be made; and whether such valuation, if made, will be given retrospective effect?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: This is a hypothetical question, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement explaining the present provisions in regard to the matter.
  Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any interest in this subject? Is he aware that the Minister of Health has run away from it?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member made a speech lasting three-quarters of an hour this morning on one Amendment, and he was ruled out of order?
  Following is the statement:
  There is no provision in the existing law under which, in the circumstances mentioned, a general revaluation of house property could be required to be made for the purposes of rating and taxation. Generally, the revision of rating valuations is a matter for the local authorities, but outside London any ratepayer who is aggrieved by the valuation list in force may, under Section 1 of the Union Assessment Committee Amendment Act, 1864, give the assessment committee, at any time, notice of his objection to the list, and as regards Imperial taxation, there is a general statutory right to a reduction of an assessment in force for any year where it is shown that the annual value of the property for that year is less than the value adopted for the purposes of assessment.

  CHEQUES (STAMP DUTY).
  Mr. BARCLAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can supply to this House any information as to the effect of the raising of the Stamp Duty on cheques to 2d. in 1918 as reflected in the number of cheques used, and their relation to the total of bankers' clearings?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Statistics of the net receipts of cheque stamp duty, which are shown for the 11 years, 1911–12 to 1921–22, inclusive, on page T3 of the 65th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Command Paper 1780 of 1923, do not indicate that the increase in the rate of duty from 1d. to 2d. as from the 1st September, 1918, had any material effect upon the number of cheques used. In view of the different factors involved, I do not think that any useful relationship can be established between the number of cheques stamped and the total amount of the bank clearings.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can see his way to authorise the use of cheques without stamps, such as is done in the United States, in order to decrease the amount of Treasury notes in circulation?
  Mr. SNOWDEN: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement in a matter of this kind.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this system is most successful in America?

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    SOUTHBOROUGH COMMITTEE.
    Mr. JOHN HARRISasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of further meetings of the Southborough Committee, he will give instructions that the investigations shall be made in public?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: It is entirely within the discretion of the Southborough Committee to decide by what method and in what manner it will carry out the task entrusted to it, and I am not prepared to interfere in the matter.
    Mr. MASTERMAN: Is the Committee actually meeting at the present time?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes.

    CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATION.
    Mr. BECKERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if competent ex-service men temporarily employed in Government Departments will in future be excused Civil Service examination?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 6th March, to the hon. Member for Finchley and the hon. Member for Ealing.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, how many vacancies have been allotted to the successful candidates at the recent examination for the administrative class, limited to ex-service men who had served in the temporary capacity, for which 530 had entered; and how many qualified for such vacancies?
    Mr. GRAHAM: Appointment to the Administrative Class has been promised to the first three candidates in order of merit at the competition referred to who were declared by the Selection Board to be fit for appointment subject to their eligibility in respect of health and otherwise. A small number of other candidates were declared to be fit for appointment if and as further vacancies are reported; suitable candidates at this competition being entitled to the offer of 50 per cent. of the vacancies notified to the Civil Service Commissioners up to 24th June, 1924. The candidates declared fit for appointment to further vacancies, if these become available, are being individually informed of their position.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: How many qualified for such vacancies?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I understand the number was about 100, but I should require to make a little more investigation on that point.
    Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: Is it possible to take any steps to prevent the recurrence of a proceeding by which such unnecessary expense has been caused to candidates who have qualified by examination and have had to come up for the competitive interview?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I am aware of that point. If the hon. Member will consult me, I think I can give him information in greater detail as to what we propose to do.

  SCOTLAND.

    SARK TOWER HOLDINGS (WATER SUPPLY).
    Dr. CHAPPLEasked the Secretary for Scotland why the efforts of his Department to provide water for the Sark Tower holdings have proved a failure; and whether he can hold out any hope that their needs can be met?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I am informed that the water supply installed by the Board of Agriculture for some of the holdings failed after two years' service. The failure appears to have been due to the fact that the holders did not give sufficient attention to the machinery. The Board are ready to have repairs executed as soon as

    2127
    the holders provide an undertaking to maintain the machinery and other works when so repaired.

    ROADS, LEWIS.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the new crofter settlements of Reef, Ardroil, and Dalemore, in the Island of Lewis, inconvenience is caused to the settlers owing to the failure of the Government to construct roadways through the various villages; and, in view of the need for employment, whether he will take steps to have the necessary roads made immediately?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am aware of the circumstances of the case referred to by the hon. Member. Any inconvenience caused to the holders by the absence of access roads to their own holdings is due to their refusal to take advantage of the offer made by the Board of Agriculture of Grants-in-aid amounting in all to £1,155 to assist them to construct roads and paths for the townships. The Board's offer of assistance is still open for acceptance by the holders.

    EDUCATION (GRANT).
    Mr. WILLIAM MARTINasked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that expenditure on English education in the current year has been unusually low, and that this will accordingly affect the grant for education in Scotland for 1924–25; and whether, in view of the Government's intention to encourage education authorities to be more progressive, he can give any hope of the educational grant being in any way increased beyond the statutory percentage for next year?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The necessary calculations, which are somewhat intricate, have not yet been completed, but I am glad to say that there is no reason to believe that the amount of money available for distribution to Scottish education authorities will be less in 1924–25 than it was in 1923–24. I do not consider it prudent to say more at present.

    HERRING FISHERY (AIRCRAFT ASSISTANCE).
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is prepared to renew negotiations with the Air
    2128
    Ministry with a view to carrying out experimental flights over the waters to the North of Scotland for the purpose of locating shoals of fish during the summer herring fishing season?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The Fishery Board are already in communication with the Air Ministry with a view to ascertaining whether any arrangements for such experiments in Scottish waters will be practicable.

    RENTS (UNEMPLOYED PERSONS).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he will take steps to secure that all rents of persons who are unemployed will be paid as long as their unemployment continues?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am at present con sidering whether it will be possible to take any steps in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice which I mentioned in this question of rents being paid as long as people are unemployed is in operation in England, and why should it not be so in Scotland?
    Mr. ADAMSON: In my answer to my; hon. Friend, I have said that I am considering that point with the authorities concerned.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that a serious situation is arising in connection with this matter in Scotland which is likely to disturb the peace, particularly in Clydebank and Dumbarton; and what steps, if any, he intends to take in view of that situation to allay the feelings and to meet the wishes of the tenants?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am well aware, of the seriousness of the situation, and I am at the present time considering the point raised in the question with the authorities involved.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to make a statement of the Government's intended action?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I cannot say. I think my hon. and gallant Friend had better wait and see. I am acting as quickly as I can.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, whether in view of the great urgency and the danger to the public peace in and around Glasgow in connection with this question, due to the fact that people are being evicted from their homes, I should be in order in moving the Adjournment of the House?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Government have been asked to make a change, but they have not at present made a change in the existing situation. There is nothing to justify a Motion for the Adjournment.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: There are 72 tenants in the Clydebank constituency who are to be evicted from their homes this week. That situation is likely to cause a grave breach of the peace, and may I ask whether in view of that situation I am justified in moving the Adjournment?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the proper time to discuss the question of the Adjournment during Questions, or at the end of Questions?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is usual at the end of Questions.
    At the end of Questions:
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply given by the Secretary for Scotland in reference to the evictions which are pending in Scotland, I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House at a quarter past eight this evening to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is not a matter on which the Adjournment can be asked under Standing Order No. 10. The hon. Member is dealing with a situation which, as I understand, does not arise out of any act of the present Minister, but arises from something in which the present Minister has taken no part. It is only for something alleged to be done or left undone on the part of a Minister that the Adjournment can be asked.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the situation of grave disorder which is likely to arise owing to the impending eviction of these 72 people, and in view of your previous rulings granting the Adjournment when similar things have happened in Russia or Germany, why cannot we have
    2130
    the Adjournment now? I have heard the Adjournment given on much less important things.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not refer to any of my rulings in that way.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I am sorry if I have misunderstood you, but in view of the fact that 72 people in the constituency of Clyde Bank are on the point of being evicted from their homes, and in view of the fact that the Secretary for Scotland holds out to those people no hope of immediate action to keep them in their homes, do not these circumstances constitute a matter of urgent public importance at the present moment?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that they do under the Rule.
    Mr. MILLS: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the facts brought to our notice by the hon. Member for Gorballs (Mr. Buchanan), what steps he proposes to take to deal with the continued obstruction to the Rent Restrictions Bill upstairs?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Not at this stage.

    VETERINARY COLLEGES (GRANTS).
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Secretary for Scotland if he will explain why, in the recent allocation of grants by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, £3,500 was granted to the Edinburgh Veterinary College and only £100 to the same work in Glasgow; and will he state on what basis these grants are made?
    Mr. ADAMS0N: As the reply is a long one, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to the hon. Members for the Bridgeton Division and for North Lanark on the 26th February and the 4th March. The grants in question made from the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, were for different purposes. £3,500 was paid to the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College, Edinburgh, in March, 1923, to liquidate a bank overdraft. Grants for the same purpose of £1,325 in October, 1920, and £271 in March, 1923, were made from other funds

    2131
    to the Glasgow Veterinary College. The grant of £100 to the Glasgow Veterinary College was made in 1923 to equip a laboratory urgently required because of the temporary occupation of part of the college buildings by the Animal Diseases Research Association. These grants, which are over and above an annual contribution made by the Board for maintenance expenditure at each of the colleges, were made with due regard to the amount of the funds available and to the present urgent needs of the institutions concerned.

    POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS ACT, 1921.
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish parish councils have been consulted as to the proposed continuation of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1921, until 15th May, 1925; whether any representations have been received from parish councils against the continuation of the provisions of this Act; and how many parish councils have indicated their approval of such continuation?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The extent of unemployment renders it necessary to continue the powers of parish councils to relieve the able-bodied unemployed. I have received representations from about ten parish councils against the continuance of the Act. No written representations in favour of its continuance have been addressed to me, but I think that most of the parish councils recognise that such continuance will be necessary.
    Mr. MILLAR: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that effect should be given to the representations which he has received against the continuance of this Statute, and will he take that into consideration?
    Mr. ADAMSON: That will be given consideration.

    DISTRESS (WESTERN ISLES).
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the exceptional circumstances which prevail in the Western Isles, he will arrange that a part of the recent grant of £100,000 will be set aside for the purpose of giving free seed oats and seed
    2132
    potatoes to really necessitous crofters in order that they may not be dependent upon private charity?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I would refer to my replies yesterday to the right hon. Member for Argyllshire, in which I gave particulars of the measures that are being taken. I have no reason to suppose that those measures will be inadequate to meet the situation. I cannot consent to set aside for the benefit of a particular district any part of the funds provided by the Government, and I am not prepared to assent to the suggestion that the assistance which the Government is giving may not suitably be supplemented, where necessary, from other sources.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. CLARKEasked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health if he is aware that certain municipal authorities have decided to proceed with a housing scheme which includes a number of two-apartment houses, despite the fact that approximately there are 50 per cent. of one- and two-roomed houses in the burghs; and what action does he propose to take in order to enforce a minimum standard of three-apartment houses?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am aware that certain municipal authorities propose to proceed with a housing scheme which includes a number of two-apartment houses. As regards the latter part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 6th instant showing that the number of two-apartment houses in any municipal scheme will be restricted to a maximum of 25 per cent.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (SECONDARY EDUCATION).
  Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, seeing that children who have not attended secondary schools are ineligible for employment in the Post Office and other Departments of the public service, he will consider whether this handicap can be removed in the interests of children showing merit and promise?
  Mr. GRAHAM: It is understood that in pursuance of a recommendation by a subcommittee

  2133
  of the Post Office Whitley Council candidates for nomination to the Civil Service Commissioners for the situation of sorting clerk and telegraphist in certain smaller provincial offices are recruited from local secondary schools. The juvenile classes of boy messengers and girl probationers from which entrants to large classes of the Post Office establishment are promoted are drawn very generally from pupils of elementary schools, and it is not the case that children who have not attended secondary schools are debarred from employment in other Departments of the Civil Service.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    PIT PONIES.
    Mr. EDMUND HARVEYasked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department is undertaking any measures to deal with cases of cruelty to pit ponies?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The hon Member is, I am sure, aware that active measures in this matter are constantly being taken by the Mines Department, and I am considering whether any additional safeguards for the ponies are necessary.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Is the hon. Member aware of the cruelties inflicted upon women and children on account of the low wages paid in the mines?
    Mr. BALFOURasked the Secretary for Mines how many prosecutions and convictions there have been during the year 1923 in respect of cruelty to pit ponies, distinguished clearly between prosecutions of owners or managers and prosecutions of miners, drivers, or putters?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Against the management there were five prosecutions under the Coal Mines Act in respect of the treatment of pit ponies, and four convictions; against employés there were 23 prosecutions and 21 convictions. Prosecutions under the Protection of Animals Act are not required to be reported to my inspectors, and I have therefore no record of them.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Member assure the House that the condition
    2134
    of pit ponies is being steadily improved?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, I can.

    WELFARE FUND.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet considered the extension of the number of years for which the Miners' Welfare Fund shall apply; and, if so, will he state what conclusion he has come to?
    Mr. SHINWELL: I propose to consult the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation on this matter at the earliest opportunity.

    WORKING HOURS.
    Mr. SMILLIEasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the 1923 Report of the Divisional Inspector of Mines for Scotland, to the effect that he has received many complaints in regard to men working longer hours than are allowed by the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1908, and the Coal Mines Act, 1919, and that when investigation was made it was usually claimed that the judgment in the Roger v. Stevenson, 1912, case covered the cases; and whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to secure that the intention of the Acts referred to is carried out?
    Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, Sir. Proceedings in the High Court were successfully taken by my Department in 1922 to secure that the decision in Roger v. Stevenson should not be followed at any rate in the English Courts. My hon. Friend has already been assured that we will take proceedings with the same object in the Scottish Courts on any case in which the circumstances are appropriate and the evidence is clear and reliable.

    COMPETENCY CERTIFICATE.
    Mr. CLIMIEasked the Secretary for Mines if he will, in the interests of the safety of men, be prepared to make the necessary alteration in General Rule 47 of the Coal Mines Act that the official defined in that Act as intermediate between the firemen and under-manager should be required to hold at least a second-class certificate of competency?
    Mr. SHINWELL: This question was very thoroughly considered in 1921, and again by my predecessor towards the end of last year; and the decision was adverse

    2135
    to the proposal. But I shall, of course, be glad to consider any representations that may be made to me on the subject.

  MINES INSPECTION, CUMBERLAND.
  Mr. GAVAN-DUFFYasked the Secretary for Mines if he can state how many iron-ore mines and other mines governed by the provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Act exist in Scotland, and where they are situated; whether, seeing that the junior inspector of mines now imported into Cumberland has had 10 weeks of experience in iron-ore mining, but not as an iron-ore miner, he will say what guarantee exists to the workers in those mines that their lives and limbs are safeguarded by practical inspection; whether he is aware that the sub-inspector now imported into Cumberland from Cleveland has not been governed there by any other than the Coal Mines Regulation Act; if he will give the names and places of the mines where he gained experience in iron-ore mines: and what was the nature of his experience?
  Mr. SHINWELL: It would take too long to read out particulars of the 22 metalliferous mines in Scotland; my hon. Friend will find them in the official Mines List. I can give no guarantee that inspection alone can safeguard the lives and limbs of miners. Mines in Cleveland, like all stratified ironstone mines, are governed by the Act of 1911. The sub-inspector in question was a miner and deputy in the Easton Mine, Middlesbrough.
  Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: Does the hon. Member agree with his own statement that experience of the iron-ore mines is enough to qualify for an inspector of mines?
  Mr. SHINWELL: I have no recollection of having made a statement to that effect.
  Mr. GAVAN-DUFFY: You did.

  DINORWIC QUARRIES, CARNARVON (FATAL ACCIDENT).
  Mr. OWENasked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been
  2136
  called to a fatal accident at the Dinorwic quarries, Carnarvonshire, on Friday, 29th February; whether he is aware that this is the fourth fatal accident which has occurred in Carnarvonshire quarries already this year; and whether, in view of the frequency of these accidents, he will say when it is proposed to put into operation the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Metalliferous Mines and Quarries?
  Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, Sir, I am aware of those regrettable accidents. The revised code of special rules has now been completed and sent to representative associations of the industry. I hope it will command sufficient agreement to enable me to establish it for individual quarries as rapidly as possible.

  TRANSPORT.

    ST. PAUL'S BRIDGE.
    Sir EDWARD ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration an application from the City of London for an advance from the Road Fund towards the cost of the proposed St. Paul's bridge or its approaches; if so, whether he can state the estimated total cost of the bridge and the approaches, including the acquisition of land and property and compensation for disturbance; whether he proposes to seek Treasury sanction to a grant from the Road Fund to the bridge or approaches; and, if so, of how much?
    The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): A grant, limited to a maximum of £866,000, has been offered from the Road Fund, with Treasury-sanction, towards the cost of formation of road approaches to the proposed St. Paul's bridge, including the widening of the whole length of Aldersgate Street, as and when opportunity offers. I am not in a position at present to give any estimate of the probable total cost of the bridge and approaches.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Ministry made this offer in connection with the St. Paul's Bridge?
    Mr. GOSLING: No. I cannot state the date.

    GLASGOW-EDINBURGH ROAD.
    Sir E. ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport what is the maximum number of men it is hoped to employ at any one time this winter on the Glasgow-Edinburgh scheme; and what percentage of this number will be skilled road men and what percentage will be unemployed normally engaged in other occupations?
    Mr. GOSLING: The local authorities concerned have not yet reached a sufficiently advanced stage in their preparations to enable me to give the information asked for in the question.
    Sir E. ILIFFEasked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated total cost, including land, of the proposed Glasgow-Edinburgh road scheme; and what proportions of that cost it is proposed shall be borne by the local authorities, by the Road Fund, and by the Treasury, respectively?
    Mr. GOSLING: Until tenders have been received it is impossible to give any close estimate of the total cost, but it is anticipated that it will be in the neighbourhood of £2,000,000. Having regard to the fact that the local authorities are contributing towards works outside their own areas, it is agreed that the Road Fund shall provide 75 per cent. of the cost, the remainder being borne by the local authorities.

    PEDAL CYCLISTS (LIGHTING).
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Minister of Transport whether it is his intention to include in the proposed Bill dealing with road traffic any alteration in the present lightning regulation for pedal cyclists; and, if so, will he consent to receive a deputation from the recognized associations representing cyclists before introducing his Bill?
    Mr. GOSLING: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the proposed London Traffic Bill. If this assumption is correct, I may say that it is not proposed in that Bill to modify in any way the existing law with regard to the lighting or road vehicles.
    Mr. THOMSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question is intended to refer to the Road Bill, which is to be introduced following on the recommendations of the Committee that sat last year.
    Mr. GOSLING: There is no proposal to lay any Bill before the House.

    RAILWAY STAFFS (SUPERANNUATION).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the superannuated staff of the railways who retired upon the pre-War scale of pensions are still awaiting an adequate settlement; and will he approach the rail way companies and try to secure that effect should be given to the unanimous Resolution of this House which was passed in March, 1920?
    Mr. GOSLING: I have no precise information as to the position of superannuated railway servants who retired upon the pre-War scale of pensions but I understand that some of the Bailway Companies are paying sums supplementary to the amounts which such pensioners are entitled to receive from the various superannuation funds. I have no power to intervene in the matter, but I am forwarding a copy of the hon. and gallant Member's question and this reply to the Railway Companies' Association.

    LONDON AND MANCHESTER MOTOR-WAY.
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Minister of Transport whether the Government have reached any decision as to affording assistance to the proposed motor-way between London and Manchester?
    Mr. GOSLING: The Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee have had the Northern and Western Motor-way scheme before them and have given very careful consideration to it, but have been compelled to notify the promoters that on business grounds they cannot recommend a guarantee. The Government is not prepared therefore to give any assistance.

  MOTOR TAXATION.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURYasked the Minister of Transport how many meetings the Committee that is sitting on the question of motor taxation have held since 1st January, 1924, and how many meetings were held in the six months up to 31st December, 1923: and whether, after two years, there is any intention of issuing an interim Report?
  Mr. GOSLING: The Committee have held three meetings since 1st January,

  2139
  1924, and six meetings were held in the last six months of 1923. No meetings were held between 31st July and 19th October, 1923, owing to the holiday season. The first effective meeting, for the consideration of alternative systems of taxation to the one at present in force, could not be held before January, 1923, as it was necessary to allow ample time for the motoring organisations and others to submit alternative proposals. I understand from the Chairman that he hopes that a final Report of the Committee will be available in June, and I am satisfied that in the circumstances it would not be desirable that any interim report, which would necessarily be incomplete, should be issued at the present time.
  Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it a perfect scandal that this Committee which has been sitting for two years has only held six meetings in six months?

  POSTAL SERVANTS (COMPENSATION).
  Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the criticisms of his decision in the case of a London postman who was killed while riding a bicycle to the pillar-box he had to clear, he will reconsider the official decision that the dependants of this man are not entitled to any compensation because he met with his fatal accident in the 20 minutes immediately preceding the time at which he came on duty; whether he is aware that the courts have held in a similar case that the work of such a man is in fulfilment of the implied direction of his employers; and whether he will obtain further legal advice as to whether his policy in this particular case is justifiable and just?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): The case to which the hon. Baronet refers was the subject; of a judicial decision in the Greenwich County Court of the 22nd February, when the court decided that the accident to the deceased postman did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Unless and until the decision of the court is reversed on appeal I regret that I can take no further action.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Is it not the fact that in other Departments of the Civil Service when a man meets with an accident on his way to his duty that is considered as being in the course of his employment?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: I shall be pleased to make inquiries as to what is done in similar cases by other Departments, but I do not think I have any power to override a decision of the Court.
  Sir J. REMNANT: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to what is the practice in the other Departments, and, if he satisfies himself that the general practice is as I have stated, will he make proper compensation?
  Mr. W. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a moral obligation?
  Mr. HARTSHORN: The deceased was killed last year, and the case was entered in Court before I went to the Department. I can only repeat what I have said, that I am unable to do anything unless and until the decision of the County Court is reversed by the Appeal Court.
  Sir J. REMNANT: How can the man afford to take an appeal?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. HOGGE: I beg to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government propose to take the Financial Resolution in reference to the West Indian Islands to-night?
Mr. CLYNES: It will be impossible to take any such business unless the private Member's Motion is disposed of before 11 o'clock.

FLEETS (BRITISH EMPIRE AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Return ordered,
"showing the Fleets of the British Empire, United States of America, Japan, France, Italy, Russia, and Germany, on the 1st day of February, 1924, omitting obsolete ships of all classes, and distinguishing, both built and building, Battleships, Battle Cruisers, Cruisers, Light Cruisers, Cruiser Minelayers, Armoured Coast Defence vessels and Monitors, Aircraft Carriers, Flotilla Leaders, Torpedo-boat Destroyers, Torpedo

2141
Boats, Submarines, Sloops, Coastal Motor Boats, Gunboats and Despatch Vessels, and River Gunboats:
"Return to show date of Laying down, date of Completion, Displacement, Horsepower, type of Machinery and Fuel, and Armaments, reduced to one common scale."
(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 67, of Session 1923).—[Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt.]

NOTICES OF MOTION.
  PENSIONS TRIBUNALS.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the final decisions of Pensions Tribunals, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Foot.]
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to the Over-capitalisation of Industry, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Tout.]
  SLUMS.
  On this day fortnight, to call attention to Slum conditions, and to move a Resolution.—[Mr. Royce, on, behalf of Dr. Haden Guest.]

ICE. CREAM AND MINERAL WATERS (HOURS OF SALE).
Mr. BECKER: I beg to move,
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable persons to sell to the public Ice Cream and Mineral Waters between the hours of 9.30 p.m. and midnight, both on and off the premises."
This is a very simple Bill, and its object is to encourage the development of ice cream and soda fountains in this country. That would be an undoubted benefit.
Mr. PRINGLE: Is this Bill not for the benefit of aliens?
Mr. BECKER: The idea is to develop the ice cream and soda water business so that the young people of the country can have an alternative to the public-house. Under the Shops (Early Closing) Act of 1921 you can sell mineral waters for consumption on the premises at all hours of the day, but you cannot sell mineral waters for consumption off the premises after 9.30 p.m. you can sell ice cream, if part of a meal, after 9.30 on the premises, but if it is not part of a meal it cannot
2142
be sold after 9.30 by caterers or by anyone else. That is a purely vexatious infringement of the liberties of people. I hope that the Bill will be given facilities to pass. The Bill would not entail longer hours for shop assistants. Caterers have their caterers' licences now, and can keep their premises open until 10 or 10.30, but they are not now allowed to sell these two commodities after 9.30 p.m. In the summer, when daylight saving is in operation, 9.30 by the clock is really 8.30 by the sun, and the sale of these commodities is really stopped at 8.30 p.m. Caterers nowadays often get their ice cream from big manufacturers. There is enough ice packed round the cream to last a day. If the cream is not sold at the end of the day it melts during the night, bacteria develop in the melted cream, and on the following morning it is mixed with fresh ice cream and sold to customers, who, of course, absorb the bacteria. Had the ice cream been sold the previous evening when it was still in a frozen state the germs would not have been able to develop.
I believe it was an official of the Ministry of Health who once said that ice cream was one of the finest articles of food that one could have. In the summer we are to have the Wembley Exhibition open. I wonder what will be thought by our friends from the Dominions and Crown Colonies, and by foreigners from all over the world, when they find that they are not allowed to sit in a café and obtain ice cream when they want it, or, if they wish to entertain their friends at home in the evening, that they cannot get the mineral waters they require. Under the provisions of the Defence of the Realm Act of 1920 a caterer is not allowed to sell refreshments off the premises after 9.30 except newly-cooked provisions, tripe or soft goods. The definition of soft fruit, however, includes plums, but not pears; apricots, but not apples. Tobacco supplied at a meal for immediate consumption was deemed to form part of the meal, though the ordinary tobacconist was not allowed to sell it. Ice cream, on the other hand, or sweets or other sugar confectionery, could not be sold, because they were expressly excluded from the definition of the term "refreshments." Then came the Act of 1921, providing that fruit, table waters, sweets, chocolates, or other sugar confectionery (but not tobacco)

2143
might be sold till 9.30 on week-days other than Saturdays, and till 10 p.m. on Saturdays. So now the shopkeeper has three time-tables. Up to 8 o'clock he can sell all sorts of refreshments. After eight o'clock he can sell only newly-cooked provisions, tripe, fruit, confectionery, and table waters. After 9.30 he may sell certain kinds of fruit and newly-cooked provisions or tripe, but after 8 o'clock it is an offence to sell for consumption off the premises bread and cheese, saveloys, ham, corned beef, meat pies, tarts, biscuits. After 9.30 it is an offence to sell for consumption oft the premises a bottle of ginger beer, lemonade, or an ice cream.
I agree that it is humorous to think that, with a perfectly sane Constitution and a well-regulated House of Commons, Regulations which make us all roar with laughter when they are recited should have been allowed to get on to the Statute Book. These particular Regulations are still in operation. The Bill contains only one Clause, which provides that mineral waters and ice cream shall be sold at all hours of the day. It would be an incentive to temperance. In the provision of temperance drinks this country lags far behind others. In a constituency like that which I have the honour to represent people spend much time on the river in the summer, and the restrictions I have mentioned are irksome. You can buy beer and take it with you on the river, but you cannot get ginger-beer when you want it. These restrictions are absurd, and I hope that one day we shall have them entirely removed, and go back to the Shops (Early Closing) Act of 1912, under which local authorities could fix trading conditions and hours of opening.
Mr. HOFFMAN: I beg to oppose the Motion. I hope that the House will not be misled by the hon. Member's inordinate love of ice cream and soda water. It is a fact that if the sale of these commoditites were allowed until any time at night it would increase the hours of work of those who sell them.
Mr. BECKER: They would not work any longer, because these caterers keep open now.
Mr. HOFFMAN: There has been issued to the Members of the House a circular which explains in detail the object of those who have requested the hon. Member
2144
to bring this Motion forward. In that circular, which has been issued by a person named Pompa, Secretary of the Ice Cream Vendors' Association, it is stated that the object of the Measure is to allow the sale of non-intoxicating liquors off the premises until any time at night. That sale now is not allowed after half past 9 o'clock. If, therefore, the sale of these articles is excluded from the present Order, the hours of those who sell them must also be extended.
Mr. BECKER: You can buy them now on the premises after half past nine, but not off the premises.
Mr. HOFFMAN: I suggest that the Act of 1921 ought not to be niggled at in the fashion in which the hon. Member wishes. If there be anything wrong with the Act of 1921—and I am not disputing for a single moment that there are not difficulties In respect to it—those difficulties are not going to be overcome in the piecemeal manner in which the hon. Member seems to wish to deal with them. He is constantly asking the leave of the House to introduce Measures of this sort to try and alter the balance of the 1921 Act. He has even suggested that presently he may introduce a Measure to allow people to sell tripe after half-past nine at night. There should be a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the whole of the 1921 Act and the whole of the Shop Acts in order to safeguard the interests of those concerned, and those concerned are the shop assistants as much as anyone else. I therefore respectfully ask the House not to agree to this Bill being printed—it is a waste of public money—or to allow it to go abroad that the House considers that this reform is necessary without making proper inquiry.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Becker, Mr. Rawson, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy Gaunt, Mr. Cassels, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Penny, and Mr. Turner-Samuels.

ICE. CREAM AND MINERAL WATERS (HOURS OF SALE).
  ICE CREAM AND MINERAL WATER SALES BILL,
  "to enable persons to sell to the public ice cream and mineral waters between the hours of 9.30 p.m. and midnight, both on and off the premises," presented accordingly, and read the First time: to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]
  REGISTRATION OF THEATRICAL EMPLOYEES BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Friday, 21st March, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  POST OFFICE (LONDON) RAILWAY BILL,
  "to extend the time for the completion of works under the Post Office (London) Railway Act, 1913," presented by Mr. HARTSHORN; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]
  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    Mr. NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill): Mr. Gates, Mr. Percy Harris, Sir William Joynson- Hicks, Mr. Keens, Mr. Lansbury, Miss Lawrence, Lord Eustace Percy, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Wheatley, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

    STANDING COMMITTEE A.
    Mr. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Representation of the People Act (1918) Amendment Bill): Mr. William Murdoch Adam-son, Mr. Amery, Sir William Bull, Sir Geoffrey Butler, Lord Hugh Cecil, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Foot, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Mr. Geoffrey Howard, Miss Jewson, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Philip Oliver, Mr. Annesley Somerville, Mr. Turner, and Mrs. Wintringham.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    AIR ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
    Order for Committee read.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Leach): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    A review of the work of the Air Ministry for the past year and of the policy for the future is profoundly interesting. No one, whatever his views, can remain unaffected by the magnificence of this organisation and the spirit of service which pervades it from top to bottom. The ex-Minister for Air (Sir S. Hoare) has left many proofs of his enthusiasm for and devotion to his office. He worked hard, and equipped himself with much knowledge. He, therefore, became a difficult man for me to follow. A few short weeks' experience leaves me at a disadvantage over my predecessor to do full justice to the story, and I must ask for the indulgence of the House, and, in particular, of the right hon. Gentleman for any shortcomings in this survey. We have issued, along with the Estimates, a Memorandum by the Secretary of State, which shows an increase in our Estimates of £787,000 gross, and £2,500,000 net, due principally to the approved expansion of the Air Force. I do not want to burden my story with financial details, which can be discussed later.

    OVERSEAS WORK.
    Let mo refer first of all to the overseas work. During the past year we have maintained eight squadrons of the Air Force in Iraq. They are the central element of the British garrison in that mandated territory. Their presence has enabled us to reduce the number of ground troops in the garrison. In the past nine months that reduction has been from nine to four battalions, and we hope still further to reduce it in the coming year. The work of the Air Force in Iraq has often been discussed in this House. The duty of pacifying that territory and of creating stable civilisation there has been imposed upon us. Pleasant or unpleasant, we have to undertake that
    2178
    work. I ought to read to the House an extract from, a very recent despatch from the High Commissioner in Iraq to the Colonial Office. He says:
    "During this period the main factor in the pacification of the country has been the Royal Air Force."
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that the hon. Gentleman' is reading an extract from a despatch. Is he prepared to lay the despatch upon the Table?
    Mr. LEACH: I shall have to get the consent of the Colonial Office.
    Mr. PRINGLE: No.
    Mr. LEACH: I have the Minister's consent to the extract.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. I wish to save him from an embarrassment, of which I think he is unaware.
    Mr. LEACH: My desire was to quote the Commissioner's story of the good work done by the Air Force in Iraq in substantiation of my argument. The officers of this force in Iraq are people of kindliness and good will, and they are entrusted with an exceedingly difficult duty. I want the House to believe that they are not engaged in shedding the blood of defenceless natives, nor are they recklessly using the air weapon for the purpose of terrorisation. Perhaps one day it may be possible, with the foundation stone which they are laying, to produce a finished structure of which we shall have no need to be ashamed. The Iraq Air Force has other uses. On one occasion it conveyed medical relief by air to the scene of a serious railway accident. On another occasion it carried some 200 fever patients nearly 200 miles to the nearest hospital. That was from Kurdistan to Baghdad. The only alternative was by mules and donkeys over mountain paths, which meant inevitable death to large numbers of these patients. The House will therefore see that the civil administration of Iraq is immensely convenienced by these transport facilities. In the mandated territories of Palestine and Trans-Jordania, the air organisation continues to be a factor making for peace and good civil administration. The necessity for an offensive has only once arisen, and the revolt on that occasion was subdued inside 24 hours with armoured cars and

    2179
    one aeroplane. In Trans-Jordania we have only one flight of aeroplanes and one section of armoured cars.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman left Iraq, because, if so, I am sorry that he did not say anything in detail about the alleged tax gathering operation?
    Mr. LEACH: That matter has been discussed so frequently in the House, and the facts have been so clearly stated, that I thought it was unnecessary.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It has not been discussed under this Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Then the last Government were right.
    Mr. LEACH: In Palestine we have one squadron of aeroplanes which has enabled us to effect a reduction of the ground forces there also. One infantry battalion and one armoured car company only have been necessary there during the year. In Palestine now we have only one squadron of aeroplanes, one armoured car and one cavalry regiment. At Aden we have one flight of aeroplanes. Depredations by two tribes on the Hinterland trade routes were dealt with on one occasion about a year ago. Two machines sufficed to solve this difficulty, and both tribes surrendered on the following day. In Egypt and Somaliland things have been peaceful, and in India we have six squadrons. Last year my predecessor spoke of the deficiencies in the equipment there. These are being made good, and the efficiency of the squadrons has made a very marked advance during the current year. The Peace Treaty with Turkey has enabled us to remove four squadrons from Constantinople; three of these have been brought home and one has been sent to Egypt.

    CO-OPERATION WITH NAVY AND ARMY.
    I should like to say a few words with regard to co-operative work for the Army and Navy. The units for the Navy are organised now on a flight basis instead of a squadron basis. This has been in order to meet the tactical requirements of the Fleet. A flight usually consists of six machines, and we have arranged to form approximately five new flights. That is an increase over and above previous
    2180
    allocation and it brings the total flights associated with this work up to 21—in effect, 121 first line machines. This number includes only initial first line equipment. It takes no account of reserve machines and engines held for the purposes of maintaining units up to strength. All this means extra specialised training of a large number of officers and men, and the results have been profoundly good. A number of deck landing trials have been made and experiments have been conducted with seven different types of aeroplanes. These have been proceeding throughout the year, and my Department believes that this country is well ahead of any other in all branches of naval aviation. The method of co-operative working between the Air Force and the Navy has been laid down by the National Imperial Defence Committee and accepted by both Departments. We hope it will be in full working operation in the near future. The question has often been discussed in this House and I suppose it has been the subject of many joyous frays, but the combat, I hope, is now ended. In regard to co-operation with the Army, the release of the Constantinople squadrons has improved our positions. This year one squadron has been formed for the Northern Command. This will bring the Army co-operation squadrons at home up to four.

    AIR POLICY.
    I now come to a subject which forms the centre feature of the Estimates and indeed of the whole Air policy, and that is the enlargement of the home Air Force. Many friends of this Government are anxiously asking, "How can a Labour Government justify itself in demanding an increase of Air armaments?" They are saying, "We looked to Labour to lead the way to disarmament, and are you not leading the way in the other direction? What about your professions, your conference resolutions, and your speeches?" I for one am rather glad of the chance of discussing this matter. The first thing I want to point out is that we are not increasing armaments; we are decreasing them. It is true we are adjusting them between the three Services, but the net result is a considerable decrease of war expenditure during the coming year. Again, the Labour party has never urged the disarmament

    2181
    of Great Britain irrespective of what other countries might do. That is not a practical proposition, and I do not for a moment delude myself into thinking that the country would ever accept it. That way may be the Sermon on the Mount way—I do not know—but it is a way that is barred to us. A few days ago certain remarks of mine on Air policy in this House were severely criticised. It was represented that the presence of a pacifist at the Air Ministry was incongruous if not, indeed, improper. I cannot see that. I regard it as most appropriate that the policy of the fighting services, which is entrusted also; with the development of peaceful aviation, should have the colour of peace and good will given to its work. Therefore, I have no regrets for what I said. International disarmament is our watchword. Everybody wants it, but the point is that nobody can have it and we must set ourselves to find why. It is not my purpose to render my country defenceless. I am making no proposals to act alone. The field of diplomacy must be explored to induce all nations to see that armaments do not protect. National security is a desirable thing, but we have not got it, and no country has ever had it, and the more we try for it the further we seem to get away from it. Surely the most ardent advocate of great armaments must agree with me in that. I fear also that certain remarks of mine about the New Testament have alarmed hon. Members. I gather that the Sermon on the Mount is not practical Parliamentary politics. I gather its relation to the Air Estimates is remote and out of place. In that view hon. Members may be right or wrong, but if all Europe came to change its mind about the value of armaments because the British Labour Government showed it a better way, this House, too, might come to change its mind and the traditions on the subject are already crumbling. In this connection I welcome the recent declaration by Viscount Cecil of Chelwood:
    "It was surely a great thing that a British Government announced that its foreign policy was to be a League policy and that it intended to do everything it could to strengthen the authority of the League. War was an evil which could only he prevented by the League."
    If only the League can prevent war then obviously single nation disarmament will
    2182
    not do. It may be that some form of international government is the only remedy. The League of Nations at all events promises that. For the same reason that Scotland will never again go to war with England—
    Mr. PRINGLE: Do not be too sure.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: We have finally defeated them.
    Mr. LEACH: —it may well be that France will never go to war with Britain. A week ago I was bitterly assailed in this House by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Major General Seely) for some remarks on Air defence. I think he imagined a desire on my part to tamper with the provisions of the air defence scheme. I read into his speech a fear that I was a most unfit person to look after this great Department. He spoke with authority. Was he not himself Under-Secretary for Air and Vice-President of the Air Council in the year 1919–20? Was that not also the year in which we virtually scrapped the Home Defence Air Force? It may be that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been eaten with remorse for five years and if I have been the means of helping him to relieve his conscience about it, I feel I have been of service.

    HOME DEFENCE.
    The number of new squadrons to be formed for home defence this year is eight. By March, 1925, we shall thus have 18 towards the 52 outlined within the next five years or thereabouts. The first interim Geddes Report on National Expenditure presented, at the beginning of 1922 laid down the Cabinet view at that time, that "no great war need be anticipated for at least 10 years." It further recommended that the Air Force Estimates be reduced from £15,500,000 to £10,000,000. We have departed from that recommendation. The Labour party assumed office almost immediately following the adoption by this House of an enlargement scheme and decided not to interfere with that scheme. The will of the House I take to be still in favour of that scheme, but our condition is that if any international move for common reduction comes along, we shall be free to accept it and in that case if circumstances warrant a deviation we shall hold ourselves free to bring such

    2183
    circumstances before this House and act accordingly. I feel sure the House will see the reasonableness of that view. The problem of forming these new squadrons is a formidable one. The late Government decided that they should be organised partly on a Territorial or Reserve basis. This means legislation and the Auxiliary Air Force and Air Force Reserve Bill will, therefore, shortly be introduced. I do not mean to deal with that Measure here, but I may say that out of the 34 squadrons still to be formed, 13 will be on this new basis. A great deal of civilian labour for repairs to aircraft and engines will be required and new ground personnel will create further employment.
    In the process of forming these new squadrons the initial training of pilots will proceed on the spot. By such measures we hope the increase will be effected without a large addition to the existing service training establishments and stores depots. We have four flying training schools and it may be necessary to form another, but we hope not. Such overhead charges will therefore get cheaper as the enlargement proceeds. Negotiations for the purchase of six new aerodromes are also proceeding. Approximately 23 new stations with the requisite sheds, workshops, and barrack accommodation will ultimately be required. Difficulties surrounding the acquisition of sites have also to be overcome. Some of the sites disposed of after the War may be to re-purchase. Local interests may occasionally be against us. We hope to be met in such cases in a right spirit by the people concerned. A joint Air Ministry and War Office Committee has been appointed to inquire into the organisation of the higher commands, communications and questions of ground troops and general co-operation.

    ORGANISATION, RECRUITMENT, AND TRAINING.
    As to the general question of organisation, recruitment, and training, commissioned officers are divided into three classes—first, those with permanent commissions, to whom service is life progression; secondly, short service commissions, who, after five years' first line service, return to civil life, with a four
    2184
    or five years' liability in the Reserve; thirdly, those officers seconded or lent by the Army or Navy for Air service for a period, and who return to their parent services after its completion.
    The first of these classes passes through the cadet college at Cranwell. Though the college is not full, the number of candidates is steadily increasing. The quality of these men is wonderful. Entering at 17½ to 19 years of age, they pass exceedingly stiff qualifying examinations. Equally stiff medical tests ensure their complete physical fitness. They are then trained in educational subjects, aeronautical science and engineering, general science, aviation, and practical science. The sieves through which they pass ensure that we have combed the nation's young manhood and found for our Service almost a special class apart. They are our most daring, most resourceful, most physically perfect, cleanest living, and ultimately highly skilled stock. Just as war removes them, are we hit the hardest in the preservation of our national life. The parents of such boys, in this House and outside, are doubly blessed in the possession of their sons, and any Government taking advantage of them to pursue policies of aggression abroad would be guilty of odious treachery to them.
    Short service officers, to whom these remarks also apply, came into being in 1919. It was a far reaching innovation, greatly criticised at the time, but the doubts have been refuted by experience. The number and quality of candidates have shown continuous advance, and to-day we have large numbers of excellent candidates for this form of service. The national advantages gained are worth pointing out. A boy leaving school at 18 or 19 becomes at once self-supporting, and he can also put by money. He is taught to fly, he receives instruction in the mechanism and the running of aero engines, he serves overseas, and becomes acquainted with other lands, he learns habits of discipline, and he re-enters civil life at 24 or 25 with a gratuity of £75 for each year of service. A skilled, competent young man, he is then an asset to his country. On our side, as an Air Ministry, it means a smaller number of officers for whom permanent careers have to be found, and it also means a smaller number passed

    2185
    early to the retired list, because they are unable to be promoted. The Air Service is brought into closer contact with the general population by this means, and our Reserve tends to grow.
    The third class, seconded from the Army and Navy, is represented this year by 19 officers from the Army. The Naval Attachments will, we hope, be secured in the hear future.
    We are training a body of reserve pilots from the ranks of short service officers whose period of active service has expired. They are also taken from numbers of ex-officers with war experience who have re-entered the Reserve. To cope with the work of training, four civilian flying schools have been opened in the past year, and two more are projected. These four are Hendon, Bristol, Coventry, and Glasgow.
    The non-commissioned officer pilot's case is also interesting. In 1921 it was decided to reintroduce the airman pilot into the Royal Air Force. He had been nearly abolished after the Armistice. The posting of trained airmen pilots to squadrons has now commenced, and everything points to its being a success. There are now 80 fully trained with squadrons at home and abroad, 40 more are being trained, and a further 40 will commence training during the summer. The young airman mechanic thus is given a chance to distinguish himself. Some 3,000 lads are now under training as airmen, and the esprit de corps and morale are very high.
    Last year the Ministry invited Members of this House to visit those training establishments, particularly at Halton or Cranwell. May I have the pleasure of renewing that invitation on the present occasion? Probably parties of 10 Members are large enough to be taken at a time, and I think it might be desirable, in the interests of the young boys, that the visits should not take place on Saturday afternoons to deprive them of their holiday time. Any Members who avail themselves of this invitation will, I am sure, be impressed by the thoroughness of the training, and the tone and bearing of the boys. Not only do we give them a thorough technical training, but we continue their general education. This includes mathematics, drawing, elementary engineering, mechanics, electricity, English, and history. We tell them how
    2186
    the country is governed, and we give them lessons in geography and tutorial work. We train them to speak and to read, and in the general technique of study, and besides making them good airmen, we make them good citizens.
    Our training establishments have been visited during the year by representatives of several foreign Powers, and we have received a reciprocal invitation from the French Air authorities. This invitation has been accepted with great pleasure, and a small party of officers will visit France accordingly in the next few weeks. At their head will be Air Vice-Marshal Brooke Popham, Commandant of the Royal Air Force Staff College. This distinguished officer acted as Chief Technical Officer at the Air Force headquarters in France during the War, and he has many friends in the French Air Service.

    FLYING HOURS.
    The total of flying hours during the year shows a marked increase. The total hours is 50 per cent. more than it was in 1922, which again was 40 per cent. higher than in 1921. Overseas show a still higher average. There they have been flying with better climates than we possess, as well as having more exacting duties in this matter. In India the actual increase in flying hours is nearly 100 per cent. Moreover, the ratio of accidents is, I am pleased to be able to say, steadily falling. For 1923 the hours flown for each fatal accident were 54 per cent. higher than in 1922.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Do those figures cover the whole service—home and foreign alike?
    Mr. LEACH: Yes.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Has the hon. Member got the figures separated?
    Mr. LEACH: No. Criticism is from time to time directed at us in regard to the number of men on the ground, as compared with the number of qualified pilots, and I want to say that an efficient ground staff makes for safety and confidence. Nothing could be more unwise and shortsighted than to reduce the ground staff below the point of technical efficiency. The inevitable result would be more accidents, and a loss of confidence by the flying personnel in the soundness of their machines. We take

    2187
    extraordinary pains in this matter, and we must continue to do so.

    EQUIPMENT.
    The progress of equipment for 1924–25, due to the expansion scheme, is, of course, to be accelerated. Our orders to the aircraft industry this year will total £4,500,000. They will be placed so as to ensure continuity of employment so far as we can possibly do that. Three new types of machines for naval co-operation are to be used, and other new types for Army co-operation are rapidly being developed. One new type of air-cooled engine has been tried this year, and another new type is to be introduced in the coming year. One new type of water-cooled engine, and also of greater horsepower, is also being tried out.
    The trade will be interested to know that we are experimenting with metal construction on a very large scale. We are following a policy of ordering one metal aircraft to every experimental order given. The increased cost of aircraft building due to increase of size, complexity in their design, and the heavy increase of engine power necessitates research in the direction of new forms of structure. Metal lasts longer than wood, and therefore deterioration should be far less. It is rather too early to say yet, definitely, our opinion on this new form of structure, but we have rather confident hopes about it.
    In research work, which is so important a sphere of our work, the reorganisation promoted by my predecessor will come into operation this year. It will require larger expenditure, both direct and indirect, but it will spell economy in putting new machines more quickly into service. Realising, therefore, the value of this Department and its activities, we are requesting an increased amount this year.

    CIVIL AVIATION.
    As to civil aviation, the House knows that the Ministry itself conducts no services for passengers, mails or freight. That is left entirely to private enterprise, we providing aerodrome facilities. The amalgamation of four air transport companies into the Imperial Air Transport Company is due for completion at the end of this month. A subsidy of
    2188
    £1,000,000, spread over ten years, has been agreed, subject, of course, to conditions of mileage, flying, and other matters. This scheme was endorsed by the last Parliament, and it will be faithfully carried out on the part of this Government. Our principal civil aerodrome at Croydon will have to be enlarged. This means the purchase of additional land, the diversion of a public road, the reconstruction of buildings, and so on. It is proposed, therefore, to spend, in the current year, £120,000 as a first instalment. Light aeroplane trials have been carried out at Lympne during the last year with very great success. This year, therefore, we propose to hold a competition for two-seaters, under more or less similar conditions. Full details have not yet been worked out. The Air Council is anxious to form, throughout the country, light aeroplane clubs, but this scheme cannot be initiated until a dual control light aeroplane has been produced. Investigations on this matter are already afoot. The scheme will involve Government help in money and technical advice. For the present, we are not asking for money at all, but possibly a year hence, with some luck, the scheme may be ripe for presentation. The arrangements made last year for training the Royal Air Force Reserve pilots are also working well. Four schools are in existence, two more are being formed, and it is hoped that both will be functioning in the course of the next three months. Instructions will be given in twin-engine aircraft and in seaplane and boat flying. This is in addition to the syllabus laid down for the training of signal aeroplane pilots.

    AIRSHIPS.
    With regard to lighter than air work, we have given serious consideration to the airship scheme associated with the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). Airship development has not had a very happy history in this or any other country, and we think this scheme needs still more examination. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge will have full opportunity given to him of laying his view before the Cabinet Committee which is considering the whole question. Therefore, I do not feel justified in asking for any money this year for airships.
    Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is it proposed, if that scheme be approved, that it should be worked under the Air Ministry, or under the Admiralty?
    Mr. LEACH: I cannot give a definite reply as to what is being proposed. All I say is that should it become necessary later on in the year to ask for money for airship development, we shall present, I presume, a Supplementary Estimate.
    Captain BENN: For the Air Ministry?
    Mr. LEACH: Yes.
    Commander BELLAIRS: Is there any idea when the Cabinet Committee will come to a decision?
    Mr. LEACH: I do not think it is going to be very long. We are very anxious to develop civil flying. We have paid, and are continuing to pay, large sums for that purpose. As an instrument for binding the nations together it may yet rival the steamship, the railway, and the international post. We must not neglect the work of fostering it, and of helping it, if the possibility arises, to become as practical and as commonplace as the motor-car.

    METEOROLOGICAL SERVICE.
    May I say a work now about a Department of which I am rather proud? By arrangement made some five years ago, the Air Ministry provides the meteorological service of the whole country. The importance of this Department is not sufficiently realised. The public thinks of it in terms of daily newspaper weather forecasts, but its chief work is connected with aviation, shipping, agriculture, public health, and military and naval services. It is a mighty and beneficial international engine. Co-operative observations are taken simultaneously all over Europe. These are collected at a few centres and broadcasted by wireless telegraphy. Almost at once every meteorological office in Europe knows weather conditions from Spitz-bergen to Cairo, and from far out in the Atlantic to Ekaterinburg. As an instrument for prevention of accidents in aviation, it is a splendid life-saving agency. Moreover, 4,000 public-spirited observers all over the country supply us voluntarily with rainfall records; 255 of our 306 climatological stations are maintained at the cost and trouble of
    2190
    scientifically-minded private citizens; and 500 scientific officers on board our merchant ships supply us with observations from all parts of the world. Our own staff is only 270 alert, competent people doing valuable scientific work. Our debt, therefore, to this voluntary army of public-spirited people is incalculable, and may I take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of Parliament to them? In two Votes £119,000 is put down for this work. After deducting receipts, £12,500, the net cost is £106,500—a remarkably cheap and productive investment.
    At the risk of going on a little too long, I feel I must pay my tribute to the Departmental chiefs of this great organisation, the Air Ministry. Their advice, their criticism and their help are being freely rendered. I see them as superbly skilful, experienced men, fulfilling very important duties in the spirit of love of their country. They are fast becoming my friends, and I shall hope to stand by them. This survey misses out many things; it could not be otherwise. Personally, I am in a strange position. I find myself, a pacifist, pleading with the chosen representatives of my country to strengthen its Air Force. I cannot lose sight of the fact that only by agreement among the nations will the purpose that I seek be achieved. My country, in a world of fear and distrust, seeks protection in preparations of force, like all the rest pf the countries. I cannot ask it to disarm. That must come mutually, but our hopes of it continue to burn brightly. There is a world demand for it which must be met. We owe it to the 35,000 splendid young men whom we are enrolling not to lose any opportunities of exploring the possibilities. Though we may prepare for war, our motto is, "No more war." We must move towards reconciliation and the final abandonment of armaments. Scepticism, I know, still rules, but I believe its power is visibly waning. The air weapon, which it is my hard duty to ask the House to burnish and sharpen, is now become for its purpose the most dreadfully effective of them all. It is wielded by the flower of the nation's young manhood. The most supurb of our stock alone can be employed in its use. Therefore, though we are organising them, and increasing their numbers, we owe to them a sacred duty, and that duty is inseparately connected with our foreign

    2191
    policy. If our policy be aggressive or pugnacious, we play the game of treachery to these young men. If, knowing their willingness to die for their country, we took the course of arrogance, our baseness would be too great for measurement. The more we ask them to serve us, the more pacific must be our course. I am proud to belong to a Government which seeks religiously the good will of all the world.
    Mr. BATEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say something more about research?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put a question at a later stage.
    Lieut-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I can sympathise most sincerely with the request of the Under-Secretary of State for Air for the indulgence of the House in making his Estimates statement. I found myself in the same position last year when, shortly after taking office, I had to deal in detail with the very complicated service of the Air Department. I feel sure that the House will desire me to express to the hon. Member our appreciation of the way in which he has put the facts before us clearly and comprehensively, and I think, at any rate, hon. Members on my side of the House will have noted with no little satisfaction how fully and unreservedly he identified himself with the traditions of the great service that he is called upon to represent. It was a great satisfaction to me to hear his words of praise of the esprit de corps of the officers and men and the officials of the Air Ministry and the squadrons serving both at home and abroad, and, particularly, may I say, I noted with interest the remarks that he made with reference to the operations of the Air Force in Iraq. I remember so well when I sat in his place how, day after day, I was attacked for the bombing that was supposed to be going on in Iraq, and for the lives that were supposed to be sacrificed by the Air Force of the British garrison there. It was a satisfaction to me to hear the other day in the House, in answer to a question, and to hear that answer reaffirmed to-day, that there was no truth whatever in any of these charges, and that the present Government is continuing in every respect the policy that I maintained during the years in which I was in office.
    2192
    These Estimates are curious in one respect, for although they have been introduced by the Under-Secretary of State for Air, they are, with a single exception, to which I shall draw attention in a few minutes, my own Estimates. In fact, during the last two or three years, the representative of the Air Ministry in this House has introduced not his own Estimates, but the Estimates of his predecessor. As these are substantially my Estimates, perhaps the House will allow me, without accusing me of being egotistical, to say a word or two about one or two matters contained in them. I remember a year ago that, in introducing the Air Estimates, I gave the House two or three definite pledges with reference to my policy. I said, first of all, that, in my view, the Air Force was inadequate in size for its primary duty of home defence, and that it was my policy to increase it. I am glad to say that the expansion programme that I initiated is—at any rate, so far as its first stages are concerned—being carried on by my successor, and I think it is worth noting that the Air Force is being doubled, and the Home Defence Force is being increased tenfold, for a sum that is only going to add, even when the full expenditure comes into operation in three of four years' time, 30 per cent. to the total Estimates, and only 30 per cent. to the total Air personnel. I think that shows that the programme initiated by the-Government of which I was a Member was not only effective, but was certainly economical. So much for the expansion programme of the late Government, and I shall refer to one or two other features connected with it at the end of my speech.
    5.0 P.M.
    Let me now say a word about another pledge I gave to the House. I told the House that, while I was in office, I would attempt to develop in every possible way civil aviation simultaneously with the expansion of military aviation. I was successful, after many long and complicated negotiations, in bringing together the four small civil air transport companies and in helping them to amalgamate in a big and broad enterprise. I remember that, as in the case of Iraq, so in the case of the agreement with the Imperial Air Transport Company, I was attacked several times by hon. Members who now sit behind the Under-Secretary of State for Air,

    2193
    who thought that I was pushing through some gigantic financial ramp out of which a number of private people were going to make large sums of money, and as a result of which the State would suffer. It was interesting to me to hear that the Under-Secretary had no criticism to make of this arrangement to-day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late!"] I do not know if the hon. Member implies that the arrangement was a bad one. If he thinks the arrangement was a bad one, let me remind him of its salient features. In the first place, the now company is to fly an average, not of 500,000 or 600,000 miles, which is now the average mileage, but 1,000,000 miles. That is an improvement. Secondly, before this arrangement, the State was giving in a kind of haphazard, hand-to-mouth manner £200,000 a year in subsidies. Under my arrangement I gave £100,000, repayable out of the profits of the future, in other words, no subsidy at all but simply a loan of £100,000 a year. I venture to think that was an improvement. Thirdly, I insisted that, as evidence of the bona fides of the undertaking and the public interest in it, no less a sum than £500,000 of private capital should be invested in it. Lastly—and here again this was a new condition—I insisted that all the machines and the personnel upon them should be available to the State in any time of national emergency.
    I think those facts are sufficient to show that, so far from having made an arrangement which merited the criticisms of hon. Gentlemen behind the Under-Secretary of State for Air, we were enabled to carry through an agreement not only economically but one certain to lead to great aviation developments over the face of Europe in future at a very small expense to the Treasury of this country. That brings me to the third undertaking that I gave last year. I told the House that, so far as I could, I would develop once more the policy of airship operations. Let me remind hon. Members of the position of airships as I found it 18 months ago. Airships had been set aside in 1919, but from 1919 onwards there had been a whole series of inquiries as to whether it would not be possible to resume their operation, not as a part of the military operations of the Air Ministry, but by means of commercial enterprise. One of the early acts of the late Government was to appoint a further Committee, composed of myself,
    2194
    the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, to see whether financial arrangements could not be made to make possible the resumption of airship operations by means of commercial enterprise. We had a great many meetings of this Committee, and I may say in passing that we were not pledged to any particular scheme. We had alternative schemes put before us. After a very careful inquiry, an inquiry that I would remind the House had upon it a representative of the Treasury in the person of the Financial Secretary, we eventually accepted in principle the scheme connected with the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney).
    If I may, I would remind hon. Members of the main conditions of that scheme. There is no secret about it, as I described it in the autumn at the Economic Conference, and a report of my speech was published in the Press. The financial arrangements were, speaking generally, as follows: The new company was to show its stability, just as we insisted in the case of the Imperial Air Transport Company, by finding from the pockets of private investors, a sum of £500,000. The State undertook to give, not, indeed, subsidies, but, rather, loans, repayable from subsequent profits, to the amount of £400,000 a year for a period of seven years. To safeguard the State against entering into commitments for which it was not getting its money's worth, we took the precaution of breaking up this period of seven years into three stages. We decided to make no payments for the subsequent stages till the conditions of the earlier stages had actually been carried out. That meant, in practice, that we were prepared to give a sum of £400,000 for the first stage, under which the company was called upon to build a 5,000,000 cubic feet airship and fly it between here and Cairo. When that stage had been completed the next stage was to begin, under which a weekly service was to be set in operation between this country and India. For that period, we were prepared to make further payments of £400,000 a year for a period of three years. Then came the last period, also three years, under which the company was required to have, not a weekly service to India, but a bi-weekly service to India. At the end of this period, during which these payments would be made, we were

    2195
    prepared, for a further period of eight years, to pay up to a maximum of £250,000 a year by results, and by results we meant that a service of six 5,000,000 cubic feet airships should be in bi-weekly operation between this country and India.
    That was the scheme at which we arrived after months of inquiry. It was the scheme that I described at the Economic Conference to the Dominion Premiers. It was a scheme that was attractive in very many ways. Commercially, if it proved to be successful, it was going to be the means of expediting communications between the Mother Country and the Empire in a way that would be quite impossible, owing to the expense and other reasons, by any other means. If the scheme proved successful, it would be possible to reach Cairo, in not from five to eight days, but in two days. It would be possible to reach Bombay, not in 14½ days, but in 4½ days. It would be possible to reach Singapore, not in 28 days, but in 8 days. It would be possible to reach Perth, supposing the service was extended, as it was intended, to Australia, not in 28 days, but in 11 days. I think hon. Members will see from that comparison how great would be the advantage to the Empire from the commercial point of view if a scheme of this kind were put into operation without delay. There was another side to it. There was the Naval side. The representatives of the Admiralty were unanimous in thinking that, if airships were developed, it might be possible to make big economies in the cruiser programme. The airships could undertake much work now carried out by cruisers. For the purposes of Naval reconnaissance, airships have a big advantage. From the Air Ministry point of view, we were quite certain that airships, if they were developed, would more and more play a part as troop carriers as well as aeroplane carriers, and would be especially valuable in such questions as the disposition and interchange of troops and machines in the Near and Far East. Hon. Members will see at once how much easier it would be to arrange for this disposition if you could move substantial numbers of troops and if you could move aeroplanes quickly from one point to another by means of airships. These considerations will, I think, show hon. Members how very important and how very urgent this
    2196
    question of airships is. On that account I do regret most sincetely the omission of any provision for airships from these Estimates. Before I left office I had included in these Estimates the sum of £400,000 for bringing into operation at once the first stage of this great enterprise. That sum has been omitted in the Estimates, and to-day the Secretary of State tells us that they are going to have another inquiry into this question, about which there has been inquiry after inquiry during the last five years! It is the more regrettable from the fact that I am quite certain that, when this further investigation finishes, it will be found that there is no quicker and no cheaper way of getting six gigantic airships into the air for the service between here and India than upon the lines of the agreement at which we had virtually arrived before we left office.
    I hope that before this Debate ends, we may hear something more as to the intentions of the Government than the mere fact that an inquiry is to be held into a subject which has been investigated over and over again. Let me give a word of warning. I am quite sure that if they decide that the State should operate the airships, not only will it be a very dangerous plan, but they will find it is a very expensive plan. I had some calculations that showed me where it cost £250,000 a year to pull one of the old airships out of one of the hangars that we have at the present time. Compare that £250,000 a year for one military airship operating with that of six big airships for a commercial enterprise—airships several times the size flying between here and India, and I think the House will agree with me that the programme with which I started was a great deal relatively cheaper than the military operation of one airship would have been.
    Let me pass from the question of airships, and let me come to what, after all, is the central question, not only of this Debate, but of the whole policy of the Air Ministry. I refer to the question of air defence. We have had two Debates now on the subject of air defence, one in this House and one in another place. Whilst it is some satisfaction to hon. Members on this side of the House to know that the first stage of our expansion programme is being carried out, I

    2197
    cannot disguise from hon. Members that we have a good deal of anxiety as to the amount of enthusiasm that is going to be put behind the carrying out of that programme. The Under-Secretary himself, and the Noble Lord in another place, hedged round their acceptance of this programme with so many excuses that many of us on this side of the House wondered really whether it was going to be pushed through in the way we desire. We were told that they had to go on with the programme because the country was not sufficiently educated not to have it. We were told that, although they accepted the first stage of the programme, they did not bind themselves further. It seemed to me that they were quite unnecessarily making excuses—if I may say so—for carrying out what I should have thought was the elementary duty of any Government, that is, the duty of national defence. I should have thought that no excuses were at all necessary. I could not help thinking to-day that the hon. Gentleman opposite protested too much as to his pacifist opinions.
    Let no hon. Gentleman be in any doubt upon this point; that we on this side of the House are just as anxious as is the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary to see a reduction of armaments. But we do not think that a reduction of armaments is going to be brought any nearer by statement after statement that seems to imply that the Government have no faith in the adequacy of national defence. Take the case of the Under-Secretary. I think the most serious part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the other evening was not so much his pacifist obiter dicta, but the confession that he made that air defence could not be adequate. The hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that the Air Force was an attacking force, and he then made a kind of reductio ad absurdum in which he told the House that adequate defence was out of the question, because it would mean placing innumerable aeroplanes in every coast town in this country. Local defence is never the best means of defence in any Service. However strong the Navy is, for example, you would never be able to ensure in time of war the security of every square inch of Imperial territory. But none the less, you adopt a formula of adequacy for the Navy, even though you may not prevent isolated
    2198
    raids, say, on Scarborough and other places. You none the less say that your naval defence is adequate. So is it also in the case of the air.
    In the event of war the main duty of the Air Force will, no doubt, be to search out the enemy and to attack him, and to achieve air superiority. But it is an entire misrepresentation of the case to say that, if that is so, adequate air defence is unattainable. Adequate air defence is obtainable, and if my programme is carried out in detail, and if simultaneously with that programme antiaircraft defences under the War Office are also fully developed, adequate air defence is certainly obtainable in this country. Let me give the House a couple of examples of what I mean by an effective air defence. During the War one of our pilots had a forced landing behind the enemy's lines. Fortunately he was able to escape and for several weeks he lived in hiding upon Belgian territory. He found himself near an aerodrome that we were continuously bombing. Being a very intelligent person he took note of what was happening, and he made a very interesting report of it afterwards. His report showed that as the air defence of the Germans became more effective as their guns shot better, and their aeroplane defence was stronger, so it became more and more difficult for the British machines to get over the aerodrome, and to drop their bombs. That was a very good instance of the effectiveness of a well-arranged air defence.
    The second example happened towards the end of the War. Two fighting squadrons were trained to fight at night, and were organised for the defence of our general headquarters. The result of that was remarkable. The German raids that had previously taken place in great numbers and in great strength diminished. I believe that great developments are possible in this direction, and that if the Government would push on with the programme and simultaneously develop the anti-aircraft side and evolve or rather push on with the schemes already in existence for combined defence with scout lights, sound locators, and the various mechanical means at their disposal, I believe it will be quite possible—providing, as I said, the big programme of air expansion is carried out—to make our defence so effective that the enemies'

    2199
    raids, even though periodically they may penetrate, will become fewer and fewer, and you will be able to drive them high up in the air to fight, and from there the aim of their bombs cannot be accurate. The result of that will be that you will be able to have what the hon. Gentleman opposite has declared to be impossible: you will be able to organize an adequate air defence for these shores.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that hon. Members opposite left office without any scheme of the co-ordination of air defence with the Army?
    Sir S. HOARE: No, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is to understand nothing of the sort. There was a fully worked out scheme, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will see that it is carried into effect at the earliest possible date.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A scheme, yes, on paper?
    Sir S. HOARE: Not only on paper, but in its initial stage. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not read the Memorandum of the Secretary of State for War issued with the Estimates. If he did so, he would see that such help is obtainable from anti-aircraft organization. I have said all this for a definite reason. I have said it to reinforce the demands that I am making to the Government, that having twice refused a Resolution that describes the kind of programme that I have put before the House, they should accept it this evening in the Resolution that I understand will shortly be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny). It is something more than a pedantic abstract Resolution, for it contains a sound workable formula which I should have thought any Government would have welcomed, namely, that our Air Force here should be adequate to defend these shores against the strongest Air Force within striking distance. I should have thought that was an expression of opinion that any Government would have welcomed. If I had been the Under-Secretary for Air or the Secretary for Air, I should have welcomed the acceptance by the House of Commons of a formula of that kind, because it would have strengthened my hand against the
    2200
    Treasury, and it would also have strengthened my hands against any colleagues in the Cabinet who disagreed with me. It would have been a very useful and workable formula accepted by the House of Commons and adopted by the Government for any Secretary of State to have up his sleeve. It is more than that. It is not only a formula of words, but it contains an important point of substance. The Government say that they are prepared to accept the first part of the scheme of expansion, but they are not prepared to go further.
    Captain BENN: When the late Prime Minister made this announcement in June last year about expansion, did he mention anything about a first stage? I cannot remember it.
    Sir S. HOARE: I have got the words the Prime Minister used, and I am coming to that point. The Prime Minister was careful to say that it was the first step, and that subsequent stages would depend on the international situation. But the first stage, and this is the important point, was to be so worked out as to make the subsequent stages easier. That is an important point because you cannot isolate one stage from another. You have to so make your preparations now so that you can proceed automatically and economically to the subsequent stages if it is found that those stages are necessary. If the hon. Gentleman and his Government restrict themselves to the first stage and do not look ahead, it will be much more difficult to carry out the subsequent stages.
    Let me give the hon. Member an example of what I mean. If you buy aerodromes now you ought to have in mind the possible necessity of increasing your Air Force still further in two or three years' time. If you build barracks you ought to so build them that it is possible to make additions to them easily if you find that you want more men. That shows that you cannot isolate one stage from the other stages, and you have so to carry out your first stage that if it is necessary you can go on to the second stage without having to pull down barracks or buy new bits of land to add to the size of your aerodromes at an exorbitant price. That is a point of substance, and it confirms my view that it is most important that when the Member for Kingston comes to move his Resolution

    2201
    the Government should accept it and show by accepting it that they are prepared both in the spirit and the letter to carry out the expansion programme of the last Government and carry out the first stage in such a way as to make the carrying out of the subsequent stages both economical and expeditious.
    Major-General SEELY: My right hon. and gallant Friend who has just sat down has told the House that he is not satisfied with the attitude of the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I feel bound to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is hard to please, because never, in all my experience of this House, have I seen so complete a change in the direction in which we hoped he would travel. We recognise in the Under-Secretary of State the angel of peace, as he has been portrayed in "Punch," and by his speech to-day, I think, we saw that he was the angel of peace. But never before have I seen an angel put the olive branch in his pocket, if angels have pockets, and bring out the sword. The Under-Secretary stated that, while he was still convinced that disarmament was essential, it was no good for one side to begin by themselves, and he stated that it was essential to protect ourselves from an air menace. He pointed out that was a policy of expansion, and a large policy, both of men and material; and, last of all, he pointed out that the education which those who joined the Air Force would get would make them not only good soldiers of the Empire but good citizens.
    As a matter of fact, I do not believe that if my right hon. Friend had made the same speech, that one single voice would have been uplifted against him for being unduly pacific. His special reference to myself went further than that, and he appeared to say that the Under-Secretary of State was the strong, stern Minister determined to maintain our defences, and that I was the pacifist who reduced our defences. I accept the rebuke, and I rejoice that it should have been made from that quarter. I hope I shall have many more rebukes of that kind from the same quarter. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that I resigned my position because I thought Mr. Churchill was sacrificing the Air Service to the Army, and because I thought our Air expansion was not rapid enough. I accept the statement that the
    2202
    Under-Secretary wishes to expand the Air Force, and in that spirit I accept his assurance that he is determined to see the Air Force through, and as long as he is going to do that he can rely upon my support. The Estimates which the Under-Secretary presents to us do represent a substantial increase both in men and material, and I submit that even in times when we are economising it is necessary that there should be that increase. It is true a great part of it is due to my right hon. Friend opposite, but some parts of it are due to the present Secretary of State for Air and the Under-Secretary. There are certain reasons which have not been touched upon which render this increase really essential, and if I may be allowed to address the House for two or three minutes on that point I will do so. It is quite true that the air menace has all along been very formidable. On this question I would like to quote the words of Marshal Foch which he used to our representative in Paris and permitted it to be published. They were as follows:
    "The potentialities of aircraft attack on a large scale are almost incalculable, but it is clear that such an attack, owing to its crushing moral effect on a nation, may impress public opinion to a point of disarming the Government, and thus become decisive."
    In those words one recognises the precise meaning of the speech of Marshal Foch, who says that the results are almost incalculable and may be decisive even in the initial stages of the war. That statement was made in January, 1921, only three years ago, and since then the advance in the potentialities of aircraft have been quite enormous. In speed we may say that we have almost doubled, and in the power to rise to great heights we have recorded a great advance. But above all, in the weight-carrying capacity of these death-dealing instruments, whether explosives for the air, firing, or gas, the defence has been extraordinary. I was reading only four days ago the report of the United States Ordnance Corps on bomb-dropping experiments. The dropping of their latest bomb, weighing 4,300 lbs., is illuminating.
    Many hon. Members who have seen bombs dropped during the recent air raids will appreciate what the advance is when I say that in the case of this large bomb the earth was thrown

    2203
    up to a height of over 1,000 feet, and the bursting effect was estimated to have displaced more than 1,000 cubic yards of hard sand. When that is translated into terms of bombardment of towns, ships, docks and railways, it gives one some idea of the immense advance in destructive power which has been achieved since Marshal Foch used those words. That justifies even a pacifist Government in asking for this increase. It is quite wrong and altogether untrue to suggest that this increase of ours is an answer to the increase in the Air Force in France. The exact contrary is the case and I have good reason for saying so. The first thing is that when it was proposed quite recently to have a neutral pact France openly stated that if we increased our forces, that is, our land forces, they were prepared to reduce theirs, and if we increased our naval force that that would be a reason for them to reduce theirs. But they go further, and although it is not officially reported, I have seen it stated in various publications and on good authority, that in point of fact, the French seek really only safety in this matter, and if we could make ourselves stronger in other directions, even in the air, they would feel themselves justified in reducing their own air forces.
    The Under-Secretary stated that very shortly a delegation from the Air Ministry would be going to inspect the Air Forces of France—a return visit for the visit that the French Air Ministry and Air officials paid to us. I venture to prophesy, and I say it quite openly, that, when the Under-Secretary brings us the report of what those officers have seen, they will say it is apparent, for various technical reasons, that the increase of French air power cannot be directed against this country, but must be directed to defence against the menace which they apprehend, rightly or wrongly, from their eastern borders. Moreover, the last time I had the honour of addressing the House on this subject, I pointed out the number of actual casualties that could be caused by a surprise attack upon this country by an Air Force as large as that of France. But be it observed that, if we are to use that argument to say that the extension of the French Air Force is a menace directed against us, the French would be equally
    2204
    entitled to use the same argument that any extension of our Fleet, and notably the five cruisers, was directed against them.
    Of course, a moment's examination will show that, if either of these nations, who are so close together, were to do anything so mad as to try to find out how many people could be killed by a surprise attack, while the French Air Force could kill some 10,000 a day by dropping bombs from the air, we could undoubtedly, by a similar surprise attack, kill an equal or greater number by bombardment from the sea. Every Frenchman knows that, and every thoughtful man must realise it, and I ask the House seriously to say that in this expansion of our Air Force we have no idea whatever of replying to a menace from France. We are simply deciding to make this country reasonably secure, not against a near neighbour who for every reason could not make a surprise attack against us—such a crime is unthinkable for any reason—but, viewing the absolute necessity of maintaining our air power in such a state that it can be expanded at any moment to meet the manifold chances of this life, we are justified in making the expansion that I have described.
    I see that the Prime Minister is in his place, and I venture to make two appeals to him on this subject. The first is with regard to a statement made by the Under-Secretary, in his interesting speech to-day, that, although this is an expansion of the Air Force, it is not an increase of the fighting forces as a whole, or, at least, of the expenditure upon them, because, although there is an increase in air power, there is a decrease in other fighting services. How far has the Prime Minister ensured that there really is co-ordination in matters of defence? How far has he made sure that this very difficult problem of defending the heart of the Empire and its circumference is viewed as a whole? We are told by the Under-Secretary that there has been a reduction in other forces and an increase in the Air Force. How far is that really scientifically considered? We have been told that Lord Haldane has been appointed Chairman of the Committee of Imperial Defence—I do not think it has been officially stated, but it has been stated in the newspapers—as a substitute to the Prime Minister,

    2205
    who, of course, must always have the last word and be technically the President of that Committee. The substitute does, in fact, attend the meetings. Has he the power, as I submit he ought to have, to have all Estimates presented to him before they are finally reviewed by the Cabinet, so that he may gather together the best brains of all the staffs, in order to apportion properly, not only the money, but the method of defence by land, sea or air?
    I have ventured to urge this upon the House on many occasions, and, if a step forward in that direction has been taken, I congratulate the Government, and beg them still to continue on those lines. I have good reason for knowing how bitter is the hostility of each Department to being reviewed by others. Having served in many, one knows this well, and, therefore, it requires the strong hand of a strong Prime Minister to insist that the Estimates shall be reviewed as a whole by a man giving his whole time to the job, who shall say, "Surely it is madness to pour all that money out in that direction, necessary as it may be, when either air or sea or land power can do what is required." I beg the Prime Minister to continue that and to extend it, if not to forming a Ministry of Defence, at least to ensuring that what has already been done, as we are told by the Under-Secretary, shall be done as a matter of regular routine, and not on some chance Motion, when someone says, "Are we not spending too much in one direction and too little in another?"
    The next point that I would ask the Prime Minister to take up, in connection with the Air, is to try and secure that the same interest which the Dominions have taken for years past in the Navy in time of peace, and in the Navy and the Army in time of war, they should take also in the air. Is it not curious that this Empire is probably indestructible except from the air? Supposing that we were defenceless, it might be almost destroyed from the air, for its heart and centre could be wiped off the nap, as we all know. The Dominions, so far, have taken no part in this problem, but I have discussed the question with some of their leading men, and I believe it to be possible that they might render us inestimable service in this direction. What is really going to come from the
    2206
    air is the result of research. We are bat on the fringe of the real problem of the mastery of the air. The rapidity of our advance in the last three' years, when we have been spending very little money on it, shows that we are only on the fringe of an advance which at any moment may become extremely rapid, and those who are going to be masters in the air are not those who have the most aeroplanes, but those who have learned best and have got the best results. No one knows better than the Prime Minister, or, indeed, than my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time when this was before us, that, while the Treasury may be a wonderful body of men, they are very bad at new ideas. With deep respect I say it to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasury official regards new ideas as dangerous things—they lead to extravagance; and it is the fact that in this matter of air research devoted men have been working hard on a particular line, and have spent, perhaps, tens of thousands of pounds, and the Treasury has come down and said, "Stop !" "Oh," they have said, "but we are just on the verge of a great, discovery," and the Treasury official replies, "That is what you always say; go away." That has happened again and again, and it is a fact that the Treasury control of air research, although directed with the most benevolent intentions, has been a sterilising influence.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman says it has happened again and again. That shows that the Research Department has got this money again and again for research, promising within a limited time that the research would mature.
    Major-General SEELY: Exactly. My right hon. Friend has told us just what the House ought to know. The Treasury says, "Yes, you shall go on, but if, by the 31st March next year, which is the end of our financial year, you have not got a helicopter, or an under-wing which does what you want, then, sorry as we are, the end of the financial year has come, and nothing more is doing." It is not really made for the job. I believe that if the Prime Minister were to invite the Dominions and India to join in forming an

    2207
    Imperial Board of Aerial Research, he would get a surprising response from some of the Dominions and from India. We want the newest and most original brains. During the War, as no one knows better than my hon. and gallant Friend, No. 1 Flyer, the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), men from our Dominions—from Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand—were foremost in research and in novel ideas. If, then, we could bring in their best brains, and if they could have their headquarters, as they must have, at the greatest research laboratory of its kind in Europe, that at Teddington, if they could be freed from immediate Treasury control by bringing them under Imperial control, if they could be given a great increase of money to enable them to pursue experiments, not up to the end of each financial year, but up to the conclusion of the experiment, which is the only scientific way of doing it, then I believe we might make a great step forward, and although it would not be very spectacular, although we could not say at any one moment that we had far more aeroplanes than anyone else, we might be building up a power for the future which might be of inestimable value to us in time of war, and, should war not come, as we hope it may not, which might be of real value in time of peace.

    AIR FORCE (ADMINISTRATION).
    Mr. PENNY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words,
    "in the national interests it is essential that the Air Force should be administered in such a way as to ensure adequate protection against air attacks by the strongest air force within striking distance of our shores, and to foster and assist civil aviation, and to secure economy and increased efficiency in regard to construction, equipment, personnel, research, and routine."
    6.0 P.M.
    The prime position which we in this country held at the end of the War, as the strongest air power in the world, has long since passed away, in numbers, in design, and in research, and it is of the utmost importance that no effort be spared to rectify that and to place this great arm of defence in a satisfactory position, so that the country can feel a sense of security, and feel that we have
    2208
    adequate protection in the event of an attack against our shores. Those who are to direct our destiny in the air must, I submit, not only look to the present, but must have vision and look ahead in this connection. The speech delivered recently by the Secretary of State for Air left a feeling of amazement and alarm throughout the country. I am very pleased to think that the sanctimonious expressions which the hon. Gentleman uttered on that day did not exactly coincide with the speech of the Secretary of State for Air in another place. That somewhat reassured us, although it illustrated once again the great divergence of views between responsible Ministers, at which we are not very surprised, seeing that it has happened before in other Departments. I rather think the Secretary for Air must have had a good talk to the Under-Secretary and said: "In this. Debate to-day you had better put on my mantle and wear it for a bit," for I could not recognise the valorous Champion of the Air Force to-day in the timid pusillanimous man who faced us in the recent Debate. It was absolutely a weather-cock turn, seeing the other day he was dead against it. To-day he had nothing but eulogy for the service and for pushing on, and I am delighted to hear that he has those views to-day, because I feel quite sure we will walk into the same Lobby together when it comes to a Division.
    He said in the recent Debate that the Government intended to make no change in the policy laid down by the late Minister for Air, but he carefully qualified that by adding "for the time being," and gave us to understand that his view was that we had to rely upon the good will of other nations and wait for a changed international atmosphere. The times are so serious that such a policy is unthinkable, and if we wish to see the integrity of this Empire maintained and the safety of our people assured, I think it is almost time that if the Under-Secretary does not realise that he is a square peg in a round hole, he should be told by the Prime Minister that that is how the country views him. He may be a most estimable young fellow, and I am not saying this in any personal way because I have great friends on those benches—but I really feel he is not the right man for the position he

    2209
    holds. Our Air Force is such an important force that if we have a man who can turn round in a fortnight from South to North, he is not the man and he must be thinking of the remuneration of the office more than of the interests of his country.
    HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!
    Mr. BANTON: On a point of Order. Is it right that an hon. Member should attribute motives of that kind to another hon. Member?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle): I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting anything of a personal character which would involve the honour of a Minister. I am sure he would prefer to withdraw such a suggestion.
    Mr. PENNY: I should be the very first to withdraw had I intended anything offensive. What I meant was that the hon. Gentleman does not realise the importance of this, and he is preferring to stick in office rather than do what he should do for the Air Force. [HON. MKMBKBS: "Withdraw!"] I will not withdraw.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would appeal to hon. Members to give the hon. Member a hearing. It is not unparliamentary to accuse Ministers of desiring to stick to their offices. That is an accusation that is commonly made in this House.
    Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. Is there not a distinction between an accusation hurled against the-head of a Minister that he wishes to retain office, and an accusation that he wishes to retain that office in order that he may fill his pockets with the emoluments of his office?
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The latter accusation was not the intention of the hon. Member, I am sure. [HON. MEM-BKRS: "He said so!"] I have called on the hon. Member.
    Mr. PENNY: I wish to make it quite clear, and if what I have said has been misinterpreted, I withdraw with pleasure. But I stick to what I said in so far that I want to convey to the House that I did not think the Minister realised the importance of the Air arm in the defence of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "What an explanation!"] It is the best explanation
    2210
    I can make, for it is the truth. Another astounding doctrine he preached that night was that he thought preparedness indicated fear of one's neighbours. This surely is absolutely contrary to the very laws of nature, for no matter what calling, whether it be diplomacy or anything else, the first essential is to be prepared for all contingencies. He also stated that one thing that was knocked on the head during the War was the doctrine that in order to get peace we must be prepared for war. This, I submit, is a fallacious doctrine for in maintaining and strengthening our position we shall be creating an insurance for peace in the future.
    Mr. TOOLE: On a point of Order. Will the hon. Member tell us where we can buy the proof he is reading.
    Mr. PENNY: Has the effect of our having a Navy ever been an aggressive measure? I maintain that our Navy has always been one of the greatest factors for peace. Does the hon. Member remember the year of the Spanish Armada, 1588? Our Police Force, for instance, is not going to create conflict, but to keep peace, and it is for that very reason that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) not so long ago said the Labour party were going to stand four square so as to incorporate that loyal force within the ranks of the Labour party. They realise what it means. Do we take out a life insurance because we are not going to die, or do we insure our belongings because we are sure we are not going to have a fire? It is for those very contingencies. It is superfluous to say none of us desire war. That is absolutely known to all of us. None of us desire it, but until our position is such that we are sure other nations are of the same way of thinking we must be prepared for all contingencies. The position being what it is, let us face it like men and let us be prepared so that we shall not be let down should occasion arise, For this reason, I dislike to hear protestations that it is not directed against one country or another. We must accept facts as they are, and we must prepare ourselves. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary say they were going to do everything possible to stimulate civil aviation, because I feel that civil aviation is a nucleus for obtaining

    2211
    the personnel for our fighting forces should they ever be required, in the same way that the merchant service assists the Navy. Any Measure undertaken in this direction will, I am sure, set up a great framework for peace throughout the world for bringing peoples of different lands in closer contact so that we can get a better understanding, and I should very much like to see bases established right along our great trade routes so as to make one great international chain.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned how very useful our Air Service had been in Iraq. It had achieved many more things than could have been accomplished by ground forces, it had done them far more quickly and it had also saved a great deal in money and in lives since we had them there. I was also pleased to hear the statement made again that never was a bomb dropped in that country for the collection of taxes which were in arrear, out of which so much capital was made by hon. Members opposite not so long ago. I have spent a great number of years amongst natives, and they really appreciate force, provided it is carried out with justice. I wish now to travel from Iraq to the north-west frontier of India. The tribal races there are always giving us trouble—the Mohmands, the Mahsuds and the Afridis—in that mountainous country, extending for 200 miles between India and Afghanistan, and we have to keep up a great force there, which might be minimised or withdrawn if we had a greater Air Force in those regions. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary if he would consider something in that direction being done, for it would be far more effective and it would bring about economy, and would also be a great saving of lives in the punitive expeditions which have to be undertaken from time to time, so that we may let the tribes see that they cannot go on robbing, plundering and murdering without being brought to task.
    As regards the home service I would particularly draw attention to the question of the short service commission. The Minister has told us he thinks that state of things is bringing about the best effect in the Force, though the men in the Force themselves rather look upon it as a curse. A batch of young officers are taken on
    2212
    about every five years. They go through an expensive training to learn to fly and become efficient officers, and just when they are likely to be of use to the country they are turned out into civil life with their best years behind them and with the uncertainty of getting civil employment. A new batch of youngsters is then taken on, and the whole course of training is gone over again. I contend that that is a very expensive way of going about this, and I think it would be much better if permanent commissions were given to the short time War officers, of whom there are many, and the suggestion as regards these officers being fit and competent to carry on those tasks should be left to the Commanding Officer. Very often the recommendations made by the commanding officers receive no attention from the Air Ministry. I know of specific cases where recommendations have been made of qualified men, and others who have been sent down to fill the posts have not half the qualifications of the men recommended. I would like the Minister to look into that question. There are trained, practical pre-War engineers now serving as short-time officers who are not permitted to take the long engineering course. That absolutely takes the keenness away from these men. I know of one man who had a five years commission. He had a long pre-War experience of engineering, including service in a Royal Aircraft factory, had superintended the manufacture of aerial engines for the War Office in the early days of the War, had commanded a large repair depot, and has flown many hundred hours on service machines, and he is now employed teaching officers to fly. I think that proved men such as these should be given permanent commissions, if they are recommended by their commanding officer. I have mentioned this case, but it is by no means an isolated case.
    I should like to compare the cost of the Air Ministry with the Army Estimates at the present time. The cost of the Air Ministry is £710,000, and the number of men administered is 35,000. The total cost is, roughly, £14,500,000, so that the cost of the Ministry is £20 per man, which is equivalent to five per cent. of the total sum. Comparing that with the Army Estimates, the difference between the two forces is five per cent. and two per cent.

    2213
    Therefore, I think there must be some mal-administration as regards the Air Ministry. It seems to me either that they have too much of a staff or that they must have some expensive way of frittering away the country's money. I would like the Minister to look into that question. There is also the question of the amount of clerical work which has to be undertaken by officers. By a vicious circle there is nothing else but paper revolving, which keeps the commanding officer so employed that he cannot well look after his duties. In that respect much could be done to minimise the amount of clerical work, because if there should come a war it would be won in the air and not by the clerk in the office.
    Referring to construction, I should like to make a few points, and the first point is that there is a great tendency to strive after what is called the Christmas tree effect by constructors. They put every kind of gadget on to the machine. Whether it is wanted for that particular type of machine or not does not matter. The machine has to be constructed so as to carry all these things. It means additional weight, and not only is it impossible to place them in proper position, but it is difficult, if not almost impossible, for the pilot to control all these things properly, and the additional weight makes the machine far less effective. Then there is the position as regards keeping engaged a large number of firms who have not proved themselves worthy of having orders placed with them. It would be far better if the Air Ministry were to confine themselves to, say, 12 firms who had really done good work, and keep them fully employed and in a healthy condition, than to employ 20 firms, keeping them only employed halftime and in an unhealthy condition. There is a great deal of feeling about this. It means that the overhead charges of these firms react upon the prices which we have to pay for the machines and make them far more expensive.
    I have brought forward these points with the object, if possible, of showing where I think a little economy might be effected by the administration, and whereby the personnel would be contented, so that we can get the best out of them, and also that the Minister may realise the great importance of having our country adequately protected in the
    2214
    event of another air force attacking us at any time. In view of what he has said, I feel that when this Amendment goes to a Division he will be in the Lobby supporting it.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: In rising to second this Amendment I wish to refer more particularly to the first part of it. The Under-Secretary, in his very interesting statement this afternoon, did not indicate what would be the attitude of the Government towards the standard of air strength implied in this Amendment. Three weeks ago the Government did not accept that standard of strength. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that the Government could not accept that standard of strength because the programme of construction which they had inherited from the late Government could not, even in the most favourable circumstances, put this country into the position which that standard demanded, and that if the Government accepted that standard of strength they would be in the position of having undertaken an obligation which they could not fulfil. I submit that that is not the position. The Government were not asked and are not asked to undertake any new obligation., The standard of strength which they are asked to accept was recommended by the Committee of Imperial Defence, was accepted by the late Government, and that programme of construction, which was begun by the late Government and is being continued by the present Government, was intended to be the first step towards the fulfilment of that standard. The late Government was at liberty and the present Government is equally at liberty to modify that programme in any direction which the circumstances may require.
    Nobody imagines that that standard of strength can be achieved all at once, but it is a standard of strength at which we ought to aim. Some hon. Members object even to the present increase in our Air Force. In the recent Debate, I think the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) said that it was a mistake for the civilian population to feel too secure, and that if they realised that in the event of war they would, at any rate, share some of the dangers of the fighting population we should be much less likely to have war. There is a great deal to be said for that

    2215
    argument, but, surely, it ought to be of universal application. The people to whom the hon. Member referred are not peculiar to this country; they exist in all countries. While it is perfectly true that owing to our weakness we have every inducement to avoid war, yet for that same reason, owing to our weakness, other countries may not have the same reason. It was urged that it is no use for this country to try to increase the Air Force, because our inferiority is so great that other countries can easily maintain the advantage which they now possess.
    It was said that if we increase our Air Force it will be the beginning of a new competition in armaments that may lead to war later on, and that we ought to devote all our energies to securing limitation of armaments by international agreement. I am sure that every hon. Member wishes to secure limitation of armaments, but I agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) that we shall only get limitation of armaments if we have an adequate Air Force. If we are to go into an international conference we must be in a position to say that our armaments are adequate now and that we will reduce ours if other countries will reduce theirs. We must have something with which to bargain. I was very much interested in the point raised by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, and I hope he will agree that that argument applies, not only to armaments, but to tariffs.
    It is essential that we should have a definite standard of air strength for this country. Before the War there was a definite standard of naval strength, which was, I think, accepted by all parties. The Navy, among its other duties, must protect this country against invasion, but the Navy cannot protect us against air attack. The Navy cannot give us the means of reply to Air attack. It is only an adequate Air Force that can do that. If the Government do not accept the standard of strength which was recommended by the Committee of Imperial Defence, they ought to tell the House now in what way the international situation has so changed as to justify them in rejecting it. They ought to tell the House what standard they do accept, and why. Finally, I submit that no lower
    2216
    standard than the one indicated in this Amendment will be adequate for our national security.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: These Estimates are an inheritance from the past Government, and I hope, therefore, that my criticisms will not be taken amiss. Part of these Estimates is due to the occupation of Iraq and Palestine. My objection to the Estimates is based upon that policy. I believe that that policy has been an entirely wrong policy, and I believe that from the point of view of defence it would be very advisable for us to withdraw the Air Forces from those countries in order to reinforce our Home Defence Air Forces, which are very far below what they ought to be. I ask the Government to reconsider their policy regarding the occupation of Iraq and Palestine. It is part of the policy of all Governments that we are going to abandon Iraq. The only question is when we are going to do so, and I hope the Government will not object to Members impressing upon them the necessity for doing so as soon as possible, because in Iraq there is no halfway house between complete occupation and complete evacuation. In my opinion it is quite impossible that the local population will ever be able to build up a constitutional monarchy capable of running the concern, and if that be the case, the sooner we are out of the country the better, and we can then bring home the Air Force which is there and employ it where it will be of much greater use. The Government's policy in Palestine is more or less the policy of all Governments, and it is, I submit, a most unfair policy to the inhabitants of that country, to this country, and also—as they will realise later on if it is pursued—to the Jews themselves. I may recapitulate briefly the facts of the situation in Palestine. There is a population of, approximately, 750,000, and 600,000 of these are Moslems, 75,000 are Christians and 75,000 are Jews, It is always assumed that the Moslems and the Christians are of a different race from the Jews, but I believe that is entirely wrong. The majority of the Moslems in Palestine belong to the original inhabitants, and, first of all, were Jews.
    Captain Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss the proportion of Moslems to Jews in Palestine on Air Estimates?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I think not, unless it has a direct bearing on the strength of the Air Force.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: My point is that the policy underlying the necessity for having an air force in Palestine is wrong, and, if I am in order, I wish to point out why it is wrong.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The trouble is that it is a matter affecting the Department of another Minister. What the hon. and gall nut Member wishes to discuss is a matter of which the Secretary of State for the Colonies has cognisance. The present Debate is confined to matters which are within the administration of the Air Ministry.
    Lieut.-Colonel WILLIAMS: As most of what I had proposed to say comes under that heading I shall bring my remarks to a close. My objection is not to the Estimates—I do not think they are too large—but to the policy which necessitates the maintenance of air forces in Palestine and Iraq. They are doing very little good and, in fact, I think are doing harm and would be much more usefully employed in this country.
    Captain BENN: I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken, about the advisability of withdrawing as soon as possible the squadrons which are in Iraq. It would be a desirable measure of economy. I do not know what is the intention of the Mover of this Amendment, and in fact I do not know what the Amendment means. I wonder when the Mover and Seconder made their speeches, bad they read the Amendment at all. It seems to me to be a clumsily drafted attempt to get through the Standing Orders of this House. What the hon. Gentlemen may desire I do not know, but possibly they desire to reintroduce a Motion which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Minister of Air introduced in this House a short time ago and which was introduced in another place by a Noble Lord. They cannot do so, because it would be out of order and therefore they introduce this amazing sentence:
    "That in the national interests"—
    that, of course, goes without saying—
    "it is essential that the Air Force should be administered in such a way as to secure adequate protection, etc."
    2218
    What does that mean? Not that the Force should be increased; not that a new declaration should be made, or anything of that kind. There is nothing about the one-power standard, the numbers, the aeroplanes, or the aerodromes, but simply that the Air Force should be administered in such a way as to secure adequate protection. I should be greatly surprised if the Air Ministry were not administering the Air Force which they have, in the best possible way, and trying to make it the most efficient as it is the most modern, of the fighting services, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Mover, who made such an entertaining speech, whether he seriously intends to ask the House to vote on a mumbo-jumbo which has absolutely no meaning at all. Let us suppose, however, that this Amendment has passed the Clerks at the Table, and let us address ourselves to the questions which it is intended to raise. There is first the question of the Government's programme, and, secondly, the question of some declaration as to a one-power standard. Nobody; complains about the Government's programme. Everybody is satisfied that the Government is carrying out the plane of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Minister, and that the programme is sufficient for the needs of the country at this moment. In passing, I apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for a mistake which I made. It is quite true that the Prime Minister, in making that speech, did say:
    "In the first instance we propose a Home Defence Force of a certain number of squadrons."
    Everybody agrees that the Government programme is adequate. What then is the complaint? The complaint apparently is that at this moment we will not declare not only our intention to continue this programme or basis, on which a very high edifice can be erected if necessary, as the late Air Minister himself stated, but also our intention to enter into competition with other nations. That is the point. It was dealt with admirably by the Secretary of State for Air in another place. Personally, I do not think it necessary and I do not think it wise, that there should be any such declaration at this moment. If I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry were suggesting to the House an inadequate force, I should vote against him, but he is not doing so. An hon. Member opposite

    2219
    shakes his head, but he cannot have heard the speech of his colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) and the eulogiums which he heaped upon the Ministry.
    Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to say I do not believe that in any circumstances he would be influenced to vote against the Government.
    Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman has only to wait until the Vote for the five cruisers to learn what my intentions are in that regard. In all my votes I shall pursue the course which I consider to be right. The point at issue is whether it is necessary at this moment to inform all and sundry that we are going to enter into a competition of armaments with other countries. There is no material advantage to be gained by that declaration, and great moral disadvantages are likely to result. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) said no one intends anything but the friendliest feelings for our Allies across the Channel, but it is, nevertheless, the fact that on more than one occasion when an increase of our Air Force has been announced in this House, it has been followed—a post hoc if not a propter hoc—by an increase on the other side of the Channel. There was the case in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the late Minister announced an increase in the beginning of last year. That was followed by an announcement on the 30th May of 15 new squadrons for the French Navy. Then the Prime Minister announced that we were going to give the Home Defence Force 52 squadrons, and that was followed three days later by a Supplementary Estimate for half a million in the French Chamber, and by the declaration of General Castlenau, who is Chairman of the Army Aviation Commission of the French Chamber:
    "In aviation France is foremost in the world and France will do her utmost to stay there."
    My contention is that if we are satisfied that the right number of machines is being built, and the right number of personnel is being maintained, it is not our business to enter into competition with declarations of that kind. It is unwise and it is altogether against the spirit of
    2220
    the time. My complaint against the Parliamentary Secretary is not on account of his desire to have a peaceful world. I am with him entirely in that, but my complaint is that he cannot give us any definite information as to what steps we are taking towards mutual disarmament. We have asked the question repeatedly. Of course, the difficulties are very great owing to the unsettlement of Europe and a feeling of bitter hostility between France and Germany. Nevertheless, it is the only hope of the world. You get no further forward by speeches like those of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight about the horrors of aerial devastation. What we most earnestly hope is that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Prime Minister at some early moment will tell us that an actual step has been made towards the true light.
    Major-General Sir FREDERICK SYKES: I am glad to have this opportunity of speaking on one of the most-urgent problems of the day, namely, that of defence as a whole and of air defence in particular. We all recognise the paramount necessity that every effort should be made to find some way out of the appalling possibilities, to which the world may drift unless we shall arrive at some way of stopping war. We are all agreed that steps should be taken to arrive, if possible, at a general restriction of armaments. There is not a Member of this House who would not back the Government in any practicable steps they can take towards further general disarmament. In the immediate present defence is either unnecessary or necessary. If unnecessary or unsoundly or inadequately provided, any expenditure on it must be in the nature of sheer waste. If necessary it must be sufficient, efficient, and based on sound policy. Again, if necessary, after having decided upon the general plan of operation, the first point as I see it is to arrive at how much money must be spent upon defence as a whole. The second is how much should be the respective amounts allotted to each particular arm within the total sum, in order to obtain the best combined result from the three. The third point is to arrive at the ratio of allocation within each arm through its various concomitants. This seems to me to be a very obvious, practicable and businesslike

    2221
    necessity, but at the same time to be generally forgotten. There has always been a great waste resulting from lack of co-ordination between the Army and the Navy.
    The most glaring weakness of our system of defence is the absence of any co-ordinating power short of the Cabinet itself. I say this because, with the advent of the Air into defence, with this growth of ratio to the other two, a combined policy and action by the three Services will be of really vital importance to the safety of the country and of the Empire. That safety will rest, as the right hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said, more and more upon the Empire as a whole and not upon this country alone. It is all the more necessary that combined policy, combined financial arrangements, should be thought out in advance on a scientific, systematic basis. The best method of securing better results is by the co-relation of defence, and, to carry this out, the real solution lies in eventual supreme control by a Defence Ministry, with the Prime Minister as chairman, and with a joint staff which would really think out the problems at issue.
    I hope that the Government knows what it is doing in this great problem. Are we now beginning to work on a line of thought-out Imperial policy, or are we merely carrying on because the public obviously will not stand the subject being entirely ignored? I sincerely hope the former. It is much needed. During the past five years, with the exception of the efforts made, with a very difficult heritage, by the last Government, there has, in my opinion, been very little policy, no standard of defence, nor understanding of ratios between the services. In 1918–1919 the expenditure was swollen by war costs liquidation. I think I am right in saying that during 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923 some £700,000,000 was spent on defence. Yet we have no security for this vast expenditure; we are, indeed, relatively weaker than in 1914, and our greatest weakness lies in the air. Defensive measures cannot be extemporised at the last moment. London is now only 20 minutes by air from our sea frontiers. As has been frequently said, our island is no longer protected by sea supremacy alone. It is clear that weakness in the air is weakness in the whole scheme of defence.
    2222
    At the Armistice we stood on an illimitable threshold of potential dangers, but, I think, of equally great possibilities for good. We were the strongest air power in the world. We had 30,000 officers and 270,000 men imbued with the air sense. We had 200 squadrons sustained by the greatest scientific brain power in the world and by the best equipped industry. We had 22,000 machines and a great number of aerodromes and buildings. In addition, flying having proved itself as a great factor in war, had evolved technically to the point where great hopes could be reasonably placed upon it as an agent of peace. The coming of war in the air had created a great change in the general conditions of defence and called for action in three directions: First, the necessity for considering defence as one great problem; second, the utilisation of the post-War period for basic improvement in organisation and for a large proportion of effort to be put into research, experimental development and operation; and, third, the maintenance of effective air power to tide over the period until more peaceful conditions should arrive, by which time, probably, somewhat the same strength would still be required owing to the growing ratio of Air to Army and Navy.
    There requirements were not adopted as the basis of reorganisation. Instead, the three services were still allowed to continue in open competition; organisation is wasteful, inefficient and overlapping Departments was retained; the prime necessity for research and experiment was neglected. As far as the air at all events, is concerned, the amount of money and effort put into design, experiment, and operational development was in lamentable contrast with that put into bricks and mortar. The building up of a true, self-supporting reserve was indefinitely postponed, and civil flying, limited to some 2 per cent. of the air allotment, was crippled by lack of nutrition at birth. It was not, I think, grasped that expenditure on a purely military basis involved ever-increasing dead weight of expenditure and a minimum of development, and that that on aeronautical development promised eventual air defence at a minimum cost and with a maximum of efficiency. Service strength must be dependant upon technical

    2223
    development, which, in turn, must rely on three continuously recurring factors, which are design, new construction, and operation. Again, the navigational side, which is of very great importance in flying, can best be tried out by civil flying under regular, extensive and meteorologically and climatically varying conditions. In a word, though financial stringency should reduce all Votes to the lowest possible level, in the case of the Air Vote, the bulk having been swallowed by first line force, general aeronautical progress and the development of reserve strength suffered severely.
    During the four years I have mentioned, a gross figure of about £74,000,000 was spent by the Air Ministry, but, instead of stabilising an adequate proportion of the existing force, our first-line Air power was almost entirely dissipated. It is easy to destroy and difficult to build. The pitch to which we had been allowed to sink by October, 1922, seems incredible, and is measured by the fact that, of the 200 squadrons I have mentioned, we had only some 24 machines available for home defence. Then the expansion of 49 squadrons, or up to about 600 machines, for home defence was put in hand. Aerodromes and buildings, which had cost great sums, had been discarded, and now, we have been told by the Under-Secretary, they have to be bought again, personnel recollected and trained from the beginning at great cost and expenditure of time. As a result, we now have 100 machines to France's 1,000, and when the programme is completed, we shall have 600—a little more than half the present French establishment—in about four years' time. Nor is France the only country which is building up Air power. Italy is doing so, Russia is said to be doing so, and Germany is said to have aircraft factories in various friendly countries outside her own borders.
    I trust that in reconsidering this subject the Government will give no undue prominence to the undoubted difficulties that it enfolds. These are matters which should receive immediate attention. The great lack is of superior guiding policy to the fighting Departments, and of controlling force to ensure their adherence to a common policy. I
    2224
    also think that the Government is right in its trend of ratios of expenditure between the Army, Navy and Air Force, but I sincerely hope that it will soon find time to take up the question of unifying and economising on services such as works and buildings, accountancy, clothing, medical, chaplains, and others which are common to the three Services. As far as the air is concerned, I am glad also to know that squadrons are at last to be re-equipped with new type machines. I am also delighted that the Secretary of State seems to understand the claims of experiment and research and civil operations.
    7.0 P.M.
    This being so, however, I think that he will have very considerably to improve upon and increase the £240,000, which can hardly be looked upon as a guarantee of that faith. The splitting of the Directorate, of Research into sections for pure research and technical development is useful so far as it goes. But, as a matter of fact, I hope the Under-Secretary of State will quickly recognise that it is fundamentally unsound for research, experimental and aeronautical supply, to be organised as a Department of the Royal Air Force at all. No good, in my opinion, will be done in this direction until these are independent of the fighting Services, though, of course, still within a Department of the Air Ministry. Coming to other points of the Estimates before us, there are, however, several unfortunate, items. First of all, I agree with the late Secretary of State that the method of dealing with the airship problem is very disquieting. From the time that airships were taken over by the Air Ministry from the Admiralty in 1919 development was confined almost entirely to the short period during which they were controlled by the Civil Department. After annual changes of policy and several inquiries into their utilities, it was decided that the progress of airships was best ensured by their being placed under civil commercial control, but I see that the token shown in the Estimates is contained in a Vote administered by the Military branch; and I would ask the Under-Secretary, before it is too late, to weigh very carefully the loss which will arise if airship development is placed under military control. I confess also that I view with

    2225
    regret the complete elimination of competition with which civil heavier than air development is to be endowed, and which will, in my opinion, delay its progress to the self-supporting state which we all desire. I think it is very unfortunate that the incentive of competition has had to be eliminated. We can only hope that the enthusiasm of the company's personnel will minimise this handicap, and as the sole holders of the future of the British mercantile air marine they have, at all events, our best wishes for their great success. I am glad, on the other hand, that the Secretary of State has resolved to make a close scrutiny of Establishments and to secure economy in administration. In some respects, as the Estimates show, the damage is beyond repair.
    The destruction which took place under the policy adopted in 1919 now calls for reconstruction with attendant expense. This is particularly brought out in the Works Votes with over £250,000 for works staff, over £2,000,000 for new quarters, and over £500,000 for improvements in Home Stations generally, while a total of over £400,000 remains outstanding for Halton. I sincerely hope that, whatever Government is on that Front Bench next year, this question of building will be more severely scrutinised than it is at present. I note the Under-Secretary's statement, too, with regard to ground personnel. I am thoroughly in view with the idea of the necessity for the most highly-trained personnel to look after the aircraft, but there seems to be something wrong. The figures, of course, are given in round numbers, but there is, I think, something wrong when for an expenditure of some £19,000,000 we get only, as far as I can calculate, 150,000 hours flying per year. This works out at a cost of about £130 per flying hour.
    There is another point. We find an Air pay-roll of some 45,000 men—35,000 military and 10,000 civilians—but of course only one in 22 are competent flyers, and little more than one-half the permanent officers and only some 100 noncommissioned officers are pilots. Again, we find the Air Ministry itself a staff costing nearly £750,000 with a higher division staff in the Secretariate more numerous than that of the War Office which administers a force five times as great as that of the Air Force. Clearly,
    2226
    then, a great deal can be effected. The disproportion between senior officers engaged in staff and administrative posts to flying officers should in my opinion be rectified. There should be greater differentiation in pay between skilled and unskilled personnel. The percentage of fighting men should be raised in all three services, but in the Air Force in particular the scope is very large. There is no reason, surely, why the great majority of the Air Force personnel should not receive definite training and periodical practice in one form or another in the air. The great proportion of officers and a larger proportion of non-commissioned officers than at present should be pilots and should carry out a definite number of hours in the air per annum. Broadly speaking, we all know that the basis of air work is actually flying, and those who are auxiliaries to the service and do not fly should be civilians and in the reserve. These are matters which we may hope, as I say, will receive immediate attention and immediate results.
    My conclusions are—and I apologise for having taken up so much of the time of the House—first, that there should be a real Imperial policy as a result of the consideration of defence like any practical business proposition, and in the light of changes brought about from time to time; secondly, that a defence service should be set up of all three arms to meet this policy; thirdly, that increased economy and efficiency by the amalgamation of services, such as supply, medical, etc., to which I have referred, should be carried out; fourthly, the elimination of dual and triple control as soon as possible, and that there should be a unified supreme control invested in a Defence Ministry, with the Prime Minister as Chairman. I know, of course, that the Prime Minister himself could not always be present at meetings of this body, but there is no reason why his powers should not be delegated to a senior minister. Fifthly, experimental research should be the especial care of the Government—constructional industry to evolve and the operational industry to develop the most suitable types; sixthly, expenditure on building and ground service generally should be brought into much more reasonable ratio to the whole; and, seventhly, the Air Ministry should be re-organised in two halves—a service side with a considerably reduced staff, and a civil side to

    2227
    include experiment, research, aeronautical supply, and operational development, and to ensure also true basic aeronautical progress, and bring into effect extended flying on the Imperial and international air routes and so make flying of great benefit to the world.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Sir F. Sykes) made one point which I am sure will receive much sympathy on this side of the House, and that was the necessity of better co-ordination of the three Services. If I heard him aright, he advocated a Ministry of Defence. I think that was the implication of his speech. I hope he will bring that matter up again, possibly as a definite Motion. With regard to his pitiable story of the destruction of the greatest air force in the world at the end of the War, I think that is a well-deserved reflection on the Coalition Government of that period and of its Air Minister, who is now seeking, by a series of devious methods, to get back into this assembly. I mean Mr. Churchill. I must say, at any rate with regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely), that he has had courage, although I disagree with his speech on this occasion. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam has driven one more nail into the coffin of Mr. Churchill.
    The Under-Secretary for Air has been justifying this very necessary, I suppose, increase in the Air Force. We are working up to a total of 600 machines capable of fighting in the air against the present number of machines of France. For there is no good in burking the fact that France is the power against which we are building, and shame upon us that it is so. France at present has 1,000 machines, and in three years' time will have nobody knows what number. But the House might have heard from the hon. Gentleman some hint of the Government policy with regard to the great cause of reduction in armament. I admit, as he admits, and, I believe, everyone admits, that as things are to-day, in March, 1924, we have to carry out the late Government policy with regard to the Air Force, but it is quite unsound to talk about defence.
    2228
    I rather quarrel with what the right hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea said in that respect. I do not believe in defence at night against aircraft. The only thing you can do is to have such a force that the next strongest Power, or the strongest Power, would hesitate to attack you. In other words, we are following in the footsteps of the Kaiser's Government, in the Amendment of the Naval Law, in which it was laid down that the state of the German fleet on the high seas should be such that the strongest naval Power would hesitate to attack her. We are building up an offensive force of such strength that the strongest power in Europe in air matters—which, of course, is France, and for many years is likely to be France—will hesitate to attack us. We are back to the year 1910, and it is a nice commentary on the sufferings, bloodshed, misery, and bestiality which were seen during the four years of the War.
    Captain BOWYER: What would you do?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would strain every nerve and use every atom of diplomatic skill and influence that we have to get the nations together for the sole purpose of reducing our air armaments. [HON. MEMBERS: "And other armaments."] At the moment the aerial armaments are the greatest threat. Some case could be made out for the Army and the Navy, but in the matter of aerial armaments no case could be made out. We and France are Empires. We have to have an Army and a Navy to maintain our Colonial Empires, but these rival forces which, on the one hand, are to destroy Paris and, on the other hand, to destroy the heart of London, are simply a reversion to barbarism. There is no defence on either side. The Frenchman who finds his own children poisoned by mustard gas will have only the doubtful consolation of thinking that children are dying, through the same agonising agency at the same time in London and other English cities.
    Therefore, I consider that the Government should try by every means, as soon as possible, to call together a conference of European Powers to see if we cannot get some general limitation of air armaments on the same lines as those on which the Washington Conference limited the

    2229
    construction of battleships and battle cruisers. We can leave America out of this conference for the time being. America is so far away as not to be immediately concerned in the matter. That is the suggestion which I make in answer to the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member for Buckinghamshire (Captain Bowyer). The Under-Secretary did not deal, in my opinion, with the accusations which have been made against the Air Force of bombing expeditions in Iraq against the native tribes. He spoke of the humanity of the Air Force, as if it were necessary to pay a tribute to the humanity of British officers. We all know that English officers are very humane men. He told us of the very justifiable action of the Air Force on many occasions, but he did not give us any details of the alleged raids for tax-gathering purposes. The newspaper had this matter in a great deal of detail about the time that the present Government took office. Am I to understand that the whole thing was a fabrication?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I notice that the "Daily Herald" gave credit to the Government for stopping it. Why did they have to wait, in the words of the "Daily Herald," for the Labour Government to come into power to stop this? We are entitled to some further details. I am told on the other hand that the villages are not bombed, but that only the cattle of these wretched tribes are attacked, and that this is done at the request of the Civil Government, the Government of King Feisel in Bagdad. A great many Members in all parts of the House would agree that, if the English Air Force is being used for punitive expeditions to uphold the civil power in Bagdad, the sooner it is stopped the better. I do not want to enter into matters of this kind now, but if the civil Government there is not sufficiently established by this time, it should not rely on the support of the British Air Force. The whole use of aircraft against savage and semi-savage tribes should be hedged about by the most careful restrictions.
    In the last Parliament I asked the then Air Minister whether notice was given before native villages in Iraq and Afghanistan were bombed, in order that non-combatant women, children and other
    2230
    individuals could be removed, and he said that that was the case. I would like to know if that is still done, and if it is a regular instruction to the air officers commanding in these various areas. We do not hear any details of the recent use of the Air Force on the Indian Frontier, and in Iraq, but it is being used in a great many expeditions, and it is necessary that this House should insist on inquiry when accusations of inhumanity are brought against His Majesty's Government. I make no sort of reflection on the officers themselves. They are there to carry out orders, but it is because they have to carry out those orders that this House should be jealous of those orders, and make sure that they can be justified on the grounds of humanity and public morals.
    I would like now to say a few words on the question of aerodromes. Great expenditure is being incurred on buildings and lands for aerodromes for the Air Force. Are these war aerodromes to be the assembling ground and the ammunition stations of this great Air Force of the day after to-morrow, because, if so—and I am sure that the hon. Member for. Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will share my opinion on this point—they should be well to the north to be out of easy aerial striking distance of the territory of the strongest aerial Power. That is exceedingly important.
    Mr. MAXTON: As you go north you get within striking distance of the greatest enemy of England.
    Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: Landing grounds can be arranged for in the south, and no preparation need be made. Any open space will do for the purpose. For fighting purposes the squadrons from the distant aerodromes need only come to these landing grounds for fuel and to take in their bombs. Then they are ready to carry out the Christian duty which the hon. Gentleman is preparing for them. That is a very important matter. The gist of what I want to say is that the aerodrome must be chosen from the point of view of war use, and war use only. It is a great mistake to spend any money on an aerodrome for fighting purposes at a place where it can be destroyed by a possible enemy. I believe that it will be possible to add very much to the efficiency of the

    2231
    Air Force at a low cost, if we could enrol a body of civilians, skilled mechanics, who need not wear uniform, and who need very little training, but would be available for a rapidly expanding Air Farce in case of war.
    I believe that there are many men who object to annual camps and training, and uniforms and spurs and swords, and all the rest of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "There are no spurs!"] There are. The field officers in the Air Force wear spurs. I view with some apprehension the attempt in the Air Force to emulate and imitate the Brigade of Guards, as regards the rank and file. The most efficient services in the War in the Navy were the so-called piratical services of the submarines and destroyers, where the less pipeclay, spit, polish, and parade ground discipline there was, the greater was the efficiency when the War came. [An HON. MEMBER "Oh!"] The naval officer behind the hon. Member who says "Oh!" agrees, I am sure, that the submarine and destroyer services in the Navy were the most efficient, and anyone else, who knows anything about it, will agree with me. This sort of force could be enrolled, and I believe it would be very valuable. It would be cheap and efficient, and I put it to my hon. Friend as a constructive suggestion. Then the people, whom the hon. Member for Bridgeton talks about as the Red Army, might enlist in such a force, and, at any rate, their presence would ensure that it was used only for the defence of the country and not for any illegal purposes against the King's subjects. Those last remarks were drawn from me by the hon. Member for Bridgeton, but I mean them very sincerely.
    The Force should be democratic, and I hope it will be. I hope the officers who are being enlisted now do not have to pay fees and that their parents do not have to pay fees either. I hope it is possible for the poorest boys to-day to go into the Air Service, if they are the most fit and the most suitable for that service. I regret very much that in the Minister's statement there was not some indication of what is the Government's policy to deal with this perfectly appalling system by which all three parties in the House are practically blackmailed into voting for this great increase in the Air Service because of the position of Europe. We
    2232
    cannot help it, but we can do something to remedy it, and that, I hope, the Government are seriously trying to do.
    Sir PHILIP SASSOON: There is nothing the House likes to hear so much as that a speaker is going to be brief, and that is what I propose to be. I will not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) in his discussion of the sartorial trimmings of the Air Force, but I should like to say that since this question was raised in this House last month, it has been the subject of much discussion both inside this House and outside, and the result has gone to show how valuable the original raising of the question was. It has shown, too, that this is a question concerning which not only the country at large, but especially the population of this great city, are genuinely anxious. It has also served partially to clarify the attitude of the Government towards this most important matter. The two important questions, one of them arising out of this Debate, are, I think, first, that the Government have decided to go forward with the scheme of expansion which, in time and if persisted in, will give this country something like adequate protection in the air, and the second point is that the people of this country are at last fully awake to the present defenceless position in which they find themselves. I hope the Government will not forget this point.
    The ordinary citizen is beginning to realise very acutely that his position in the next war, if there is one, is going to be very different from the position of his kind in all past wars, not excluding the last war. Before the development of flying, when the question of defence was under discussion, he had inevitably at the back of his mind the thought that, after all, it was primarily the job of the fighting Services, that the Army and Navy were there to bear the brunt of the first attack, and that if the affair became serious there would always be time to raise the necessary forces and take the necessary precautions. But to-day the whole situation is reversed. The first people to bear the brunt of an attack upon the security of these islands will be the man and woman in the street, going about their round of daily business. It will be the ordinary peaceful citizen whose lungs will

    2233
    be the first to be affected by poison gas, whose body will be rent, and whose home will be destroyed by the bombs of the invader. I think the ordinary elector is beginning to realise with acute anxiety this new fact of war, and there is, after all, something perhaps to be said for the paradox that in the next war the safest place for a man will be in the fighting Services. There, at least, he will have a gas mask issued to him, and he will be taught how to use it and how to defend himself, so far as defence is possible.
    I hope that the Government will realise this new state of mind of the public towards this question. The Government have made a reassuring gesture, but it will require more than a gesture to allay public anxiety. The reluctance of the Government to enter into anything in the nature of a pledge is very disquieting, and one cannot help feeling that, although Ministers are outwardly on their best behaviour, some of them at least have inclinations towards past heresies. The attitude of mind which, if logically applied to other matters, might, for instance, abolish the police force so as to discourage burglars has no attraction for common-sense citizens, nor are they very much taken in with the suggestion that, because totally adequate defence is impossible, they had better have none or next to none. To carry on the analogy of the police force, they think that a police force is worth its cost, although it is not possible for every householder to have a constable on his doorstep, and, similarly, with regard to air defence, the country would like to have an air defence of a sufficient standard to make it unsafe for another country to attack us, and they will not grudge the cost of such a standard, nor do I think they will be content with less. The assurance contained in these Estimates that for the time being this standard is going to be maintained is all the more welcome, as also is the fact that money—a million, I think the Under-Secretary stated—is going to be given for civil aviation, but I cannot help regretting that there is no mention at all about airships, excepting to say that they are to be relegated to the backwater of re-discussion and reconsideration.
    A strong, active, civil air industry is vital, not only to act as a reinforcement of the military arm in case of need, but also for the usages and for the general
    2234
    purposes of such an Empire as ours. We have been told that in Iraq the aeroplanes have been able to take the place of 24 battalions of infantry. That shows what vast economies can be effected when aeroplanes discharge the military burdens of Empire, and still vaster economies could be effected by a properly established civil air service taking on the commercial development of our immense Imperial resources, and also acting as a reservoir, certainly for men, and perhaps for machines. I hope the Government will push on with the scheme which the Under-Secretary mentioned when he referred to the Auxiliary Territorial Air Force Bill, which would train pilots as well as ground men, and I am sure that with that it would form a valuable source for getting recruits of the best kind. The best pilots are necessarily young, and if something could be done for boys in our public schools and young men in our universities on the lines of the Officers' Training Corps, which might enable them to qualify as pilots, I am sure that many would come along, and the recruiting difficulty would be overcome.
    There are other hon. Members who want to speak, and all I should like to say, in conclusion, is that I consider that this question of air defence is one that the nation regards as transcending all party considerations. Not one party alone, not the people of these islands alone, but the whole Empire, will view with dismay and disapproval any Government that fails adequately to provide for the pressing needs of our Empire in this most important matter.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend the Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon) has not only spoken very briefly, but he has given us an illustration of how much good sense and sound argument can be packed into a very small space. I will do as much as I can to imitate the admirable example that he has set. Let me, in one sentence, associate myself with the regret which he has expressed that the Government have hung up once again, for yet another inquiry, all progress with the civil airship scheme. I can only hope that they will conduct that inquiry as expeditiously as possible, and at the end of it, as happens—after all, we are encouraged by other experiences—be

    2235
    brought even to come to the same conclusion as their predecessors had already adopted. The discussion has been a discursive one, and I have no desire, in the few observations which I am going to make to the House, to travel over the wide field raised. What I want to do is rather to concentrate on a little matter of great importance, namely, what should the policy of this country be in relation to aircraft construction, not merely what is the immediate programme which ought to be included in these Estimates, about which, I think, we are all pretty much agreed, but what policy ought to inspire the Government and direct the Bouse.
    The hon. Member the Under-Secretary of State for Air said that in his opinion it was a very good thing that the fighting services should be organised by pacifists. At any rate, I go this length with him, that I think it is a very good thing for the pacifists, and all of us who listened to him to-day, and who either heard or read him when this subject was under discussion a few weeks ago, must not only congratulate ourselves, and him, upon the signal progress he has made in the last few weeks, but must have listened with delight to the hon. Gentleman explaining that nowhere in the world could you find such young men as enter our Air Service, nowhere in the world, and in no other institution, was so admirable an education, both for learning and for character, as this Service afforded. That testimony from the hon. Gentleman is one which, I am sure, will be as welcome to the Service which he helps to direct as it has been to the Members of this House. I am a little less happy when I come to consider what he said about policy. Have the Government any policy in this matter? I do not complain of these Estimates in so far as they refer to aircraft construction as distinct from civil aviation, but have the Government a policy? The late Government had a policy, a policy which is embodied, not textually, in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston (Mr. Penny). It was that British air power must include a home defence air force of sufficient strength adequately to protect us against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance of this country.
    2236
    What I want to ask the hon. Gentleman to say specifically upon this Amendment is whether that is the policy of the present Government, and, if not, why they have abandoned it, and what they have put in its place. I think they are fair questions. They are matters of which the Government have had full notice, for they were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) earlier in the Session on an occasion when the Debate could not be brought to a conclusion, and when you, Sir, invited us from the Chair to resume the subject on the present occasion. May I, for the purpose of making my questions easier, say that this demand for a policy is not affected by what may happen in pursuance of any international agreement, if such can be reached, for the limitation of armaments? That is common to all men and women in this House, and, I should hope, all men and women outside. Any one of us will do anything to help the Government to get an international agreement for the limitation of armaments, and any standard that we set up must be revised, and may be reduced, as the result of any such agreement. I am speaking only of what is to be our policy in this House, and in the Government, until general agreement, or general agreement among the great Powers, as was made in regard to capital ship construction, is possible also in regard to air force.
    The Government have spoken a great deal about their hopes of such an international agreement. I would deprecate their waiting upon the possibilities of that before they form their policy. Let us have our policy for the position as it is, and as it may continue for an indefinite time. Let us reduce that policy; let us alter it or abandon it, if, at any time, it is rendered obsolete by international agreement. Surely it is very dangerous to act on any other principle. In the first place, is it not probable that the standard of force which will be suggested if you ever enter a conference with other Powers, will be largely governed by your relative strength at the moment you enter the conference or by the programme you have announced at that moment. That was the case with naval disarmament, and naval limitation would not have been possible on any other basis.

    2237
    It would be a tragedy if we entered the conference so weak that we were obliged to resist that standard, and claim some exceptional treatment for ourselves, in consequence of our own failure to make adequate preparations in advance. It might be fatal to the conference. It might, ruin the very object which hon. Members opposite—I grant it—have very near their hearts, and I say very near the hearts of all their countrymen.
    There is another thing. My hon. Friend the Member for Hythe spoke moderately, but impressively, of the horror that air war threatens in future for the civilian population, even, perhaps, more than for the fighting forces, for I remember to have been told by officers coming back from France that the soldiers in the trenches were far more exercised when they heard of there having been a raid over their native town, where their wives and children were, than they were by the fierce bombing to which they were subjected. Can anyone say that our position at this moment is safe? I am not criticising anyone. If there was any Government to be criticised in this matter, it, was the Government of which I was a Member. In our anxiety to meet the urgent necessity for a relief of our burdens, I think we undoubtedly cut down the Air Force, not only too much, but with too little consideration as to how we did it.
    I make that confession. I want to carry hon. Members with me as much as possible, and I make it because I am not trying to criticise others. I say if any Government was to blame it was the Government of which I was a Member, and for which I share as large a responsibility as anyone. But nobody can doubt that our position now is one in which, if we were attacked, we have not the means to defend ourselves. I need not repeat the figures given by my right hon. Friend beside me a little time ago. Roughly, we have one machine to put into the air against 10 machines that could be brought against us. I venture to say there is no war that can come so suddenly as air war. There is no warfare which can be so horrible as air warfare. Unless you have a settled policy, such as the late Government had, and continue to carry it out steadily until the circumstances are changed by international agreement, you run a great risk
    2238
    of panic in this country, panic which will force you or your successors to build in great haste, and may force them to build just at that moment when active preparation creates the greatest international danger, because the panic itself is the symptom and result of some tension in international affairs. Accordingly, I urge the Government to take their courage in their hands, and frankly accept the policy laid down by the late Government in the declaration of the late Prime Minister, embodied in this Amendment, and say that, unless and until the situation is changed by international agreement, or by a voluntary reduction without agreement on the part of others with far larger air forces than our own, we are going to build to a standard here laid down, and provide a force adequate to protect us against air attacks by the strongest Air Force within striking distance of this country. I ask the hon. Gentleman for a clear and specific reply to the question I have given him.
    Mr. LEACH: The Government's announcement with regard to their intentions this year has met with universal approval. I have listened to every speech in this House during the course of this Debate, and not one has found any fault with the scheme outlined on behalf of the Government indicating our actions and our purposes for the forthcoming year. Indeed, I do not remember such unanimity on any subject in the House before. Hon. Members have actually been in a difficulty in performing the natural duties of criticising at all. My predecessor has claimed this afternoon that he regards these Estimates as his own, and, naturally, therefore, they must be perfect. They are the legacy entrusted to us by the late Government. With this unanimity, why is there this Amendment to the Motion which I have made to get on with business? What is it an Amendment to? It is an Amendment to a Resolution which I have moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and the success of that Amendment will naturally prevent the Speaker from leaving the Chair. Whatever the merits of the Amendment may be, that will be the result of carrying it. It does appear to me very strange indeed that if this House is so unanimous about getting on with the proposals that I have outlined, and most of all to find the money for

    2239
    doing it, that an Amendment should be on the Paper, which, apparently, is to be persisted in, and put to the vote, which would most effectively prevent, and in a most irritating way delay, what everybody seems unanimous in wanting. I have no other course but to oppose the Amendment, because of the result which would follow the carrying of it.
    On the merits of the Amendment itself, I am not at all sure that I understand the meaning of it. So far as I can make out, it is purely a pious resolution which may have something behind it to which we on this side cannot subscribe at all, or which, on the other hand, may be perfectly harmless. It looks to me as if it were an anti-French declaration in some respects. Apparently, it must have in it the element of prompting the idea that we are arming against France. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not at all!"] I do not desire that any such untruthful impression should get abroad. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody does!"] If nobody does, then what on earth is there in the Amendment that needs any attention at all? It is a declaration to secure economy and increased efficiency. How many times have I heard those words and that phrase! They mean absolutely nothing at all. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) found fault with the Government for hanging up still further the lighter-than-airship legacy entrusted to us by the late Government. I want to give one or two reasons why that has been necessary. I observed in the "Times" to-day a letter from the hon. and gallant author of this scheme, in which he makes the declaration that in this undertaking private capital shoulders the major risks. That is not correct.
    8.0 P.M.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The arrangement on the subject is that private capital finds £200,000 of ordinary shares, and the Government £400,000 of debenture shares. I always understood that the ordinary shares take the risk. If there is any failure of the concern, the Government forecloses on the whole property and private capital loses its money, while the Government will get the money spent on airship development for £400,000.
    Mr. LEACH: The way I see it is this. The total amount of taxpayers' money which it was intended to put into this scheme was £4,800,000. It is true there is a provision to pay some half of that back if the profits allow. The hon. and gallant Member says that in this undertaking private capital shoulders the major risks. The whole of this sum is going to be a risk, and the Government's share from the taxpayer is, as I have said, £4,800,000, while the whole of the risk to be put upon private capital is £500,000. I think that practically disposes of the idea that this is a scheme which ought to be presented to the House at this juncture without further inquiry.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think the hon. Gentleman should get the facts correctly. No other money of the Government whatever is risked until the first stage has been completed, until the whole programme has been shown to be feasible. Then the second stage comes into operation, and no further money, other than that for the second stage, becomes due from the Government until the service is on a paying basis and is actually in operation. Further than that, the Government is repaid £3,300,000 out of that amount, and a further amount is added to make it £4,800,000. This further amount of about £2,000,000 is for services rendered in providing gun positions, for the ship training, and so forth.
    Mr. LEACH: It is not my intention to go into very close detail on the airship scheme, but I will content myself with a quotation from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who was Minister of Air last year, on this question of risk. We are advised (July, 1923) by the late Minister of Air:—
    "Too great reliance should not be placed on the repayment of those subsidies."
    Sir S. HOARE: I am not contradicting what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I should like him to tell me from where he gets that quotation?
    Mr. LEACH: It is from a Report of the Committee of Imperial Defence.
    Sir S. HOARE: I must protest against I this use of a Report of the Committee of Imperial Defence, than which no document could be more confidential.
    Mr. LEACH: It may be that in my innocence and in my inexperience of

    2241
    office I have quoted from a document which it is improper to use in this way, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it was done in complete ignorance.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: What are you apologising for? Be a man and stand up to them. Do not be afraid of them.
    Mr. LEACH: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) asked me to indicate what the programme of the Government is to be. I have been trying to the utmost of my ability to do just that, thing in my speech this afternoon, and to outline as clearly as may be exactly what we propose to do. Further than that it is impossible for me at this moment to go. An hon. Member complained that I had not referred sufficiently to the Iraq situation. It is true that I had prepared myself with some extracts from the report of the High Commissioner of Iraq on this matter which I was not permitted to use.
    Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no, it is not fair to say that. The hon. Member should have used the extracts if he was prepared to lay the paper. I intervened to save him from the mistake which he has just made of quoting from a confidential document and being unable to lay it.
    Mr. LEACH: I have no complaint to make. I think the right hon. Gentleman's point was perfectly proper. In regard to the situation in Iraq, it is necessary for the Air Force authorities to come to the Civil authorities when there is any intention to use the Air Force in any way, and every proposed effort on the part of the military authorities is carefully scrutinised before a final decision is made. I trust that the Amendment which put this difficulty in our way will be withdrawn after the explanations I have made.
    Viscount CURZON: I regard, with the utmost possible concern, the attitude of the hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Estimate. I have no confidence in him. How can you expect the gallant officers and men of the Air Force to have confidence, that they will not be let down when they have an hon. Gentleman who professes pacifist opinions to look after their interests. It is they who will suffer. The hon. Gentleman will not surfer if he lets them down. Defeat, either at sea or in the air, is irretrievable, and there can be no recovery for
    2242
    this country. We are now facing a dual menace in the air and at sea. I ask the House and the country not to forget that both of those menaces are absolutely vital, and both may have disastrous results, which would be quite irretrievable.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: From where is the menace coming?
    Viscount CURZON: I do not wish to embroil this country with any other country.
    Mr. WESTWOOD: Then why talk about a menace? You are the menace.
    Viscount CURZON: I think it is possible to have only one speech at a time in this House. We are not arming against any specific country at all. We are providing what we think is the necessary Air Force for this country. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates has not yet said what his standard of strength. I regard his declaration as profoundly unsatisfactory. He has not said whether his standard of strength in the air is the standard of the late Government or some new standard. Perhaps they will have another Committee to inquire into that. In regard to the Burney Airship scheme, I submit that this is a most unnecessary further delay. The hon. Gentleman said that further inquiry is necessary. How many months have we to wait? Five or six Committees have already sat upon this; about five different Cabinet Ministers have gone into it and decided that the scheme should be proceeded with. When the late Government left office the scheme was on the point of application. Why cannot the Government tell us that at any rate their decision will not be delayed and that they will give a guarantee that at a certain time they will decide to go ahead with the scheme? I am quite certain that they will not get airships by any other means unless they are to start in with a kind of company promoting business at the Ministry of Air. These airships are required, not only from the point of view of commerce and industry, but also from the point of view of the Navy. Nothing was more wonderful during the War than the escape of the German Fleet after the Battle of Jutland, and this was due to the German airships.

    2243
    Again on the 19th August another German airship enabled the German Fleet to escape. The airship in naval war would be the finest aircraft carrier of the lot. It would be the best antidote to attack you could possibly devise. I submit, therefore, that these airships are vital to us not only from the point of view of commerce but from the point of view of the Navy, and I hope the House will not rest content with the declaration of the hon. Gentleman. He has told us nothing about it at all. I would like to
    refer to one or two other points which were raised in the Debate.
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes)rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"
    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 269; Noes, 195.

    Division No. 21.]

    AYES.

    [8.15 p.m.

    Ackroyd, T. R.

    Falconer, J.

    Kedward, R. M.

    Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke

    Foot, Isaac

    Keens, T.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. William

    Franklin, L. B.

    Kennedy, T.

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

    Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)

    Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.

    Alden, Percy

    Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)

    Kirkwood, D.

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

    Gavan-Duffy, Thomas

    Laverack, F. J.

    Alstead, R.

    George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)

    Law, A.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Gilbert, James Daniel

    Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)

    Attlee, Major Clement R.

    Gillett, George M.

    Lawson, John James

    Ayles, W. H.

    Gorman, William

    Leach, W.

    Baker, W. J.

    Gosling, Harry

    Lee, F.

    Banton, G.

    Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)

    Lessing, E.

    Barclay, Ft. Noton

    Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

    Lindley, F. W.

    Barnes, A.

    Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)

    Gray, Frank (Oxford)

    Loverseed, J. F.

    Batey, Joseph

    Greenall, T.

    Lowth, T.

    Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Lunn, William

    Berkeley, Captain Reginald

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    McCrae, Sir George

    Black, J. W.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Groves, T.

    Mackinder, W.

    Bonwick, A.

    Grundy, T. W.

    Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

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

    Bramsdon, Sir Thomas

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)

    Briant, Frank

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Maden, H.

    Broad, F. A.

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Mansel, Sir Courtenay

    Bromfield, William

    Harbord, Arthur

    March, S.

    Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)

    Hardie, George D.

    Marley, James

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Harney, E. A.

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

    Brunner, Sir J.

    Harris, John (Hackney, North)

    Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)

    Buchanan, G.

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.

    Buckie, J.

    Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)

    Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.

    Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Middleton, G.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Hastings, Somerville (Reading)

    Millar, J. D.

    Cape, Thomas

    Haycock, A. W.

    Mills, J. E.

    Chapple, Dr. William A.

    Hayday, Arthur

    Mond, H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)

    Montague, Frederick

    Clarke, A.

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)

    Climie, R.

    Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Morse, W. E.

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)

    Mosley, Oswald

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Hillary, A. E.

    Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)

    Collins, Patrick (Walsall)

    Hirst, G. H.

    Murray, Robert

    Compton, Joseph

    Hobhouse, A. L.

    Murrell, Frank

    Comyns-Carr, A. S.

    Hoffman, P. C.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cory, Sir Clifford

    Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)

    Nixon, H.

    Costello, L. W. J.

    Hudson, J. H.

    O'Grady, Captain James

    Cove, W. G.

    Isaacs, G. A.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Crittall, V. G.

    Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)

    Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)

    Darbishire, C. W.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    O'Neill, John Joseph

    Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)

    Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)

    Owen, Major G.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

    Jewson, Dorothea

    Paling, W.

    Dickie, Captain J. P.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Palmer, E. T.

    Dickson, T.

    Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Dodds, S. R.

    Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)

    Dukes, C.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Perry, S. F.

    Duncan, C.

    Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Dunnico, H.

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Phillipps, Vivian

    Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)

    Potts, John S.

    Egan, W. H.

    Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)

    Pringle, W. M. R.

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

    Kay, Sir R. Newbald

    Purcell, A. A.

    Raffan, P. W.

    Snell, Harry

    Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)

    Raffety, F. W.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Warne, G. H.

    Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford

    Spence, R.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Raynes, W. R.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

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

    Rea, W. Russell

    Stamford, T. W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Richards, R.

    Starmer, Sir Charles

    Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah, C.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Stephen, Campbell

    Weir, L. M.

    Ritson, J.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Wells, S. R.

    Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)

    Stranger, Innes Harold

    Westwood, J.

    Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)

    Sullivan, J.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)

    Sunlight, J.

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

    Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)

    Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Whiteley, W.

    Royce, William Stapleton

    Tattersall, J. L.

    Wignall, James

    Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.

    Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Darby)

    Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)

    Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)

    Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Scurr, John

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)

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

    Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)

    Sexton, James

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

    Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)

    Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

    Thornton, Maxwell R.

    Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)

    Sherwood, George Henry

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Shinwell, Emanuel

    Toole, J.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Tout, W. J.

    Windsor, Walter

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Wintringham, Margaret

    Simpson, J. Hope

    Turner, Ben

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

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Varley, Frank B.

    Wright, W.

    Smillie, Robert

    Viant, S. P.

    Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Vivian, H.

    Smith, T. (Pontefract)

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Smith, W. R. (Norwich)

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Mr. Spoor and Mr. Frederick Hall.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.

    Cope, Major William

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Ainsworth, Captain Charles

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

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

    Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas. C.)

    Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Jephcott, A. R.

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

    Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry Page

    Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)

    Aske, Sir Robert William

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Astor, Viscountess

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Austin, Sir Herbert

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.

    Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)

    Lane-Fox, George R.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

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

    Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

    Barnett, Major Richard W.

    Deans, Richard Storry

    Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

    Becker, Harry

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Beckett, Sir Gervase

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Lorimer, H. D.

    Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

    Ednam, Viscount

    MacDonald, R.

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

    Elveden, Viscount

    McLean, Major A.

    Berry, Sir George

    England, Lieut.-Colonel A.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)

    Ferguson, H.

    Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    FitzRoy, Capt. Rt. Hon. Edward A.

    Meller, R. J.

    Blundell, F. N.

    Forestier-Walker, L.

    Milne, J. S. Wardlaw

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)

    Brassey, Sir Leonard

    Gates, Percy

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Briscoe, Captain Richard George

    Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.

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

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

    Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

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

    Burman, J. B.

    Gretton, Colonel John

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

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Gwynne, Rupert S.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

    Butt, Sir Alfred

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

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.

    Harland, A.

    Pennefather, Sir John De Fonblanque

    Cassels, J. D.

    Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)

    Phllipson, Mabel

    Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Raine, W.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Rankin, James S.

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

    Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

    Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.

    Rawson, Alfred Cooper

    Chapman, Sir S.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Clayton, G. C.

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Remer, J. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

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

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

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)

    Roundell, Colonel R. F.

    2246

    2247

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

    Russell-Wells, Sir S. (London Univ.)

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Wells, S. R.

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

    Weston, John Wakefield

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Sutcliffe, T.

    Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Savery, S. S.

    Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.

    Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

    Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Wragg, Herbert

    Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Smith-Carington, Neville W.

    Waddington, R.

    Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)

    Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)

    Mr. penny and Colonel Windsor-

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

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Clive.

    Stanley, Lord

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Supply considered in Committee.
    [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
    NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 35,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
    It being a Quarter past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

  POSITION OF FISHING INDUSTRY.
  Mr. RENTOUL: I beg to move,
  "That this House views with concern the continued depression in the Fishing Industry of Great Britain and urges upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of assisting the industry by taking such steps as may be practicable to provide the maximum amount of employment for British fishermen, to ensure an adequate supply of British-caught fish for home consumption, to secure the immediate opening up of all foreign markets, to obtain international agreement on the question of territorial waters, and to promote the scientific development and general interests of the Fishing Industry."
  This is a fairly comprehensive Resolution, and I trust that no apology will be required from me for venturing to take advantage of my good fortune in the Ballot in order to call attention to the present plight of the fishing industry, and to press upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of taking all practical and immediate steps that may be possible in order to place that industry once again upon a sound and prosperous
  2248
  footing. Some hon. Members who do not happen to represent coastal towns, or who have not been brought in contact with the conditions prevailing there, may not altogether appreciate the vital importance of the fishing industry, not only to the hundreds and thousands of individuals directly engaged in it, but also to the nation as a whole, an importance not only in connection with our food supplies, but also because the fishing industry has been, as we all know, the main recruiting ground for the Navy for generations past.
  I have often been told that it is a somewhat dangerous thing to attempt to quote figures in this House, but there are just a few that I should like to give, because possibly they illustrate in a picturesque and striking fashion what this industry really means to this country. How many people realise—and this is an estimate which I have obtained from the Association of British Fisheries, and which may be accepted as substantially accurate—that over one-fortieth of the entire population of Great Britain is directly dependent upon the fishing industry for a livelihood; that there are 14,739 British fishing vessels engaged round our coasts, that the value of these vessels, with their gear, is well over £12,000,000; that the wages bill for the men employed on these boats in 1922—these are the last figures available—amounted to over £12,000,000. Of course, I leave out of account for this purpose, the enormous value of those works on shore, such as engineering works, ice-making plants, and works in other directions which exist solely and entirely by reason of the requirements of the fishing industry. The requirements of that industry provide work for 9,000 coal miners six days a week all the year round. In a similar fashion 10,000 railway men are dependent for their employment on the needs of the fishing

  2249
  industry. These figures will at any rate be enough to demonstrate that you are dealing here with an industry of the first importance, and which on that account merits the most sympathetic consideration, not only of the Government, but of the whole of the Members of this House.
  In addition, I should like to remind the House that over 60,000 fishermen joined the naval forces during the War, chiefly the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, where they performed an heroic but for the most part a thankless task in minesweeping and patrolling our coasts, for which they received very little recognition. Those being the facts, what is the position of this great industry to-day? Unfortunately it has to be admitted that in both branches of it, trawling and herring fishing, a very great amount of distress undoubtedly prevails. There are 91 trawling vessels indefinitely laid up; in addition, the Admiralty has some 50 more to dispose of, which I should imagine there is very little chance indeed of them being able to do under present circumstances. So far as herring fishing is concerned, there are over 200 herring fishing boats indefinitely laid up.
  It may be suggested that there has been some improvement recently in regard to the fishing industry. That may be so to an extent, but I am afraid that it does not amount to very much. In fact, I think the present situation is accurately described by the remark of a leading boat-owner, who, when asked the other day about this alleged improvement, replied, "Well, on the whole, I think we shall probably lose less money this year than we lost last, but that is about as high as one can put it." Undoubtedly, this great distress prevails, and that leads us to ask what are the causes underlying it. I think that, broadly speaking, there are three. In the first place, for some unexplained reason, which no scientist has yet been able to fathom, there has been recently a scarcity of fish in home waters. Of course, I do not suggest that that is a matter which it is within the competence of even a Socialist Government to remedy, but, apart from that, the two main causes are, firstly, the restriction of our foreign markets owing to the high protective duties that are imposed on our fish by practically every other country
  2250
  in the world and, secondly, the unrestricted competition of foreign fishermen in our home markets, aided, no doubt, by the rate of exchange, cheaper labour, and so forth.
  I do not want in this Debate to argue the broad question of Protection. I quite realise that there are many hon. Members opposite who would hold up their hands in pious horror if one were to suggest that anything might be done by way of Protection or retaliation. We should immediately be told that that meant putting a tax on food. I would, however, like to point out in passing that, surely, there is broad distinction to be drawn, at any rate, between the case of a protective duty on foreign-caught fish coming into this country and a protective duty on, say, foreign imported wheat. The distinction is that we are in a position in this country at the present time to supply with considerable ease the needs of the whole population in regard to fish. If we were in a similar position with regard to growing all the wheat and other foodstuffs that may be necessary, I submit that that is a factor which would have to be taken into account by any unbiased person in any consideration of this fiscal controversy.
  As I have said, practically all the countries in the world to-day have duties, more or less severe, against British-caught fish going into their markets. I believe that Belgium is the only exception. In many instances those duties are of an absolutely prohibitive character, closing the markets of those countries to our fish, and they have, undoubtedly, been materially increased since the War. On the other side of the picture, we have enormous quantities of foreign-caught fish coming into this country. For instance, last year over 62,000 tons of fish were dumped in our home markets, 40,000 tons of which came from Denmark and Holland. In March, 1923, a year ago, at a time of very acute distress, I am informed that some 400 or 600 tons of foreign-caught fish were dumped daily on the Aberdeen fish market. Without embarking on any fundamental change in our fiscal system, I submit that this is a matter in which the Board of Trade might possibly take some steps—for instance, in the direction of determining, by Regulation or by some other means,

  2251
  the amount of fish that should be sent into any particular market on any particular day or during any particular week. By that means there would be brought about a distribution of the foreign-caught fish throughout the various markets, instead of its being all dumped into one particular market, notably Billingsgate, with the result that it absolutely destroys that market so far as our own fishermen are concerned.
  In addition to these difficulties, the herring fishing industry has lost, for economic reasons into which I need not enter, its two main pre-War markets, namely Germany and Russia. We are told that the Government is endeavouring to re-establish commercial relations with Russia. However little optimism many of us may have with regard to that attempt, I would take this opportunity, if I may, of pressing on the Government that, in any arrangements that are come to, conditions should be inserted which safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry so far as it is possible to do so—that the importance of that industry should be borne in mind in connection with any negotiations that may take place. It is probable that in course of time the herring fishing industry will lose the German market altogether, because, undoubtedly, Germany is making very big efforts at the present time to develop her fishing industry, and one can easily see that, when she considers that her fishing fleet has attained to sufficient dimensions, she will increase the protective duties which are already in force, and will practically close that market against us.
  I would remind the House that almost all countries that have a fishing industry of any importance take definite and deliberate steps to help it, and to subsidise it in some way or other, either by a direct grant, or by bonuses on the amount of fish caught, bonuses on the wages, or some other means. The reason for their doing this is obvious. I think it is well described in a latter which appeared on the 1st of this month in the "Freeman's Journal." A similar discussion is going on, I understand, in the Irish Free State, as to the steps that they should take in regard to developing their fishing industry, and the writer, in the course of his letter, said this:
  "That the fishing industry is a precarious one as a means of livelihood has
  2252
  always been recognised by the Governments of all countries possessing a considerable seaboard, inasmuch as all progressive Governments throughout the world have subsidised and encouraged the industry to even a greater degree than looks proportionate to its value as a national asset; but such Governments, unlike our own, look on the industry, not only as a source of employment, but as a unit in the production of valuable nourishing foodstuffs."
  In view of these difficulties, in view of the foreign tariffs and the amount of dumping that goes on, I do press upon the Government the urgency of taking every step in their power to safeguard the interests of the fishing industry, and of not losing sight of those interests in any negotiations that may take place with foreign Powers. This is a very solemn obligation which rests upon them. I might refer to what has happened only recently in regard to Poland. Poland is practically the largest, if not the largest, market in the world to-day for our herrings. According to the latest figures available, namely, those for the month of January last, we sent into Poland 31,445 cwt. in a single month, of a value of over £21,000. Consequently, it will be appreciated that it would amount to an absolute disaster for the herring fishing industry if we were to lose that Polish market altogether. Within the last two or three weeks the Polish Government has imposed a duty on all British herrings going into Poland of 20s. a barrel. When a question was put the other day by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord) to the Prime Minister he received the exceedingly unsatisfactory reply that it was not a matter in which the Government could interfere as it was one that concerned the internal fiscal arrangements of another country. Why is it so impossible for representations to be made to the Polish Government pointing out the serious effect of this duty on our herring fishing, and reminding them of the very great sympathy and help that this country has given in the past to Poland in fostering her national aspirations? I believe if strong representations of that kind were made it would further have the effect of inducing the Polish Government either to remove that duty or at any rate to lessen it to a very large extent. It is certainly interesting, when we see this high protective duty being imposed by Poland, to remember that a very distinguished Free Trader and ex-Member of this House

  2253
  the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Commander Hilton Young) who represented the City of Norwich in the last Parliament, was over in Poland only recently reorganising, I understand, her national finances. I do not know whether it is a first result of his visit that Poland is to impose these high protective duties.
  There are other questions of a broad international character to which one might refer if time permitted. There is, for instance, the important matter of the limits of territorial waters. That again is a question which I would urge on the attention of the Government with a view to seeing if by some international agreement it might not be possible to induce other countries to accept the British three-mile limit. So much for what one might call the international aspect of this matter. I want to say a word about one or two internal or domestic problems that surround the industry at present, two especially because I think they are both matters in regard to which it would be perfectly possible for the Government to work out some speedy and practical remedy. The first is the old controversy with regard to railway rates. It is indeed difficult to see why all these years after the War the industry should be crippled and the consumer should be penalised by the enormous burden of railway rates on the carriage of fish.
  Mr. HARDIE: On this question of railway rates, fish is delivered on the quay at Oban at ½d. per lb., and every 5 lbs. taken from Oban to Glasgow costs 1d., but the fish which could be sold at under 1d. per lb. are retailed at 6d. and 8d. per lb. Can the hon. Member explain what is this great railway rate that he speaks of?
  Mr. RENTOUL: I have some figures, not from Scotland but from England. Ten cran of herring were bought at Lowestoft the other day for £12 10s.
  Mr. HARDIE: I want to follow this thing up.—
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it the usual practice to conduct Debates in the House by way of dialogue?
  Mr. SPEAKER: It is not the usual way, but the hon. Member gave way.
  Mr. HARDIE: It is only to know what is the weight of the cran.
  Mr. RENTOUL: These are some figures supplied me from my own constituency the other day. Ten cran of herring were bought at Lowestoft for £12 10s. The carriage on that quantity of fish to three of the markets in this country amounted to £8 17s. 7d., or 71 per cent. of the total price paid for the fish. It is obvious that this means very high prices to the consumer, and it is very difficult indeed to find out why it should be justified under present conditions. Further, in the past the railway companies have conceded a preference on the carriage of fish, but this preference has now been to all intents and purposes withdrawn. A year or two ago, when other railway charges stood at 100 per cent. above pre-War level, the charges for fish traffic were 75 per cent. When other charges were subsequently reduced to 75 per cent. the fish traffic charges were reduced to 50 per cent. When the other charges were reduced to 50 per cent., as they are to-day, the fish traffic charges still remain at 50 per cent., and the railway companies absolutely refuse to make any further concession. This is a matter where the Ministry of Transport or some other Government Department concerned might effectively take the matter up with the railway companies in the interest of the consumers.
  Bearing on this question there is another very important one as affecting the English market, that is the question of the pre-payment of carriage upon fish. There is a special and, to my mind, an indefensible attitude adopted by the railway companies in connection with that matter. The pre-War system was for fish to be sent to the various retailers throughout the country carriage forward—carriage to be paid by the retailer—which seems a reasonable and proper thing. That was altered during the War by the railway companies on the plea of the abnormal conditions then prevailing, the shortage of clerical staff and so forth, but it was clearly implied that it was only a temporary measure during the War. Yet five years after the War the railway companies still insist on this prepayment of carriage, which is a very hardship on the fishing industry. It means additional working capital. It means the chance that any bad debts you may make are

  2255
  increased by the fact that the sender has already paid carriage, an anomaly that becomes all the greater now that we have amalgamation of the railway companies. For instance, the London and North North Eastern Raiway now serves practically all the fishing ports on the East Coast of England and Scotland. The London, Midland and Scottish Railway now does the same thing for the English and Scotch ports on the West Coast. From all the English ports the railway companies insist still upon prepayment of carriage, but on the London and North Eastern Railway directly you get North of Berwick they allow the old system of carriage forward to prevail. The same thing happens on the London, Midland and Scottish Railway, and I would therefore make a very special appeal to the Scottish Members to give us their support in this matter. Appeals are frequently made by them to our sympathies in order to assist them in remedying injustices to that apparently very down-trodden country. Now we appeal for their support in like manner to remedy a very serious injustice to England.
  The second internal difficulty about which I want to say a word is the price of coal. Coal is far and away the heaviest item in the running of a steam trawler. I quite admit that public opinion generally is opposed to subsidies, not only in the country but in the fishing industry itself, but there is a concession which, by arrangement with the railway companies, might be made and which would be of the utmost value to the industry as a whole. Certain ports, notably Grimsby, Hull, Kings Lynn, and, I believe, one or two others, have a special shipping rate for coal. This rate is denied to great ports like Lowestoft, Yarmouth, and other places round our coasts. Whether a port possesses this shipping rate for coal or not often means the difference between prosperity and bankruptcy so far as running their boats is concerned. To give Lowestoft and Yarmouth a shipping rate similar to that at present possessed by Grimsby and Hull would mean a difference to the Lowestoft and Yarmouth boat owners of something like 5s. to 6s. per ton. As a trawler will often burn anything from 1,000 to 2,000 tons of coal per annum, according to its size, it will be
  2256
  understood that this concession makes all the difference, in many instances, as to whether that trawler is able to run at a profit or at an utter and complete loss. This is one of the most pressing matters and one of the greatest difficulties that confronts the fishing industry at the present time, and surely, from the ordinary common-sense point of view, and of justice, all the ports of the country should be treated alike, and certain port should not be given this very special concession.
  I suppose these questions are mainly matters for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I never could understand why these two industries should be grouped together under one Ministry. We have spent a great deal of time, quite rightly, in this Parliament, and in the last Parliament, in discussing the needs of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture has outlined a great scheme of loans and credits for the agricultural community. Why should not something of a similar nature be devised for the benefit of the fishing industry, and particularly for the purpose of purchasing nets and gear? If the industry was helped over the present abnormal times it would not need to be in force for very long, because the fishing industry does not want and does not ask to be financed. It is perfectly willing, given reasonable conditions, to finance itself. There are many other matters which will be touched upon by other hon. Members, but I do suggest that concessions might be made on the points I have mentioned.
  There are minor questions as to whether it would not be perfectly easy to make concessions in regard to the question of telegrams and telephonic charges which play such a large part in the placing of the fish upon the various markets of the country, and whether greater attention might be given to research work. The Admiralty has often been pressed to provide a vessel for exploratory work and research, but hitherto without success. Whilst speaking of the scientific development of the industry, I may say that it has frequently been brought to my notice that the very high price of technical publications issued by the Ministry has the effect, largely, of depriving the industry of the benefit that those works might otherwise be. Undoubtedly, a great deal

  2257
  might be done in that direction. I have encroached far too long upon the time of the House, but I have this excuse, that it is over 20 years since there was a discussion in this House exclusively devoted to the needs and problems of the fishing industry. Consequently, may I express the hope that the outcome of this Debate will not be merely some academic expression of opinion, but that practical results will ensue which will be of material benefit and will bring much-needed relief to one of the most vital and most important of our national industries.
  9.0 P.M.
  Captain SIDNEY HERBERT: I rise with great pleasure to second the Resolution which has been moved in such eloquent terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. I crave the indulgence which the House always shows to a Member addressing it for the first time, and I do so with additional confidence from the fact that I have been, during the last year, so infrequent and so polite an interrupter, and a listener as exemplary as even Mr. Speaker himself could wish. I must express my pleasure and the pleasure of the House that the Minister of Agriculture is in his place to-night. It would have been unfortunate had the House had to make use of the services of the Lord Privy Seal again in the capacity of messenger boy. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture has attended this Debate of his own free will and not as a matter of conscription, as was the case in regard to a private Member's Bill on the subject of agriculture the other evening.
  Neither the Mover of the Resolution nor I apologise, nor do we need to apologise, for occupying the time of the House in discussing an industry so important as the fishing industry. This industry employs, directly, over. 80,000 persons, and indirectly another 180,000 persons. If you add those persons together and you include all the persons depending upon them, you will find that there are over 1,000,000 persons depending for their livelihood on the vicissitudes of the fishing industry. It has been my good fortune during the last few years to have had the honour of the friendship of many Yorkshire fishing folk. I have known them in times of comparative prosperity, and I have known them in times of adversity. Their great courage,
  2258
  kindliness and generosity is proverbial. What has most won my admiration is the proud spirit of self-reliance and independence with which they have faced conditions of adversity during the last two or three years. I do not suppose that this island ever bred a finer race of men and women. There is certainly no section of the community which contributed so lavishly in proportion to its numbers to the fighting forces during the War. Over 60,000 men joined His Majesty's forces. The large number who remained, continued fishing amidst the dangers of submarines and mines in order that the food supplies might be maintained. I only quote these facts in order that the House may remember what a very considerable claim the fishing industry has upon the attention and gratitude of the people of this country.
  There is a second claim of a very different sort. After the War, in 1919, the Coalition Government, which made several mistakes during the course of its existence. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] All Governments make mistakes, and the House has noticed several mistakes which have been made during the last six weeks. During 1919, the Coalition Government restricted the British trawler owner from selling any vessel to a foreigner unless that vessel was more than 14 years old. At the same time the Government proceeded to dispose by private contract of a large number of fishing vessels which were released from war work. The fishing industry at that time was in a prosperous condition. Under the private contract the British trawler owners bought vessels at prices varying, according to their size, from £12,000 to £22,000. Suddenly that stopped. When the home market had been well glutted with vessels, the Government proceeded to sell by public auction, at which foreign nations also bid. Prices slumped with great rapidity. The foreigner was able to buy, at prices varying from £8,000 downwards, vessels which six months or a year before would have fetched £32,000.
  The first result was that even on the capital outlay on his vessel the foreigner was able to buy 50 per cent. cheaper than the Englishman had bought. Another result was that the British trawler owners who bought their vessels six months previously, found that their capital outlay

  2259
  had depreciated in value by about 50 per cent. That meant that the foreign competitor, even in his capital outlay, was in a better position to compete in the open market than the British owner was. The Coalition Government made another mistake about agriculture, when they fixed a minimum wage on wheat. The Government which succeeded it—that excellent Conservative Government which I supported—tried to remedy the injury done to the farmer by establishing a system of long and short trade credits. On 14th February I asked the Minister of Agriculture
  "Whether he is prepared to set up a Committee to examine into the financial position of the British trawling industry, with a view to granting credits on easy terms to British trawling companies, in order to enable them to tide over the present period of depression."
  The right hon. Gentleman replied:
  "I do not think that an inquiry of the character proposed would add materially to the information already at my disposal regarding the financial position of the industry, and I should be unwilling to take a step which might appear to suggest that I was prepared in any circumstances to propose that it should be subsidised by the Exchequer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1924; col. 1022, Vol. 169.]
  My question did not suggest, nor do I suggest now, that the Government should subsidise the fishing industry. It is clear to me that a country which refused to subsidise its agriculture would not be prepared to give a subsidy to its fishing industry. All that we do ask is that the Government should give credits under the same system as that under which they are given to agriculture at present so that, as my hon. Friend said, fishermen might buy their gear, and the trawling companies might be temporarily carried over the period of depression through which they are now passing. There is hardly a small trawling company at present, and there are very few big trawling companies in England, which are not in the hands of the bankers. I am aware that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite believe that there is nothing easier in the world than for anyone to become a banker. Fortunately bankers do not pursue this theory, and no banker thinks that it is easy for him to become a fisherman. Consequently, the banks have not assumed the management
  2260
  or control of the work of the fishing industry, but overdrafts are large, debts are enormous, and at any moment the banks may foreclose on these trawling companies which will have to go into liquidation, and this will cause immense unemployment throughout the whole of the fishing industry, I asked another question on 14th February of the same right hon. Gentleman, to which he replied:
  "The total quantity of fresh fish taken by foreign fishing vessels and brought to ports of Great Britain in the twelve months ending 31st December, 1922, was 2,611,298 cwts. Of this total 1,241,600 cwte. were landed in British ports by foreign fishing vessels direct from the fishing grounds and 1,369,698 cwts. were landed by foreign fishing vessels in foreign ports and subsequently imported into this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 14th February, 1924; col. 1022, Vol. 169.]
  The position, as I have pointed out, is that the foreigner has been able to buy his vessels at a price 50 per cent. below that paid by the Britisher. Owing to the depleted rate of exchange the foreigner can pay wages on which no British man can afford to live. Owing again to the exchanges, the foreigner can buy gear at something like 35 per cent. or under what we have to pay in this country. Every other country in the world levies a duty upon British fish, whether fresh or dried fish, imported into that country. Those countries which had no duty before the War have imposed it now, and those countries which had a duty have raised it. Spain is doing now what Germany did before the War, subsidising her fishing industry to provide a recruiting ground for her Fleet. We alone admit this foreign fish free into our country and pay duties to every other country in the world. I am credibly informed that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the idea of the word Protection. But they have got to make up their minds, if they wish to see employment continued in this industry, to take one of three courses—either to place a tax upon foreign fish imported into this country, or to prohibit that fish entering this country, or to take steps, for which I believe the machinery exists already, to limit the amount of fish which a foreigner is able to import on one day into any of our ports.
  Any of these courses would have the effect of giving our own people a chance

  2261
  to put the industry on its feet again. The obvious object which we must all have in mind is to obtain the largest possible supply of fresh and wholesome fish for the people of this country. I was reading in the book of the greatest of American Ambassadors to the Court of St. James, Mr. Page, about his astonishment at the fact that we go so far to obtain our food supplies in an island such as ours when the seas are ready to deliver to us so much of the food which we need. The only argument against this control of foreign fish is the argument that it might raise the price of fish on the consumer. I do not believe for one moment that it would. What happens now? Although the German can undersell us at the pier head, the consumer in the market pays exactly as much for that fish. If you allow the foreigners to seize our markets it is obvious that as soon as they have got their hold they will immediately raise their prices again, and there are men in my constituency who have been sunk in the War by German submarines, and who are now being starved by German dumping.
  What is the position? Wages have gone up since before the War, and so they ought to have done. The wages paid even now to men employed in so arduous and dangerous a work are not nearly high enough. The price of coal is up, the price of gear is up, and yet the price paid for fish at the pier approximates to the pre-War price. Buy that fish retail and you will pay 300 to 400 per cent. more than you paid during the War. Exactly the same type of question arose in the agricultural industry, and the late Government appointed the Linlithgow Committee to make inquiries. That Committee produced a very valuable Report. I beg the present Minister of Agriculture to appoint a Committee to inquire into the difference between the price paid to the producer and the price paid by the consumer of fish. I do not think there is any doubt that rings exist to keep down the price to the producer and to put it up to the consumer. We have heard from the Prime Minister and from the Minister of Health that where they find rings or trusts they will search into them and deal with them severely. I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to search no less carefully into, and to deal no less severely with, the rings which are
  2262
  keeping down the price of fish to the fisherman. If he does that he will earn the eternal gratitude of both the fisherman and the consumer. Think what a magnificent name he would earn for himself before the next Election! Think of the right hon. Gentleman going before his electors again as "Buxton, the fish trust buster!" I seriously commend that idea to him.
  The next point relates to the question of railway rates. There is no doubt that, particularly during the summer, the arrangements made are unsatisfactory and the freightage charged is infinitely too high. If these charges were reduced it would be possible for a fisherman to send to the market a far greater supply of fish, and that would benefit the consumer enormously, because the fish would be sold at a very cheap rate. I ask the Government to do what the late Government did with regard to agricultural freightage; that is, to go to the railway companies and try to make them understand that if they reduce their freightage they will recoup themselves over and over again in the bulk which they will carry during those months. I want to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend in asking that the consignee should pay for the carriage of fish rather than the buyer at the port. The system was reversed during the War, and it is high time that we returned to the old procedure. Members of the Association of British Fisheries are very anxious to have a campaign to persuade the public to eat more fish. The unfortunate thing is that, in the present state of the fishing industry, there is not sufficient money to organise such a campaign. The Government might well make a grant to assist this campaign. If they cannot see their way to do that, they might aid in other and smaller ways. The Postmaster-General, for instance, might be able to place on every stamp, in the same way as the Wembley Exhibition is advertised, the words: "Eat more fish." The Minister of Health, when he issues Insurance cards, might place on the back of them a pleasing photograph of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, without a name but with this little sub-title: "Voracious eater of demersal fish."
  I ask the Government to spare no pains in opening up new markets. We

  2263
  have lost the German and the Russian markets, chiefly because their currencies have depreciated in purchasing power. I hope that the agreement which the Government has made with Russia will enable us to find new and reinforced markets there, and I trust that they will spare no efforts to see that these markets are developed for what they are worth. Before I leave that subject, I beg the Government to see that something is quickly done to secure the payment of the obligations which the Russian Government undertook to meet for the seizure of the trawlers, "Lady Astor," "James Johnston," and others. It is nearly a year since those vessels were seized. The obligation was admitted by the Russian Government, and in a year, surely, there has been time to assess the claims. I beg the Government to attempt to get immediate payment made to these trawler companies, which are seriously inconvenienced by the tardy settlement of then-claims.
  In answer to a question yesterday, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
  "Payments in respect of claims dealt with in the final Report of the Royal Commission will be made on the scale recommended in paragraph 18 of the Report, i.e., in full up to the first £250 of the assessment and in varying proportions on the excess over £250. The Government do not feel able to ask Parliament to vote further funds in order to enable ex gratia payment on a higher scale to be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1924; col. 1906, Vol. 170.]
  I beg the Government to alter their view on this question. I know that it is bound up with the question of reparation and the Treaty of Versailles. But no Government, so far, has been very successful in extracting reparation from Germany. It is highly unlikely that the present Government will be able to do better than their predecessors, seeing that they have already surrendered the best instrument they had for the extraction. However that may be, whether they get this reparation or whether they do not, one thing seems to be clear. It is the duty of the nation as a whole to shoulder the burden imposed upon individuals by enemy action during the War. We ought to pay in full, and to pay promptly. It is four, five, and six years since some of these claims were put in. I beg that
  2264
  the belated claims be promptly considered, and paid in full, too. Our fishermen are not all scholars. Many of them did not know how to write or where to write. Some of them asked advice from their neighbours and got bad advice. I trust they will not lose their claims for compensation through what is in no sense any fault of their own, particularly in the case of camparatively poor people who have suffered most.
  I would suggest, further, that the mayors of fishing towns, the representative men in the fishing industry, and the banks concerned, should each meet in the respective constituencies their Members of Parliament, and should discuss what can be done for the fishing industries, and that we should endeavour to get throughout England and Scotland some sort of unity, and that the Minister should receive a deputation elected by bodies constituted as suggested. This Debate has been extremely useful—[HON. MEMBERS: "Will be!"] Well, I trust the Debate will be extremely useful, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to receive such a deputation. I hope also we shall hear before we have finished representatives from every part of England and Scotland. I am delighted with the reception which the fishing industry has received, and I have much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
  Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member who has moved this Resolution upon the use to which he has put his good fortune in the Ballot, in choosing this particular subject. We have heard a great deal during recent Debates of other industries, but the fishing industry of all the industries of this country is one that has been least vocal while suffering distress, and those of us who have authority to speak on behalf of fishing communities desire to give expression to our admiration for the courage and resource displayed by fishermen during these last trying years. I make no apology for dealing very briefly with the situation as it exists in Scotland to-day. Representing a number of large fishing communities in Fife, I should like to point out that, important as this question is in its relation to the other part of the United Kingdom, the fishing industry relatively to the population in Scotland is of much greater importance, because we are dealing there with a population

  2265
  which is engaged in carrying out its calling over a large area on the coast of Scotland We find in towns on the coast of Scotland communities which form an integral part of our Scottish population and which represent one of the most industrious and thrifty sections of that population who also rendered great service during the War. The depression which exists in this industry to-day is generally admitted, but I should like to point out that in Scotland, particularly when you come to consider that out of the 30,762 fishermen actually engaged in this country at sea, only 3,598 or about 10 per cent. are engaged in trawling, the remainder, a very large proportion, residing as they do in many towns round the coast, constitute a section of population upon which in turn a very large proportion of the resident population depends. Therefore we are dealing here with a situation which threatens practically the continued existence of the fishing population and communities along our Scottish coast.
  Special attention has been drawn to the situation as it now exists in a document which has been recently published—the Report of Lord MacKenzie's Committee on Trawling, which reported last December—in which there is afforded most useful and complete information regarding the fishing industry in Scotland. I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging the extreme care and precision which the members of this Committee have shown in drawing up the Report, and the extremely helpful and practical nature of the suggestions made by them. Attention is drawn to the fact that while in 1913 there were some 90,710 fishermen and shore workers engaged in the industry, in 1922 the figures had fallen to 62,249. Mainly the reduction was in shore workers, but there was also a substantial reduction to the number of men engaged in fishing as well. The Report points out that there has been a tendency on the part of the fishermen to emigrate abroad on a considerable scale, and they record that,
  "It is in our opinion a matter of profound regret that such a class of men should be in danger of extinction. Their preservation seems to us to be a question of national importance."
  The issue raised in Scotland is one which goes to the root of the continued existence of this important population.
  2266
  The Mover and Seconder have dealt very fully with some of the causes of the depression in the industry. I should like to inform the Mover that we most earnestly wish to co-operate with him in regard to many of the suggestions he has made and particularly those dealing with transport and other costs. May I also suggest, in congratulating the Seconder on his maiden speech, and the interest and knowledge he displayed, that we also are also greatly concerned about the question which he raised last, namely, the intolerable delay in the settlement of the claims for damage in connection with enemy action. It is all very well to hear from the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench that the matter is being considered. I should like to say to the Front Bench that it is impossible for hon. Members who represent fishing constituencies and communities to satisfy their constituents; and that those who have waited many a long year are not able to apprehend the slowness of the machine, or why these claims are not yet settled.
  As there are many Members who desire to take part in this Debate, I wish very briefly to deal with one or two points affecting Scotland. I believe the most urgent problem of all, so far as Scottish fishermen are concerned, is the provision of adequate equipment for the prosecution of their industry. As the House is no doubt aware, there has been during these recent seasons enormous loss owing to the stormy weather. The ex-service men who returned home found their equipment seriously depreciated and the younger men, owing to the high cost of materials, have not been able to provide themselves with the necessary gear. It has resulted in this, that many boats have been laid up which otherwise would have gone to sea. This matter has already been urged on the Government, but I desire, again, to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who so ably represents Soot-land in this House, that there should be no delay in providing some scheme enabling fishermen to secure adequate equipment. There is something like a 50 per cent. depletion in the nets and gear which these fishermen use, and according to the Fishery Board Report of 1922 the monetary value of the actual total depreciation as compared with the year 1921 amounted to £520,000, which shows how seriously the industry is being

  2267
  handicapped through want of proper nets and other equipment. I hope it may be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the matter will receive his earnest and immediate attention and that he will be able to frame a scheme whereby the Fishery Board of Scotland with the aid of local committees or the fishery officers will be able to provide those who require gear, with all that is necessary for the pursuit of their calling. Another cause of the depression in the industry is the depletion of the fishing grounds and particularly of the inshore fishing grounds. On that we have the Report of the Committee to which I referred, of which Lord Mackenzie was the Chairman, and which included a very distinguished scientist whose name carries great weight, namely, Professor J. Arthur Thomson. The members of the Committee put forward a strong case for further protection in the interests of the whole industry. I should like to dissociate myself from any attack on any one particular branch of the industry. This is a matter in which every branch of the industry is concerned, and we are most anxious that the fishing industry should be considered as a whole and that proper regard should be paid to all its branches. There is no doubt, however, that there has been a great amount of overfishing in our inshore grounds, resulting in the destruction of immature fish.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Does that apply to the herring fishery?
  Mr. MILLAR: Yes. It is explained partly by the very intensive methods which are being used in the capture of fish at sea, but following upon the recommendations of this Committee, which I hope may be put into effect, it is suggessted that there might be a considerable limitation of the areas within which trawling is permitted. We have trawling of two characters—legal and illegal. So far as the illegal trawling is concerned, I hope I have the House with me in saying that more drastic methods should be taken to prevent a continuance of the practice. I hope hon. Members who represent trawling constituencies will be with me when I ask that steps should be taken to see that the law is carried out by their constituents. The recommendations contained in the Report will call for early consideration, and I hope we may have the
  2268
  assistance of all sections in seeing that the proper steps are taken to secure the better observance of the law. As regards the legal trawling, we have the recommendations made by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which suggests that certain areas should be delimited within which trawling should not be permitted, in order to enable the fish stock to recuperate, and to provide a larger supply for the whole industry. There is also a suggestion that a limit should be placed with regard to the size of the fish to be landed and sold. That suggestion has been carried out effectively in certain countries, and I see no reason why it should not be carried out here.
  With regard to the destruction of immature fish, it is true that that is due not only to trawling, but to other methods of capture. In my own division there is a very strong feeling with regard to the immense quantities of immature herrings which are destroyed at this season of the year, having been caught in the upper reaches of the Firth of Forth and other estuaries by methods of capture which make it difficult to avoid, in the taking of other fish, the destruction of the young herring. I do not desire to go into the figures, beyond saying that they show an immense destruction of immature fish, and advertisements appear in the newspapers asking for these immature fish to be used as manure. That is a practice against which the Fishery Board has set its face, and I hope steps will be taken to prevent the capture of immature herring and their use for manuring the soil—a practice which is destructive of the best interests of the fishing community, as well as involving a great waste of food. As to the conservation of stocks, I would point out the enormous toll of fish which is taken every year from the North Sea alone. Something like 17,000,000 cwts. are landed in Great Britain alone, apart from the heavy landings in other countries. It is of the most vital importance, in the interest of the supply of fish to a non-self-supporting country like Great Britain, that something should be done to conserve the stocks in this great fishing ground. The Committee to which I have just referred state,
  "In our view administrative efforts with regard to the fisheries should be primarily directed towards the conservation of the stocks of fish."

  2269
  I sincerely hope the Government will take steps in that direction and carry out some of these recommendations, which will have the effect of safeguarding the supply. I also appeal to the Government to take the earliest opportunity of calling a Convention of the Powers interested in the North Sea in order that we may reopen and reconsider the whole questions dealt with in the North Sea Convention of 1822, and so that we may have, by international arrangement, some agreement with regard to the extension of the territorial waters within which trawling will be prohibited; with regard to the size of fish landed and sold, and with regard to the actual means of capture adopted. On the question of harbours I hope the Government will bear in mind that in Scotland, as well as in other parts of the country, it is absolutely essential that something should be done to assist in putting the harbours into proper repair to enable the fishing fleets to operate successfully. I would draw attention to the admirable passage contained in the Report of the Scottish Fishery Board on this subject, and I am glad indeed to be able to recall the fact that we in Scotland are fortunate in having one of the most sympathetic administrations in regard to fishery matters that could be wished for, in the present Fishery Board, in its chairman, in its secretary, and in its officials, who have always shown the very deepest interest in the welfare of the fishermen. They point out that, in regard to harbours:
  "Owing to the continued depression in the industry, harbour authorities have, as a rule, found their revenues barely sufficient to meet current expenditure, so that it has been impossible for them to keep the harbours in a proper state of repair, much less to effect improvements, and consequently State assistance has become even more vitally necessary if the accommodation is to be made suitable for the fishing fleet."
  The other quotation to which I desire to refer is where they state that the amount available from the Board's Piers or Quays Fund under the Special Harbour Grant of £3,000, which was reduced last year to £2,000, and also the sums available from the Development Fund, are quite insufficient. They state:
  "There are many cases in which Government assistance is essential to the preservation of harbours and to the continued existence of the communities dependent on
  2270
  them, which do not fall within the scope of the Development Fund and which can look only to the Board's fund for assistance."
  I hope the Secretary for Scotland will take a note of this fact, that all over Scotland to-day there are harbours in need of assistance and improvement, without which it will be impossible for the industry to be carried on with a full degree of success, and I would therefore urge on the right hon. Gentleman, and also on the Minister of Agriculture, who is present here, that on these points—the question of assistance to the fishermen in regard to nets and gear, the question of an international convention and an arrangement with regard to territorial limits, and also the question of improvements required in harbours—there should be immediate steps taken to deal with the situation, which is fraught with serious disaster unless something is done.
  Mr. JAMES STUART: I rise to address the House for the first time, on this matter, which is of great importance and interest to me. I notice that certain hon. Members opposite, supporters of the present Government, appear to feel that this is a matter in which they do not take any particular interest, and so wish to put an end to this discussion, but I feel most strongly, with the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), that we hear in this House a great deal of the troubles of various industries in this country, and it is very seldom that the Government's attention is drawn to certain other industries which are equally deserving of attention. I feel that the fishing industry is one which deserves immediate attention. I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) on his choice of a subject, and I am very glad that we should have this occasion of bringing this subject forward. The fishing industry, as I think we now realise, from the speeches to which we have listened, has been passing through very trying and hard times, and there is no doubt that if things go on as they are at present, not only shall we lose a race of fishermen, but also a race of the most magnificent seamen that this country can produce.
  The present position of the industry has had a most disastrous effect on those connected with the industry, to such an extent that various members connected

  2271
  with the industry have sold out their interest and have gone abroad or elsewhere, and the younger generation who are coming on have been obliged to seek for other employment. I feel that this is a matter which demands attention, and we have heard many suggestions put forward in regard to methods which might help to remedy this deserving industry. We have heard suggestions, to which I, personally, would like to accord my fullest support, with regard to the control of foreign landings, and also with regard to the question of coal. If any arrangements could be made by which coal could be sent at more reasonable terms to certain fishing stations at which the fishing fleets call for their supplies of coal, it would be of great assistance to fishermen. As has already been pointed out, their coal bill is the heaviest charge they have to bear. For eight or nine weeks' fishing the charges generally may come to about £1,000, of which the coal bill would be about £400, and that is a charge which seems to me to be excessively heavy.
  The other point to which I wish to call attention is in connection with the supply of gear. In the pre-War days the gear was replaced as it became worn out year by year. Older nets were used in the summer and autumn fishings, and the new nets were used in the winter fishings. During the War the nets of many of the fishermen were, of course, laid up, with the result that when they returned to their work they found that their nets were perished, and they have never since been able to get their boats properly equipped with gear. The result of this has been that they have been fishing with inferior gear, and the effect of that is that in rough weather, or with a heavy catch, in hauling in the nets not only the nets but the catch also are lost, because the nets have lost their elasticity. The total cost of refitting a vessel with gear would come to about £1,000, but in most cases boats would not require a total re-fit, and I would suggest that credit facilities, of which we have heard so much in connection with other industries, might be equally applicable to this case. I have also received a suggestion from the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), which I
  2272
  have been asked to put forward and am only too willing to do, to the effect that credit facilities could also be made use of for assisting in the building of new trawlers. This is a great and exceptionally heavy charge, and with present prices it is exceptionally difficult for fishermen to undertake.
  With regard to markets, the herring fishing depends on three markets. There are the fresh market, which is a very limited one and depends on the local demand and, largely, on the railway facilities; the kippering market, which is a more extensive market, owing to the fact that kippered herrings last a reasonable length of time—and I feel that a great deal can be done to improve this market by the improvement of railway facilities and better rates—and the cured herring market, which is the most important. The cured herring industry depends chiefly on export to Germany and Russia, and one of the chief reasons for the distress of a large section of the herring-fishing industry is the collapse of the German and Russian markets. I wish particularly in connection with this to call the attention of the Government to the fact that in the North of Scotland last year a large proportion of the cured herrings went to Danzig, and a 15 per cent. tax was imposed on those herrings. I understand, on good authority, it is now proposed to raise this tax to 50 per cent. I submit that it would ruin this market, to which we are now looking for recovery, and I would ask the Government, with all duo deference, if it is not possible to take steps to negotiate for better terms in this respect.
  Another market to which I wish to refer is the white fish market. In regard to this market, I believe a great deal can be done in order to stabilise or regulate it by the assistance of credit facilities. At present a market may become entirely glutted with the landings of fish, and prices fall to an altogether unprofitable level, while during stormy weather, if it lasts long enough, the price-rises 10 or 20 times. I suggest that the only possible method by which these fluctuations may be remedied is by giving facilities to erect cold storage depots at certain ports. The dealers would then be able to keep a certain amount of fish in hand, and when the landings went down in the course of a few days, they

  2273
  would be able to distribute a more or less quantity of fish to retailers, and keep more or less normal prices. We heard during the Debate on the agricultural societies a great deal on the subject of facilities to enable farmers to build bacon factories. I need hardly say I am all in favour of any suggestion that is going to benefit the agricultural industry. But, at the same time, I feel that we should also pay some attention to the needs of the fishing industry, and that the Minister of Agriculture, whom I am pleased to see here, should not entirely neglect these deserving people.
  10.0 P.M.
  There is one point to which I must call attention, and that is the very much vexed question of the fishing in Moray Firth. This is a matter which allows foreigners to trawl in the waters of the Moray Firth and prohibits our own fishermen from doing so. It is a position of affairs grossly unfair to our own people. Hundreds of years ago our fishermen settled on the shores of the Moray Firth on account of the excellent fishing to be obtained there. In 1892 it was decided to close the Moray Firth to trawling, because it was felt that it should be kept as a nursery for young fish, and trawling was injurious to immature fish. Not only that, but it also disturbed the line fishermen who were making their living in the same area. In 1895, I believe, there was the first incursion of foreign trawlers, and since then, I know, much has been said on the subject as to whether it would be possible to close the Moray Firth to foreign trawlers. But it was decided that the waters of the Moray Firth outside the three-mile limit were extraterritorial waters, and, under the North Sea Convention, jurisdiction is only allowed over bays within the 12-mile limit for fishery purposes, and the distance from Duncansbay Head to Rattray Point is 73 miles. I cannot help feeling that, really, the Government might be induced to make a very serious effort to remedy this state of affairs. According to the Trawling Committee's Report, page 29, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea would probably adopt a more sympathetic attitude than they did in the past to this question. I desire to emphasise this question of the Moray Firth, and
  2274
  I would like to appeal to the Prime Minister himself, whether he would consider seriously the matter of arriving at some international agreement on the point. I feel that I am appealing to a sympathetic ear, for, I think, I may claim him as a constituent of mine, with his home situated at Lossiemouth, which is an important fishing centre. He must know how seriously this matter is pressing. In addition to that, as Foreign Secretary, he would be able to give the question of fishing rights in the extra-territorial waters in the Moray Firth his own personal attention. This is a matter which should be set about most earnestly, not only out of fairness to our own people, but also for the original reason of the closing of the Firth, which was the benefit of fishing generally, by conserving immature fish and also keeping the ground clear for the line fishermen.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I should like to say at once that I welcome the Motion most cordially, and am delighted that it has been brought forward. Taken in a comprehensive sense, it represents a sentiment with which, I think, we can all agree. We are dealing with an industry of the greatest importance economically to the country. Perhaps I may be allowed, speaking from this Box, to compliment the hon. Members who made their maiden speeches to-night, and to express particular gratification to my hon. Friend opposite for the suggestion he made that I should adopt the role of advertiser in regard to the fishing industry. We are dealing with an exceedingly romantic question, and I only wish we had time to listen to all the speeches hon. Members wish to make, and that I myself had sufficient time to say all I wish to say, because for a long time I have been specially interested in the industry, at least from the days when I represented the constituency now represented by the Seconder of the Motion. It is not often that a Minister has the chance of dealing with a subject which affects his own constituency in a particular way as this does mine in Norfolk with regard to inshore fishing. I think this Motion was intended to deal mainly with big scale fishing industries, but I hope it is not limited to them. One of the hon. Gentlemen made a suggestion,

  2275
  perhaps in humour, but which in America would certainly be carried out, that we should go in for a fish food campaign. I might just remind him that the suggestion is peculiarly suitable to the opening of the season of Lent, and that there was an occasion in history when Queen Elizabeth ordained that the people should fast not only on Fridays, but also on Wednesdays in order to maintain the fishing population. We are the greatest sea-fishing nation in the world. It would be an extraordinary interesting study if we could pursue the degree in which fishing, and particularly herring fishing, has been a factor in the building up of the Empire. In this connection, I may say that I hope hon. Members have read the interesting book of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel).
  At the close of the War it was, perhaps, a special claim which was made that the Government should help the herring industry by buying the herrings. No less than £5,000,000 was spent on the process of buying the stocks for two years, and that saved the industry. It is true that the loss will, probably in the end amount to about £1,600,000. Whether the principle is right or not, it is clear that very great disadvantages resulted at this time to the industry in the maintenance of very high prices, which led to lower consumption. In spite of that, the industry survived and was able to pull through the bad seasons which followed. In the year 1923, a better season was experienced and things are gradually improving. It is true that the stocks of nets have not yet been replenished, but the outlook is much more favourable. Trawling has not been through the same difficulties. After the War very fine profits were made in the trawling industry, but at that time there were rash speculations by new trawling companies, and fancy prices were paid for vessels which were not always of the most suitable type. Although prices of fish have fallen, they are still about 80 per cent. above pre-War, but costs are high, and many trawling companies are in great difficulties. However, the situation is not desperate. I am not surprised that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion suggested a Committee to inquire into the situation and consider whether loans
  2276
  could not be granted by the Government to fishing companies. I am sure that the Fishery Department needs no means of adding to its information. The situation is very carefully gone into, and the Department is most efficiently and closely in touch with the interests of the fishing industry. I think that the situation is met by the possibility of applying to the Trade Facilities Commission for assistance under the Trade Facilities Act, and I hope advantage will be taken of any help which they can offer.
  Then there is the question of employment and unemployment in the industry. The number of men employed in the industry has not, unfortunately, increased in recent years. But unemployment in the ordinary sense has not been above normal. That is something to be thankful for. The herring industry is always very variable but trawling is not so variable. It is not more than normal that men should lose a voyage or two now and then. I should like to refer rather more to the interests of the men, because there are very great grievances among the men, and in the allied industries there was such a prevalence of low payments that trade boards were set up in the net-making industry. This House ought to feel a keen interest, not only in the success of the industry from the point of view of profits, but from the point of view of the personal welfare of the low-paid men employed.
  Mr. JAMES STUART: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to say that, when he speaks about more attention being paid to the men that, in the cases to which I was referring, the fishermen in the Moray Firth are part owners of their fishing boats.
  Mr. BUXTON: I was thinking of the men who are employed in the capitalist section of the industry. There are some interesting figures available as to the consumption of fish. The consumption per head of fish food in the four years to 1910 was 41¼ lbs., and in the four years to 1922 it was almost exactly the same, 40 lbs. The demand has been maintained, and if there were more demand I think there is not the least doubt that the industry could meet it readily. The question of foreign trade has been referred to. I am not a believer in the value of artificial interference with the processes of international trade. It is

  2277
  naturally a hardship to men who see foreign ships brought in and lowering the prices on the East Coast markets, but the facts must be viewed as a whole. We are much greater exporters than we are importers. We sent abroad last year 4,850,000 cwts. and we imported only 2,770,000 cwts. Germany sends trawled fish to us, but takes herrings, and will in future take herrings, I trust, on a scale comparable to the enormous scale of the past. In regard to Poland, there is a prospect that a commercial treaty will be negotiated, and I am told that nothing will prevent Poland consuming British herrings. Russia is a great factor in the herring market, and we may claim that we are making a very great contribution. That the Russian market will revive no one denies, and I think perhaps that is the section of the Motion on which I can with most happiness meet my hon. Friend opposite, because I am glad to think we are making a very great move in the direction of foreign trade. Let me refer to the development which the Motion mentions. It is not very clear whether it refers to business development, or to research development, but both are of extreme interest. There might with advantage be further provision for exploration work, or work such as some sections of the trade have demanded, and I trust that the public interest and support of the industry will justify further expenditure.
  Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: What about further researches in the Atlantic to see if the variations in currents and in salinity have again occurred? We know that the currents have varied by the test of floating bottles, and we know that the Atlantic water has been bringing in salps, and salps consume the food needed by the herring. The intrusion of Atlantic water is doing the herring harm?
  Mr. BUXTON: I wish there were time to go into the whole work of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, about which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Samuel) probably knows more than I. He knows that the Council have divided the work, each country represented taking up that which it is more disposed and fitted to do, and we are not behind in appreciation of that work. As to business development, I should like to say that in the suggestions
  2278
  made in regard to the inshore fishing lies the way to meet the case, and if the fishermen of the inshore class organise societies something might be developed on those lines. As a matter of fact these societies do not increase at all, and that work has not been continued as before. In this connection, we could not have a Debate without mentioning the efforts of Mr. Stephen Reynolds, who made such a great contribution to the case of the inshore fishermen and who was so keenly interested in the hardships and heroisms of the men who go to sea fishing. Perhaps the Motion dealt more with development in the way of research. Twenty-seven thousand pounds is being spent this year in this direction; there is the research vessel in the North Sea which has made very valuable discoveries, especially in regard to plaice. There are the laboratories at Lowestoft and the station at Conway which studies the question mainly of shell fish. Then, of course, the International Council, whose expenditure comes upon the Foreign Office Vote, have done a certain amount of sea exploration, though the money spent is not nearly what the work is worth spending on. I wish I had more time to speak on the matter, so many suggestions have been made; but I should encroach upon other Member's privileges if I pursued all the suggestions. In regard to the railways, we shall only be too glad to put before the Ministry of Transport, and before the railway companies, any grievances which are felt deeply; and if there are any other grievances felt by the fishing industry. I shall be glad to have the material to forward to those concerned. The middleman has been alluded to and hon. Members have put their finger on the spot. The subject is most important. The considerable difference between the meagre price got by the fishermen and what the consumer pays for the fish is a matter that should receive attention, but here I think something might be done by combination, as in the case of the farmers, with whom comparison was made. Probably the most profitable line to pursue would be in connection with municipal markets. We on these benches are not in a majority, and there are many things we should like to do that we cannot do. I hope and believe, however, that in such things as we are dealing with, the idea of

  2279
  municipal action and assistance may spread to other parties in the House, and then I really think that a great contribution might be made to the solution of the trouble in the fishing industry. In conclusion, I would only say that I hope it will not be very many years before there are other Debates in this House for the benefit of that class of men who are distinguished by extraordinary independence of character and a sturdy individualism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members opposite are loud in their praise of private enterprise, and sometimes they make too many suggestions for bolstering it up in a manner which is not really encouraging. We on this side favour private enterprise where-ever it works, but the fishing industry is largely of the nature of small businesses which would work better if a little more combination could be brought about. If there are ways in which the Government could help that combination, it would be a good thing to encourage help of that kind. I think the best way to assist in that direction is by a revival of our foreign trade. It must be remembered that a good proportion of our foreign exports consist of fish. I will consider every means I can for helping a body of men who are really to be admired, and I have very much pleasure in supporting the Motion.
  Mr. HARBORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make representations to the railway companies to give a uniform rate of carriage for coal? If he fails in his endeavour in this direction, I think he might use the Trade Facilities Act to guarantee the companies against any loss, and I think that might help the situation very materially.
  Mr. BUXTON: I did not mention the particular point of pressure on the railways.
  Mr. ROYCE: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if anything can be done in regard to the destruction of seals in the Wash?
  Mr. BUXTON: We have made representations to the Navy that possibly shrapnel shell might be very useful.
  Mr. FREDERICK THOMSON: I only rise for the purpose of reinforcing one or two points that have
  2280
  been made by earlier speakers, and putting one or two questions to the Secretary for Scotland. It is, of course, abundantly true that the fishing industry, in a double sense, makes a great claim upon the people of this country. We know how, from every part of it, men were found to man minesweepers and vessels of all descriptions during the War, and we are also well aware of the figures which were given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) to-night, showing the vast toll which we take from the sea in food. Therefore, from both these points of view, the industry is deserving of very much more consideration than it receives from Parliament, for, as has been already observed, it is only very occasionally that questions regarding it come before this House. The industry has various branches. There is the great herring industry in Scotland, and there are the line fishermen, whose claims to the interest of their fellow countrymen are admirably expressed in Lord Mackenzie's Report. There is also the great trawling industry. I have the honour to represent the principal trawling port in Scotland, and 68 per cent. of the fish other than herring landed at Scottish ports in 1922 was caught by trawlers. Then we have, also chiefly based on Aberdeen, the great line boats, which last year caught some 17 per cent. of the fish landed in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), in his excellent maiden speech, referred to the question of the closing of the Moray Firth, and it is to that point in particular that I wish to draw the attention of the Secretary for Scotland. The Motion alludes to the necessity for obtaining international agreement on the question of territorial waters, and, indeed, the position in the Moray Firth just now is an indefensible one. It is a very difficult question, and one which, as I know as well as my right hon. Friend, has troubled people for a very considerable time, but really I think it is time that an effort was made, in the manner suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife, to meet this question. You have the position that a British trawler in the Moray Firth is excluded from the whole of that great stretch of water, over 2,000 square miles in extent, while a foreign trawler can go all over the Firth up to the three-mile limit; and, in fact, there have been cases.

  2281
  which are referred to in Lord Mackenzie's Report, in which foreign trawlers have actually told British trawlers that were inside the Moray Firth to clear out, or they would report them for being in forbidden waters. That is a position of matters that cannot be defended. It is true that, under the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act, 1889, there was a by-law to close the Firth, but it was held that that by-law was equally applicable to foreigners. The Foreign Office, however—no doubt for the very best reasons—came to the view that it was impossible to enforce the penalties on foreigners, and the result of that has been that trawling has been possible for foreign boats right throughout the Moray Firth up to the limit of the territorial waters.
  That is a manifest injustice to the British trawler, and it has another drawback, which my hon. Friend also put admirably, namely, that the reason for closing the Moray Firth is to protect our fisheries. It is a great spawning ground for both plaice and cod, and the young haddocks in vast numbers come into the Firth at certain times; and, in order to protect those fishing interests, it was supposed to be desirable that the Moray Firth should be prohibited to trawlers. That very admirable object is very largely defeated if the foreign trawler is allowed to come in. You do not get the results by observation which would otherwise be available if the Firth were entirely closed. Therefore I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to look very carefully into this question. It is high time a convention was called of all the Powers signatory to the North Sea Convention of 1882 to see whether the recommendation which was made by Lord Mackenzie's Committee, namely, that measures be taken to secure the1 international recognition of the closure of the Moray Firth for trawling, so that the existing anomaly whereby foreign trawlers are admitted and British trawlers are excluded may be removed, cannot be carried out. That is a matter which, in a phrase often heard in politics, brooks no delay
  One last point I will refer to is the question of help to scientific research in the fishery question. I understand there is a hatchery where certain scientific gentlemen are employed under the Scottish Fishery Board. The amount we spend—the right hon. Gentleman gave it
  2282
  in regard to England and Wales—on fishery research and questions of marine biology, questions which have a very important bearing on these investigations into the habits of fish and which help us to solve problems which may have a very important bearing on the future supply of fish, is very trifling compared with what is spent by countries on the Continent which have a large fishing interest. That is a matter the right hon. Gentleman might very closely examine. There is no doubt the industry has passed through a time of severe, depression. I notice that the employés connected one way and another with the fishing trade in Sctoland were some 90,000 in 1913 and last year were only 62,000. That may be to a large extent accounted for by the on-shore workers connected with the herring industry, but still it shows a very great diminution. Ox course, dependent as we are so much on food brought from oversea, we cannot afford to ignore the prosperity of an industry which is so vital to us in the way of supplying our great centres with an adequate supply of cheap and highly nutritious food. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will address his mind to the somewhat difficult problem I have asked him to consider. It has been a difficulty for a long time, and when one's constituents have put this question to one, why should the British trawler be excluded from the Moray Firth while the foreign trawler can come in? I have always found it impossible to answer. I hope, therefore, the Government will address themselves to this question without delay.
  Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I will confine myself to one or two points which have not yet been raised and emphasise one or two others which have been raised. Fishermen in Scotland as well as in England will congratulate themselves on the success of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Rentoul) in drawing his place in the Ballot and will be grateful to him for the use he has made of it in raising this subject and for the admirable speech he made in introducing it. There are one or two points of practical interest to inshore fishermen and herring fishermen on the north coast of Sutherland which I desire to raise. The first is the need of gear, to which the hon. Member for East Fife referred. Some of this gear is eight years old. I raised this question in the last Parliament, and I

  2283
  raised it on the Adjournment one night and on one or two other occasions in the last Parliament. I had the most courteous replies from the representatives of the Scottish Office in the last Government, and the most reassuring replies, but no step was taken to meet the needs of the fishermen in that respect. All of us who are interested in the fishing industry know that the Fishery Board is most sympathetic to the representations we make. The fishing industry in Scotland has the utmost confidence in the knowledge and the sympathy of the Fishery Board, but in spite of the representations made by myself and other far more experienced and knowledgable Members on this question, no action was taken by the last Government. I hope that this Government will realise the vital importance of this question to the fishermen.
  We were told that in the last Parliament that the difficulty was that there were not enough fish to catch, that prices were so low, and that if more fishermen got more gear they would not get many more fish because the fish would be divided between them. All sorts of excuses were made in order to delay dealing with this vital question. Now we have an opportunity of putting the herring fishermen on a really sound basis. They are catching fish now, and they can sell their fish, and yet in Wick for every boat that is at sea more than one boat is lying up in the harbour, and there are men employed on unemployment relief works in the town who have boats with which they could put to sea, but they have no gear and, therefore, are unable to fish. I recommend the Secretary for Scotland to take that situation into very careful consideration. In Sweden, by means of their fishery banks they give credit facilities to fishermen for the purpose of purchasing gear Surely Britain can do for its fishermen what Sweden can do for the Swedish fishermen.
  In regard to foreign markets, I was very disappointed with what the Minister of Agriculture said about the extension of credit facilities, and particularly export credits to Russia. It is quite unnecessary to wait for recognition. It is quite unnecessary to mix up this question of export credits with the many complicated negotiations which will be necessary for the recognition of the Soviet
  2284
  Government. In Norway last summer, without recognition at all, they came to an arrangement whereby 150,000 barrels of herrings were sold under the guarantee of the Government to Russia. Action should be taken by this Government promptly to arrange for a credit whereby our herrings can be sold this coming summer in the Russian market.
  There is one further point, and that is the question of harbours and piers. Fishermen cannot go on successfully unless they have harbours to go to. Only last week in one of the coast towns of my constituency, Brora, a boat was swamped at the harbour mouth, and the crew were saved with great difficulty. I appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, not that he should put every harbour and every small pier into a proper state of repair at once, because no Government can be expected to do that, especially in the first six weeks of its office, but that he should announce that he will take a review of all these small harbours and piers round the coast of Scotland and decide upon a policy of taking them in hand and dealing with them. With respect to the larger harbours, like Buckie, Fraserburgh. Peterhead and Wick, we have been well received by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in this Government. We raised the question last year under the last Government, but got no help from them.
  It should be realised that this question of loans for these larger harbours is a matter of public economy, and that it is in the interests of the nation as a whole and of the Exchequer to deal on generous terms with them. They have debts which they cannot pay, if they are asked to pay the whole lot. Wick Harbour was completely closed during the War. Debts accumulated, and capital, which ought to have been paid back during the War, accumulated, and interest on the capital similarly accumulated. If you were to remit the capital and interest which accumulated during the War, it would not only encourage these people, and make it more certain that you would get the remainder of the debt repaid to the Exchequer, but it would enable works to be undertaken in these harbours which are essential for the fishing industry, and would enable these fishermen to prosecute their industry from the larger ports.
  I would also emphasise what has been said about the trawling question of illegal

  2285
  trawling, not only as regards the extra policing—and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will say what is in his mind on this matter, as we require faster cruisers and also hydroplanes and seaplanes—but also as to raising the penalty so as to make it less worth while for these trawlers to pursue their illegal depredations. I have reason to believe that the trawling industry realises that the damage done by seine-net fishermen in the nurseries of immature fish and in the spawning beds to the whole fishing industry of the country, including even the trawling industry itself. But those who pursue illegal methods of trawling only laugh at the penalties. There was a case in my constituency in which the trawlers were caught, and they said, "We will come back to-morrow night and catch enough fish to pay the fine." I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will give facilities for the Bill which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar) is about to introduce, raising the penalty so as to make it less worth while for these trawlers to adopt illegal methods. I make these suggestions in no spirit hostile to the Secretary of Scotland, who has only been in office for five or six weeks. I believe that he is addressing himself to these problems with great sympathy for the Highland counties, and speaking for myself—and though I have no right to speak for anyone else, I believe that similar sentiments animate many of my Scottish colleagues—our attitude towards his administration and his Government will be dictated largely by the attitude which he displays towards these questions, which are of the gravest interest to the people of the Highlands.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): I recognise the force of the case which has been put as to the importance of the fishing industry and the necessity of safeguarding the interests of those who are engaged in it. My colleagues from, Scotland have put before me a number of questions which they desire me to answer. Some of them I have already dealt with. I know that the herring fishing industry has been passing through great difficulty for several years, and that, as a result, the fishermen are very much in need of new gear. I would
  2286
  remind my hon. Friends who have spoken to-night that already there is a favourable turn in the fishing industry. Last year the markets became more favourable and there was a bigger demand for fish. The result to the fisheries has been more encouraging than for some years past, and it has placed the fishermen in a slightly better position than they were in before. At the same time I agree that, because of the depression through which they have been passing, they require by some means to have their gear and nets replaced if they are to continue to follow their calling. As the last speaker knows, these points were put before me very clearly quite recently by a deputation which represented the fishing constituencies of the North-ease coast of Scotland. I have been going into the matter with the Fishery Board of Scotland, and I have been discussing various ways in which we could assist the fishermen. Of course, it is a matter that will require to be discussed with the Cabinet and the Treasury before I can give a reply, but I can assure the House that I will continue to go into the subject very closely with the Fishery Board, with a view of doing what I can to assist a very deserving body of men.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. F. C. Thomson) has put the important point that something should be done to remedy the unfortunate position in the Moray Firth, a, position which he described as keeping out the native trawler and letting in the foreigner. Because of his experience in office he recognises, of course, that that is a matter more for the Foreign Office than for my Department, because it raises international issues. I can assure him and the House that I will certainly discuss the recommendations of the Trawling Committee with the Foreign Office in the hope of getting the anomalous position remedied. I am asked what is in my mind with regard to the protection of fishermen against illegal trawling. I have also explained, in dealing with these matters, in answer to representations made, that we are making provision for two new cruisers and a hydroplane to protect fishermen. We have also arranged for wireless being fitted on to certain cruisers; and the further object we have in view is to try

  2287
  to protect fishermen against the depredations made by trawlers. I can assure the hon. Member and the House that the Fishery Board are trying to protect the fishermen in every way against illegal trawling. I think it was the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. James Stuart) who spoke of the Board of Agriculture and the Scottish Office having, in the course of the last week, intimated that they were making grants to agriculture; and he wondered if something of a similar character could not be made to the fishing industry. I would like to remind him that the grants which were made to agriculture in the Estimates put forward last week were made for the purpose of furthering the principle of co-operation in agriculture. If those engaged in the fishing industry are willing to take the same lines, I think they could get assistance. I believe that if they were to form themselves into co-operative societies for the purpose of disposing of their produce without the intervention of so many middlemen, who rob them of a considerable amount of the fruits of their labour, the fishing industry could get assistance from the Development Commission. I think I am right in saying that within the last three years the Development Commission have tried to push amongst a certain section of Scottish fishermen the idea of co-operation, and when they were trying to push that idea they pointed out that, in the event of their being willing to co-operate together, the Development Commission were prepared to come to their assistance with loans from the Development Fund.
  I understand also that the Development Commissioners have already come to the assistance of fishermen in Cornwall on the basis of co-operation. It has been taken up there, I understand, by the fishermen, and the result has proved satisfactory. I hope that is an idea which will come before the consideration of our fishermen on the east and west coast of Scotland. I think it is an idea which would enable them to do far more for themselves than they have been able to do for a considerable time past, and I hope those who have been putting the condition of the fishermen before me in such telling terms to-night will be prepared to assist me in inducing the fishermen to follow out the idea of co-operation. I am convinced that
  2288
  by having the fishing industry placed on a co-operative basis to a larger extent than it is at the present time, a considerable improvement can be made in the condition of this very worthy class of men. Another point brought before my notice to-night by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is the question of a grant for harbours. There, again, I may point out a grant can be secured by harbour commissioners from the Development Commission for the extension or putting into better repair of harbours. It is, I admit, more difficult in the case of the type of harbour to which the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland specially alluded. It is more difficult in the case of the smaller places. As I say, the larger places are able to receive assistance through the Development Commissioners, but as regards the others, I would say to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland that I am certainly prepared to consider any particular instance which he or any of his colleagues representing fishing constituencies are prepared to place before me, and I will consider if any means can be procured for assisting the smaller places. I think I have dealt with all the points which have been put before me, and I hope I have been able to satisfy those who have been putting questions to me on this point at least—that I am as deeply interested in the continued welfare of the fishing industry as it is possible for a single Member of this House to be, and whatever it is possible for me to do, in order to build up this very important industry and assist this very worthy body of men, I will be willing and ready to do.
  Mr. RENTOUL rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."
  Mr. SPEAKER: I think the House is prepared to come to a decision.
  Resolved,
  "That this House views with concern the continued depression in the Fishing Industry of Great Britain and urges upon His Majesty's Government the desirability of assisting the industry by taking such steps as may be practicable to provide the maximum amount of employment for British fishermen, to ensure an adequate supply of

  2289
  British-caught fish for home consumption, to secure the immediate opening up of all foreign markets, to obtain international agreement on the question of territorial waters, and to promote the scientific development and general interests of the Fishing Industry."

  SUPPLY.
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]
  AIR ESTIMATES, 1924–25.
  NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
  Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
  "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 35,000 all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st March, 1925."
  Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  INDIA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
  Mr. LANSBURY: I do not apologise to the House, except to those Members who are very tired, for bringing forward the questions that I propose to bring forward during the period that is allowed to Members at this stage. They are all in connection with India, and I would like to point out that the people of India consist of some 300,000,000 persons, who are more or less under the charge of this House. At any rate, this House is responsible in the last resort for the administration of affaire in that great country. There are three matters to which I wish to call the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for India, and each of them arises out of the answers given to questions yesterday. One concerns the disturbances at Jaito, another is in connection with the Bombay strike, and the last
  2290
  is the refusal to alter the decision that no round table conference shall be held between those representing the British Government and the nationalists of India.
  I would like to say to my hon. Friends on these benches that we have a particular responsibility to our Indian fellow subjects in the matter of trade unionism, and also in the matter of freedom of speech, freedom of procession, and so on. We have welcomed Indians over here to the Trade Union Congress and to the national Labour party conferences, and again and again we have pledged them our support, not to independence apart from the British Empire or Dominions, but as a free partner with ourselves in a federation of free people. It seems to me that with a Labour Government in office we have a bigger responsibility than if we were sitting on the other side of the House. I am not one of those who think that everything can be done in a moment, or in six or seven weeks, but it seems to me that the new spirit that the Labour Government is supposed to represent should express itself in its relationship with the people of India.
  A few weeks ago a disturbance took place in connection, I am told, with some religious observances, and some people in this country, and, I dare say, in this House, will think it is impossible in a country like India to keep the various sects at peace with one another. I would remind all self-righteous Christians on this subject that there is such a place as Belfast in the North of Ireland, and that in other parts of Ireland, and in our own country, very often in Liverpool and other parts, there are religious disturbances, and that it is not only in India where religious bigotry and intolerance are to be found. In the case that I want to bring to the notice of the House, the disturbances took place, the Under-Secretary told me yesterday, because the people who had gathered together to perform a religious observance carried arms. As a result, 21 of them were killed, 33 were wounded, and, I believe, 700 of them are in prison at the present moment. But the extraordinary thing is that we are told there were great crowds of people, and the police were hemmed in, but not a single policeman or soldier was injured. The Under-Secretary himself, in his answer yesterday, told me that

  2291
  nobody on our side was injured at all, and yet there were 21 people killed and 33 wounded. The whole benefit of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms was vitiated by the Amritsar massacre, and because of the failure of the Home Government to take proper measures in dealing with those responsible. I hold in my hand a telegram, of which, I am told by an hon. Member who is an authority on India, I ought not to take any notice, but I am going to read part of it to the House, because I feel that it does explain to some extent why no one was injured on the side of the authorities, and these people, who were supposed to be violent, and taking violent action against the authorities, were killed. The telegram has come to me from Mr. D. Chaman Lall, Secretary of the Indian Trade Union Congress. I am sure we on these benches must be very glad to know that they have advanced so far in India that they have a trade union congress now. He is also a member of the Legislative Assembly. I hope the Labour Government will help the trade union cause in India to the very utmost extent. But this is what he says:
  "The Jatha was pledged to nonviolence. Not a single individual belonging to the Jatha or any follower carried any firearms. The false report in this connection originated from the fact that the procession of Alkalis was accompanied by exhibition fireworks, as is the case with all such processions. The noise of the fireworks was construed by the authorities to have been rifle or gun fire. Although the crowd and the Jatha was absolutely unarmed, yet a senseless butchery of innocent men and spectators took place, and the Secretary of State was furnished with fake information. Further, the Government never alleged that a single firearm was captured from the Jatha or the crowd, conclusively proving the falsity of the information furnished."
  If a great crowd carry firearms, surely the authorities would be able to pick up some of them, especially when they took 700 people prisoners and managed to kill the number I have stated. In that connection I want to ask the Under-Secretary to ask the Secretary of State to request the Viceroy to order a full and impartial inquiry into this matter, so as to get it out of the minds of Indians that the life of an Indian, especially an Indian agitator, is very cheap. I think yon must establish somehow in
  2292
  the mind of the Indian a feeling that at least the British Parliament do value the life even of the poorest Indian.
  Coming to the Bombay strikes, we on these benches know, and so do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen everywhere know, that when there is a strike or lock-out—and I understand this is a lock-out—when men are hungry, and when there is to be an attempt to get the men back by the employers offering some inducement, there are nearly always crowds doing mass picketing. My information is that mass picketing was taking place in exactly the same manner that it would in this country in order to induce the men not to go back to work. It is said the police were stoned, and that there was an enormous number of men. There were 150,000 on strike or lock-out. It is said they hemmed the police in, and yet that tremendous mass of people stone-throwing only injured one policeman. That was the answer of the Under-Secretary yesterday. No one knows who were injured or who got away. It seems to me that there is not the slightest evidence of much stone-throwing or that police or soldiers were in any danger, but it does prove that, as in the case of the other disturbances, the authorities were not eager but quite ready to fire on unarmed people. There is no question of anyone being armed there. It is a question of stone-throwing, and we reply to that by shooting them down. The Under-Secretary yesterday could not tell me what was the cause of the strike, but I should think that, especially Lancashire Members here, who depend very largely for their business on India, would want a full inquiry as to the cause that drives 150,000 men to throw up their work. I am told from trade union sources that the men were being expected to live on a 40 per cent. reduction in wages, that the bonus so-called was a grant-in-aid of their wages to make up for depreciation in currency. Whether this was so or not, we want to know what are the bad conditions of labour that drive 150,000 men out into the streets and keeps them there—because this has been going on for weeks. I think we are entitled to ask the Under Secretary to give the House full particulars. I repeat again, in this connection, that we ought to insist on a full and impartial inquiry into the firing on crowds. That seems to be quite the

  2293
  usual thing. I know that there are some people who think that the proper way to keep crowds in order is to overawe them. That is the wrong way. The right way to deal with any people who have grievances is to remove the grievances. There ought to be some effort made to get this dispute settled on decent terms.
  The last point is that these people of whom I am talking are really and literally starving. I would call the attention of everybody in this House to the fact that the "Times of India," which is not a Nationalist or Socialistic journal, but a sober organ of sober opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes. I am using your own language. This journal has put it on record that the people are definitely starving to-day in connection with this dispute. This is a matter for the House to consider, as to whether that condition of things ought to remain or whether the Secretary of State ought not to cable out at once, and for this reason—that the "Times of India" says, what our newspapers very often say, that because the men are locked out, or because they are on strike, the Government cannot do anything for them. In this country we would not allow people to starve to death under any circumstances, and I do not think that we ought to do it in India. Why I am so expressive in this matter is because friends who have come back from India—who are going backwards and forwards—some have arrived within the last few weeks—are impressing upon everybody they come in contact with that the situation in India is very grave, and that unless something is done, and that quickly, we shall probably have the sort of upheaval that we had at the Mutiny.
  It happens that Mr. Sastri, one of the most moderate men that I have ever met from India, has also not only written, but telegraphed to me that the appeal of the Indian Legislative Assembly for a round-table conference between some of the representatives of the British Council should be acceded to, for the reasons I have given. I heard somebody laugh just now! But I sat up in that Gallery and heard many Members laugh when Mr. Gladstone said that "the sands were running out" in connection with Ireland. Many Members who laugh to-day know how true were Mr.
  2294
  Gladstone's words, and know what a bitter running out it meant. Justice was not done while there was yet time. It is because I feel that India is in the same position that I am raising this question here to-night. I am not one of those who want to spread what is called self-determination for every nation. We have sent Europe to the devil in following that policy. I believe in the unification of the nations, one with another. I believe in each nation finding its own self-expression in the community of other nations, and the Indian people are willing to join with us in building up civilisation, but you must treat them as equal partners. You cannot go on treating them as a dependent nation. My point is that on Monday the Budget was refused in the Legislative Assembly, and an Indian said to me:
  "Your people may shoot us down and bring machine guns and aeroplanes. They can run their machine guns through the streets, but they cannot kill us because they can never kill our spirits."
  They have recognised and had a discussion with the leader of the Nationalist party, and they have made their protest hoping that the people of Britain will respond to it, because they want to remain constitutionally part of the British Dominions. They ask us to meet them around a table to discuss how we can give them a little more self-government. I want the Government to change their disposition, and to meet these people in order that peace may be preserved in India, and that India may in that way become a real gem in the Dominions of this great Empire.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): In the very few minutes at my disposal, the House will not expect me to cover the whole of the ground covered by my hon. Friend. I cannot help recalling the words of Macaulay, that an injustice, whether done in this country or in India, is the same. Here the case is exactly the same, and no one rejoices more than myself in that spirit. I sympathise entirely with what he said regarding the attitude of the Government towards the very difficult question of the government of India. I am sure the Government is full of sympathy with the ultimate ideal placed before this House by successive Governments for the last 40 years, that eventually it is the intention of this

  2295
  country to give full and complete self-government to what we hope will be the great Dominion of India.
  To come to some of the points referred to by my hon. Friend, he mentioned, in the first place, the Bombay strike. I am able to add a little to the information which I was able to give to the House yesterday. I am quoting not from any telegram that the Government has received from the Government of India, but I am quoting the words of the leader of the strike. He is a man named Joseph Baptisti. He was in this case a voice crying in the wilderness, because the men have struck against his advice. The strike really arose over the question of the mill-owners declining to consent to a bonus to the operatives this year. They I gave notice apparently that this year they would discontinue the bonus which had been paid for the last three years. That meant a reduction in wages of something like 8·3 per cent. These are figures given by Baptisti himself, and his argument against a strike was this: He pointed out to the men that these mill-owners are manufacturers and merchants, and not philanthropists, and that clearly it was not the right time to strike.
  Against the opinion of their leader, however, the strike began, apparently at one mill, on 17th January, when 2,500 men came out on strike. The result was, as has been already mentioned, that the mill-owners decided to close the rest of the mills for a certain period, and by 28th January 73 of the 76 mills in Bombay were closed and, as I said yesterday, 150,000 people were thrown out of employment. The Governor of Bombay immediately prepared to nominate a committee to arbitrate, and this position was brought to the notice of the men. I ought to say that at first the millowners were unwilling, but by the end of February apparently they were willing to arbitrate By that time, however, there had been some change in the position, and the riot, of which I gave a full account yesterday, was the direct result of an offer on the part of some of the men to go back without any conditions at all. I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the details I gave yesterday, because, by reading a telegram, I then put the House in possession of all the information that we have at the moment.
  2296
  To turn to the other regrettable incident, the firing at Jaito, this is really a very intricate and a very difficult situation, a combination, that is to say, of religious fanaticism and political intrigue. We all know and have cause to respect the Sikhs because of their intense loyalty for a great number of years to this country, and the Sikhs are certainly one of the proudest nations which are associated with our great Empire. It is difficult from the little experience I have had, as far as I can see, to distinguish exactly between their religion and that of the Hindoos generally, but they emphasise certain points, and they are particularly prone perhaps to carry these points to extremes. During the last 20 or 30 years the spirit of religion in the Sikh community has seriously declined, and about 1920 there was an honest attempt made to recover the position and to revive the Sikh religion once again. During that period, when religion had fallen behindhand rather among the Sikhs, it so happened that the sacred places had become the property of other people of whom they disapproved, and one thing that they determined upon was to recover these sacred shrines once again. That meant, of course, coming into conflict with the people who were in possession of the shrines at the time.
  The real difficulty of the Government of India, as far as I understand it, is to keep the peace between these two antagonistic elements among the Sikhs themselves. It is an exceedingly difficult position for a foreign Government to try and keep the peace between two wrangling religious bodies. The Government has attempted again and again to get an agreement between them by setting up a board which would in some way adjust the differences, but hitherto without success. The result of that was the passing of the Shrines Act, as it is called, in 1922, setting up a board consisting of the two sections of the Sikh community in order to deal with this particular question, but that has not been operative.
  It being half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  HOURS OF LABOUR, FRANCE.
  HOURS OF LABOUR, FRANCE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (AUSTRALIA).
  IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (AUSTRALIA).
  LACE AND EMBROIDERY (IMPORT DUTY).
  LACE AND EMBROIDERY (IMPORT DUTY).
  PRIVATE COMPANIES.
  PRIVATE COMPANIES.
  PERSIAN PETROL.
  PERSIAN PETROL.
  SULPHURIC ETHER.
  SULPHURIC ETHER.
  INDIAN RAW COTTON (IMPORTS).
  INDIAN RAW COTTON (IMPORTS).
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.
  SCOTTISH SHALE AND OIL INDUSTRY.
  SCOTTISH SHALE AND OIL INDUSTRY.
  BRITISH VESSELS (REPAIRS, HOLLAND).
  BRITISH VESSELS (REPAIRS, HOLLAND).
  AUSTRALIAN FROZEN MEAT (PRICES).
  AUSTRALIAN FROZEN MEAT (PRICES).
  COTTON PIECE GOODS (EXPORTS).
  COTTON PIECE GOODS (EXPORTS).
  PORTUGUESE INVOICES (CONSULAR FEE).
  PORTUGUESE INVOICES (CONSULAR FEE).
  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.
  STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
  STAMP DUTIES (CHEQUES).
  GERMANY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  GERMANY (BRITISH CLAIMS).
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
HOUSING.
  RENTS, ROSYTH.
  RENTS, ROSYTH.
  BUILDING MATERIALS AND LABOUR SUPPLY.
  BUILDING MATERIALS AND LABOUR SUPPLY.
  COUNCIL HOUSES, MERTON AND MORDEN (SALE).
  COUNCIL HOUSES, MERTON AND MORDEN (SALE).
  WAR OFFICE HOUSES, NORTON.
  WAR OFFICE HOUSES, NORTON.
  UNOCCUPIED WAR OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  UNOCCUPIED WAR OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  DIDCOT DEPOT (CIVILIAN EMPLOYES).
  DIDCOT DEPOT (CIVILIAN EMPLOYES).
  AIR DEFENCE.
  AIR DEFENCE.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE, MALTA.
  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE INSTITUTE, MALTA.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL DISCHARGES.
  WOOLWICH ARSENAL DISCHARGES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  GRIEVANCES (REDRESS).
  GRIEVANCES (REDRESS).
  CADBTSHIPS.
  CADBTSHIPS.
  SECRET SERVICE.
  SECRET SERVICE.
  PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT (PROSECUTIONS).
  METROPOLITAN PRISONS (EMPLOYES).
  METROPOLITAN PRISONS (EMPLOYES).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (DETENTION).
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (DETENTION).
POST OFFICE.
  RECEIPT STAMPS.
  RECEIPT STAMPS.
  SCALE-PAYMEXT SUB-OFFICES, EDINBURGH.
  SCALE-PAYMEXT SUB-OFFICES, EDINBURGH.
  WIRELESS RATE, SOUTH AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA.
  WIRELESS RATE, SOUTH AFRICA AND AUSTRALIA.
  WIRELESS STATIONS.
  WIRELESS STATIONS.
  FACILITIES.
  FACILITIES.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, GOLDER'S GREEN.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, GOLDER'S GREEN.
  DUTIABLE PARCELS.
  DUTIABLE PARCELS.
  PICKERING TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  PICKERING TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.
  THEFTS, RADLETT.
  THEFTS, RADLETT.
  WIRELESS DEVELOPMENTS.
  WIRELESS DEVELOPMENTS.
  BRIDGE-OF-WEIR (MORNING LETTER DELIVERY).
  BRIDGE-OF-WEIR (MORNING LETTER DELIVERY).
  SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS, SCOTLAND.
  SUB-OFFICE ASSISTANTS, SCOTLAND.
  STAMPS (LICENCES FOR SALE).
  STAMPS (LICENCES FOR SALE).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  POST OFFICE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
  POST OFFICE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
  DISABLED MEN (INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORIES).
  DISABLED MEN (INSTRUCTIONAL FACTORIES).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL DIET).
  TUBERCULOSIS (SPECIAL DIET).
  NEED PENSIONS (J. DAVIS).
  NEED PENSIONS (J. DAVIS).
COAL INDUSTRY.
  HEWERS' WAGES, SOUTH WALES.
  HEWERS' WAGES, SOUTH WALES.
  WAGES AGREEMENT (TERMINATION).
  WAGES AGREEMENT (TERMINATION).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  ROAD WORKS.
  ROAD WORKS.
  DRAINAGE RELIEF WORKS, SCOTLAND.
  DRAINAGE RELIEF WORKS, SCOTLAND.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
  EX-SERVICE MEN.
TRANSPORT.
  ROAD BRIDGES.
  ROAD BRIDGES.
  HARBOROUGH RURAL DISTRICT ROADS (GRANTS).
  HARBOROUGH RURAL DISTRICT ROADS (GRANTS).
  HYDE PARK (POLICEMEN ON POINT DUTY).
  HYDE PARK (POLICEMEN ON POINT DUTY).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SCHOOL CHILDREN).
  LISMORE AND BUNESSAN (STEAMER SERVICE).
  LISMORE AND BUNESSAN (STEAMER SERVICE).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORTS).
  UNFIT HORSES (EXPORTS).
  CATTLE IMPORTATION (INSPECTION).
  CATTLE IMPORTATION (INSPECTION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LONDON ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

SITTINGS OF PARLIAMENT.
Message from the Commons acquainting the House with, and desiring concurrence in, the Resolution passed by them on Thursday last as follows:—
" That it is expedient that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider the desirability of altering the customary period of the Parliamentary Session and the incidental changes necessary thereto."

RE-ORGANISATION OF OFFICES (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill for the re-organisation of certain offices in Scotland, and to move that it be now read a first time.
Mover, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; and to be printed.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the Bill to which I ask you to give a Second Reading this afternoon is an exact reproduction of the measure which, after prolonged and stubborn controversy, passed your Lordships' House by a majority of 47 votes no less than four years ago. Since that date the atten-

637
tion of your Lordships has been directed again to the question of the reform of our matrimonial laws by two measures to which I will briefly refer. In 1921 the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, introduced a Bill which took the Minority Report of the Royal Commission as its basis and, except for two provisions, incorporated most of the uncontroversial matters in my measure. On the Second Reading of that Bill, I pointed out to your Lordships that, as it failed to provide for any extended grounds of divorce, I felt it my duty that one of such grounds at least should be introduced into the measure in order that the Commons might not consider that your Lordships' judgment excluded such matters from its consideration. I was successful in that effort, and the Bill, being then abandoned by Lord Gorell, fell into my charge, and yet once again, on the Third Reading, that Bill was passed by a substantial majority of your Lordships' House.
Last year a small measure which in no way extended the grounds of divorce, but provided only that they should be the same for women as for men, passed your Lordships' House with very little opposition. To-day, the position, with that slight modification, stands exactly as it did when I introduced this measure four years ago, but I think, before I ask you again to go through all the details of this Bill, it is only right that I should indicate to you what is the course that I intend to follow. I do not think it would be right to ask your Lordships once more to plough the sands and to proceed with a difficult and controversial discussion on every point of this measure unless I could see that there was some reasonable prospect of this Bill being considered in another place. If, therefore, you grant a Second Reading this afternoon, I propose to inquire of the Prime Minister whether he will grant facilities for the introduction of such a Bill as this in the House of Commons, and if he will, I shall then deem it my duty to ask your Lordships once more to embark upon that difficult and painful journey that we travelled together four years ago. I have great hopes, from what I have been told and what I have heard, that the justice of the position will appeal to the Prime Minister.
When a Bill such as this—designed for no other purpose than to carry into effect
638
recommendations of the majority of a Royal Commission appointed with the express object of saying what change, if any, should be made in our matrimonial law—has passed this House, with every single one of its controverted principles made the subject of a Division in which my opponents were not successful, it seems strange that facilities should be denied for the passing of the measure in another place. I have never asked for anything but that. Noble Lords have often come down and, with an authority that I have never ventured to arrogate to myself, speaking on behalf of vast groups of their fellow countrymen, have solemnly assured your Lordships that the whole civilised opinion of honest men and women was behind them, and yet the place where that representative opinion should be given effect to is the one place where the challenge is never given. If the House of Commons dealt with this Bill and sent it back to your Lordships with this essential provision excised, I have said before, and I repeat, that I would not prolong the controversy, but would, at any rate for the moment, accept the position, but until that is done it seems to me it is my plain duty to proceed with this measure ; for if a thing is worth advocating one should not be prepared to abandon it at the first rebuff.
This measure, as I have said, represents the provisions in the former Bill, and, therefore, I think, having regard to what I said, that your Lordships would not desire that I should pursue the ordinary course in regard to such a measure and go once more in detail through its actual terms. The greater portion is really beyond controversy on the part of all but very few members of your Lordships' House. I will, therefore, concentrate upon the two main principles of the measure, and ask you once again to consider them. Those are the principles which provide stable grounds for a declaration of nullity of marriage, and extended grounds for divorce. It is necessary, in order that I may make you acquainted with the reasons why I urge this matter once again, to bring to your notice what the law is at the present moment, in order that you may be able, if you can, to reconcile it with your conscience to leave that law unchanged.
I ask by this Bill that nullity of marriage should be granted, in the first place, if a man marries a woman whom he

639
finds at the time of his marriage to be pregnant by another man. Is there one of you who denies the justice of such a claim ? I feel certain that in this matter the Roman Catholic Church is more pitiful than we are, and that it would grant a decree of nullity which our Courts refuse. It may be said that such a case is rare. That it does occur is certain, for it has been made the subject of solemn judicial decisions. Only a week ago I received a letter from a man whose word I have no reason to doubt, in which he stated that six months after his marriage with a woman she was delivered of a fully developed child, and she confessed that some other man was the father of it. Of course, it is not impossible that a man may exercise a rare and beautiful quality of Christian charity and forgive a woman by whom he has been so bitterly deceived, but it is not likely that he would do so, and it does seem to me an astonishing thing that our law should declare that, although dissolution of marriage is now part of the law of this land—I think, reluctantly and withregret, it is in part accepted by the Churches of this land—none the less, for such a wrong as that, there should be no legal remedy.
Let me take the next case. I ask that there should be a decree of nullity granted where either party to the marriage has refused to allow that marriage to be consummated. At the present moment the law is this. Nullity of marriage is only granted where there are physical defects on the one side or the other, and as the law, quite rightly, refuses to compel any person in the case of refusal to submit to medical examination, you can only establish this case by inference. I say that no man who has ever had the misfortune to sit in the Divorce Court and hear the cases in which women ask for a decree of nullity on the ground of impotence could fail to be struck by the shame and the disgrace of the whole proceedings. Why should you compel a wretched woman, in the presence of an idle, gaping, lecherous crowd, who gather there, not because they are interested in the administration of law, but because they want to hear unclean things fall from the lips of a woman, to go through all this miserable story, and not allow her to say merely : "There has been no consummation of this
640
marriage. My husband either refused or is unable to consummate it, and I ask for liberty." That is what my Bill provides. So far as nullity is concerned, there is nothing to which I think your attention need be directed.
There are further grounds, covered by the one of desertion, in which this question of refusal to submit to marital intercourse becomes once more important, but so far as nullity is concerned those are the main questions. There are, indeed, added to these, a few of which, I believe, there would be no question, as, for instance where a woman marries a man who at the time of marriage is infected with venereal disease from whom, I understand, she has no means of escape. She is compelled to stay there until the man professes to be cured, and then submit herself to him with such consequences to herself and her offspring as the evidence of doctors and hospitals frequently discloses.
Let me pass from that and come to the question of extended grounds for divorce. Divorce stands on a different footing from nullity. Nullity declares that no marriage has ever taken place ; divorce accepts the marriage and dissolves the bond. I ask that marriage shall be dissolved, not only on the ground of adultery but for desertion, for cruelty, for drunkenness, for insanity, and finally—and this is the only new thing I have introduced into the Bill—on the ground that one party or the other is suffering imprisonment under a commuted death sentence or is confined in a criminal lunatic asylum at His Majesty's pleasure.
Let me deal first with the existing ground of adultery. That is extended by this Bill in one important respect. As the law stands to-day unnatural vice as well as adultery is ground for divorce. Unnatural vice is a thing astonishingly difficult to prove, and no doubt it is due to this fact that prosecutions are not more frequent than they are—a matter which I think is greatly to be regretted. But there is evidence, which is easily capable of being proved, and of which there are only too often examples in our police courts. It is the evidence of gross acts of indecency with male persons. I ask that that shall be regarded as adultery, and I cannot think that you will refuse to allow it to be included in the definition. Surely this is one of the darkest of all the shadows that blackens the face of man.

641
I now turn to insanity. Insanity was argued in this House at a length and in a detail that was worthy of a Second Reading debate, and in the end, by a large majority indeed, your Lordships decided that insanity as defined in this Bill—that is, insanity declared to be incurable, where the person has been in confinement for live years or more—should be a ground for divorce. There has only been so far as I could see, apart from the general religious objection to this measure, one ground upon which any real objection has been based to this proposal, and that is the ground put forward by the Duke of Northumberland, that there was no reason why you should distinguish insanity from other diseases. If insanity, why not phthisis, and a variety of other ills by which mankind is afflicted? The reason is perfectly plain. Insanity is the most awful scourge by which mankind is afflicted. Its existence is a menace to the properly civilised development of society. It does not injure the body ; it overthrows the whole seat of reason, and leaves the person who was once a husband or a wife something that is nothing but the shadow of a former self.
It is no use speaking about the opportunities for care and attention and companionship which may win a person like that back to health ; all these are wasted on a person who is incurably mad. He cannot recognise his best friends. There is only one remedy you can suggest. You must either permit divorce, or allow the woman or the man to continue without the slightest prospect of any of those social amenities and enjoyments which are supposed to form the basis and foundation of married life. I ask your Lordships without giving illustrations and details—illustrations and details are present to the mind of every one of you—to allow that ground also to be included.
The next one is the question of imprisonment for life. I omitted this from my former Bill and I greatly regret the fact. The Bill had been the subject of very wearisome controversy and I was anxious, so far as I possibly could, to limit the area of attack. Objection was made to it and I said : "Well, it can affect but few people; let it go." I was wrong, and I was wrong for this reason, that if the measure itself
642
be just it is nothing but weakness to abandon it because there are only a few people who are suffering from the injustice. Justice ought not to be proclaimed by shouting or bought by votes. Justice ought to appeal to both Houses of Parliament in this country on its own merits, and if it be right that such relief should be granted it ought not to be denied because the people who will enjoy its benefits are few. Can anyone doubt that it should be granted ? Just see what the position is. You take a man away from his fellow-creatures and shut him up, within a living tomb, and compel his wife, who has been guilty of no wrong, to pass the rest of her days within the shadow of the sepulchre.
Instances have been before us in recent times, and one was before your Lordships' House not long ago, argued at the Bar, in which a woman whose husband was so confined came and struggled for relief It was impossible to grant it. She made a charge that her husband had committed adultery with a woman. The charge was disproved, and she has to spend the rest of her clays a woman who is neither married nor a widow, and whose husband is in an asylum from which he will never be released. I ask you to say that there is no principle of our social life more grievously violated than that which you violate when, in the interests of society, you break a marriage in effect, shut up the man and then leave the woman bound.
Let me turn to the two remaining causes—desertion and cruelty. Cruelty has often been said to be something that it is not easy to define. A definition has been given in this Bill and it has been approved by eminent men who have charge of these affairs. It is cruelty that places in hazard the health, or the life or the safety of a woman, and that is the cruelty which we say should entitle the woman to be free of the marriage tie. In addition, we provide in express terms that the wilful or negligent communication of venereal disease, or the compelling of a woman to submit to prostitution, shall be regarded as cruelty. I wonder if your Lordships will allow me to read one of the paragraphs from the Report of the Royal Commission upon this matter, and when you have heard it I will ask you whether your feeling is not a feeling of shame that these things should continue in this country without a remedy.

643
The Report says:—
" The definition should also include the following acts, and proof of cither of them should be sufficient proof of cruelty as defined :—

" (1) That the respondent has knowingly, or negligently, infected the applicant with venereal disease.

" (2) That a respondent husband has compelled his wife to submit herself to prostitution.

" The risk mentioned in the definition aforesaid should, we think, be inferred in these two classes of case from proof of the act. At present, it is more than doubtful whether such cases are covered by the words ' persistent cruelty ' ; the first case is sadly common, and the second is a horrible form of criminal offence which, according to some of the evidence, takes place more frequently than is generally known.''
I ask your Lordships how you can willingly permit the continuance of such things as that without the only effective relief that you can grant.
Finally, there is the question of desertion, which has, I think, probably been the subject of more discussion than any other part of the Bill, though I have never been able to understand why. Desertion must be wilful, and it must be for three years. Your Lordships know-that desertion has nothing to do with the condition of life in which you live. It relates almost exclusively to the condition of life among the poor. This relief is not relief for the rich ; it is relief for the poor, and how they are circumstanced right rev. Prelates on the Bench opposite know well and have not infrequently told us. That this desertion is common cannot be denied. It would be ridiculous, of course, to say that it is common to the extent of constituting a large majority of cases of people who are married, but that it happens frequently must be obvious to any one who has been the recipient of such correspondence as I have received. Again and again I hear the same story. Sometimes the woman has gone, and no one knows where ; more often it is the man who has gone and left the woman, sometimes with children and sometimes without.
I had a letter a fortnight ago telling me that two sisters had married two men on the same day and had both been deserted within a fortnight. There they were, left alone; and what is the future
644
before them ? Their position is one which the law recognises as that of married women. The obligation which the law-casts on every man to support his wife is utterly denied and can never be enforced. These women are compelled to pass the rest of their lives either in a state of immorality or in a state of embittered loneliness, and to wait until death shall relieve them of the bond from which the law is at present unable to grant release. It is a pitiful thing to contemplate women like these, waiting day by day, while all the time the wine of life is oozing drop by drop, the leaves of life are falling one by one.
Noble Lords tell me: "These, of course, are grievous cases to which you refer, but we have a remedy. You say there is none, but the Church in its thoughtfulness has provided you for over 200 years with a remedy. There is judicial separation." Judicial separation for a woman deserted by a man that she cannot find ! What is the use of that? She is already deserted beyond all possible chance of recall. This decree of judicial separation has been sanctified, as we were told in one of these debates, by 200 years' usage in the Church. What is its foundation? I think I have been able to find out, and, like many other things of great value, it is to be found in the Report of the Royal Commission.
The Report states that Bishop Cozens in the seventeenth century made this observation about judicial separation—
" The distinction betwixt bed and board and the bond, is new, never mentioned in the Scripture, and unknown to the ancient Church; devised only by the canonists and schoolmen in the Latin Church (for the Creek Church knows it not), to serve the Pope's turn the better, till he got it established in the Council of Trent;—"
and then there follows a statement which shows the enormous advantage that mediæval ecclesiastical controversialists possessed over those of the present day, for the passage concludes—
" at which time, and never before, he laid his anathema upon all them that were of another mind; forbidding all men to marry, and not to make any use of Christ's concession."
I must say that I am amazed that people who regard—as my opponents undoubtedly do regard—the maintenance of moral conditions of life between men and

645
women as of the first importance in the State, can seriously argue that a judicial separation effects that purpose. I ask the right rev. Prelates opposite, who know human nature, will they tell me that, if you break the bonds between a man and a woman who are young, force them apart under a decree of judicial separation and compel them from the early days of their lives until death to live so separated—will they tell me that this conduces to morality, that it really makes a firm and sound foundation upon which you can build Christian family life in this country ?
Let me once more refer to a passage which puts into language more adequate than I am able to use the view of this matter held by one of the most eminent writers on the law of husband and wife. After referring to a description of this decree by an English writer as "a sort of insult, rather than satisfaction, to any man of ordinary feelings and understanding," he goes on to say that it is—
" while destitute of justice, one of the most corrupting devices ever imposed by serious natures on blindness and credulity. It was tolerated only because men believed, as a part of their religion, that dissolution would be an offence against God ; whence the slope was easy toward any compromise with good sense; and as the fruit of compromise we have this ill-begotten monster of divorce a mensa et thoro, made up of pious doctrine and worldly stupidity."
That view was thought to be of sufficient value to be incorporated in the body of the Report of the Royal Commission, who reported without qualification or compromise that this proceeding should be done away with.
I do most earnestly ask those who seek shelter behind its provisions, who tell me that a woman need not submit to cruelty because she can be judicially separated, that she has a remedy against desertion because at some expense and trouble she can be judicially separated, if they believe that the evils of the marriage system are met and palliated by the existence of a decree, stigmatised in language like that, which, in its essential principles and its ultimate consequences, I do not believe a single member of your Lordships' House can justify. I know quite well there are people who will say : "Oh ! but you should have no divorce at all." I understand that, and indeed I recognise and accept at once their logic and their sincerity. When a
646
person tells me he will accept judicial separation and will accept the putting away of a woman, the very thing that in unequivocal language Christ condemned, and then says that, that is an answer to a demand for divorce, I accept his good faith, but I am sorry to say I do it at the expense of my respect for his reasons
These are the essential principles of the measure which I ask you to read a second time this afternoon. It will meet with the usual opposition, gathered in the usual way. It begins by a circular which was sent round only a few days back, purporting to come from highly-organised bodies, saying that if marriage is made dissoluble it is nothing but licensed prostitution. Marriage is, to-day, dissoluble, and my most reverend opponent and his colleagues voted only a little time back for a measure which enabled it to be dissoluble at the instance of a woman as at the instance of a man. Will they support this statement? Will they say that marriage is licensed prostitution ? If marriage, to-day, is licensed prostitution, I shall be glad to know what is the adequate language to describe a union in which a woman is compelled to live for ever with a man insane, unfaithful, unclean, whose very touch makes her shudder and whose very sight she hates. What is the language with which to describe a condition like that? I hesitate to use such limited resources as are in my power to express my feelings about it. There, then, is what may be described as opposition brought to this Bill by people who, I say with all respect, have never really read the Report at all or considered the position.
There are, however, two other forms of objection more formidable, far more rational, and far more difficult to deal with. There is, first of all, the objections brought forward by the representatives of the Roman Catholic faith. I have said before, and I say again, that with them I have no quarrel. I have never been able to find shelter within the shadow of their Church, although I say sincerely that I often wish I could ; but I know quite well that against their armour reason, argument, logic, persuasion, all fall back blunted. They, and they only, are the people who enjoy the unrivalled privilege of being able to speak with authority and to bind their supporters to accept what they say. What is the use of talking to them about

647
the pain and misery and unhappiness of this life ? They are nothing but the fleeting shadows of a vain and troubled world. We are not fighting the same issue—we are not on the same battleground—but I shall not hear from their representatives the language used by the people whose language I have just quoted. They, recognising the position, will not take more part in the Division than recording their vote.
I turn to what is a more formidable thing. I turn to the opposition which I know I must encounter at the hands of those who speak on behalf of the Church of England. I wish, more than I can say, that the whole of this question might be ruled out of controversy. It renders discussion painful and difficult, but it must be so, and I would like to ask them one or two questions. I would like to ask them this : Why is it that two texts in St. Matthew and St. Mark are to be singled out as the only two texts which lay down an irrefutable and invariable law ? Texts, as we all know, must necessarily be interpreted in the light of the circumstances in which they were spoken, and the people to whom they were said. No one has suggested that many of the texts can, without such qualification, be applied to all the varying and differing conditions of private and national life. Would it have been possible for right rev Prelates opposite to have preached all through the war on the text "Love your enemies," and have told their congregations that it was an absolute command which admitted of no qualification whatever ? Of course it would not, because the text should not be so regarded.
I want to ask what it is that has enabled people to take out a particular text and to say that, whatever may be said about others, this text at least declares the law which knows no change. Indeed, one noble Lord said that it enunciated the law as it began in the Book of Genesis. That struck me as a dangerous statement, seeing that pages of the Old Testament are full of orders and directions as to marriage which are in flat contradiction of the text. Well, that was the view, and I ask people who take that view : Why was it that you voted for a Bill which enabled women to divorce their husbands for adultery ? Where do you find authority for that ? I ask again and I have never yet been
648
answered : How can you reconcile divorce by a woman at all, or a judicial separation, with a clean, unequivocal interpretation of this text which is used again and again as an answer to this Bill ?
This Bill is designed for one purpose and one purpose alone. It is designed, so far as we can secure it, to relieve human misery, and I would earnestly commend to those noble Lords who think that such a recommendation is contrary to the teachings of the Gospel, to bear in mind the words of Lord Gorell, one of the wisest Judges that ever presided over the trial of matrimonial causes and a man who for three years was Chairman of that Commission. This is what he said :
" When one realises what human nature is, of what horrible conduct human beings are capable under the influence of lust, anger, greed, and drink, …. and the frightful sufferings they can inflict on each other and upon children, and when Christians have in mind the intense pity and superhuman sympathy with which Christ regarded the suffering, the poor, the needy, and His tender regard for little children, it seems impossible to credit that in teaching the doctrine of faithfulness in marriage, He was condemning those who suffer from the breach of it to lifelong misery and moral deterioration if not ruin."
It is true there have been revealed to the world great principles, obedience to which will ensure happiness. They are the principles that are gathered together under the august names of justice, morality, humanity, and truth, and it was in those names that the Royal Commission reported that this Bill should be made the law, and I beg your Lordships to give heed to that appeal.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Buckmaster.)
LORD DARYNGTON LORD DARYNGTON had given Notice to move as an Amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said : My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, who is a past master of language, has moved the second Beading of the Bill in a characteristic and eloquent speech, and I would like, in the first place, to say that I occupy this position to-day, not from any desire of my own, but because I have been asked to take up the challenge. I think, perhaps, the reason may be that I am not allied with any great Church party, but am what is called a broad Churchman.

649
When you look around the world to-day and see the difficulties and dangers that surround us and all nations of the world, I believe that to keep as near as possible to Christianity is our best course, and it is for that reason that I am here to move the rejection of this Bill.
The clause of the Bill to which I wish particularly to address myself is Clause 4. It was to that clause that Lord Buck-master chiefly referred. I am very sorry that the noble and learned Lord behind me, Lord Carson, who was the Chairman of the Committee in the House of Commons which opposed the Divorce Facilities Bill, is not discharging the task which I am attempting to discharge to-day. Clause 4 states that—
" Any married person may apply for a divorce on any one or more of the following grounds, that is to say, that the defendant—

(b) has deserted the applicant for a period of at least three years; or

(c) has since the marriage treated the applicant with cruelty …"

And then there are references also to habitual drunkenness, incurable insanity, and imprisonment.
I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I inadvertently repeat arguments which may have often been placed before the House before. I am conscious of my own inexperience, and also of the fact that I am a newcomer here. The most rev. Primate, on March 24, 1920, said in debate—
" Let me make my own position clear, because it is vital to the true understanding of our position in this controversy. I am approaching the question to-day not on ecclesiastical grounds or, in the narrower sense of the words, on distinctively religious grounds, though I should have a good deal to say on these points on an appropriate occasion, and in an assembly more appropriate and more welcoming of those words than this Assembly would naturally and properly be."
And the most rev. Prelate, the Archbishop of York, on the same date, said—
" I stated my own belief, but I also stated that I did not consider that this was the occasion or place to argue that belief, or the grounds of it. I accepted that there was a divorce law, but the point was whether it was desirable to increase it at the present time."
Therefore you will realise with what trepidation I come here to-day to say a few words on this Bill.
The point which I wish to make is that we ought to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to pass a Bill which is clearly contrary to the teaching of Christ. Whatever our feelings may be to-day, I am perfectly certain that there will be the dawn of a day in every one's life when the faith of a little child is worth all the wisdom and wealth in the world. And I pay very little attention to the arguments which are put forward by any one who does not believe in the Incarnation, or who advocates increased facilities for divorce and has not been faithful in his own private life. Belief is no easy matter, and there must be many noble Lords whom I now address who have had difficulties in regard to this question. But it has been said that the chief opponents of this Bill, and of Bills of a similar character, have been members of the Roman communion, and the Bishops. I think, however, that there is a fundamentally strong feeling of opposition to this measure in the minds of many Churchmen who are not in either category. I know that there are many men who, though they do not speak perhaps in regard to their belief, as it is always very difficult to do so, feel very strongly.
The other day I came across a quotation from the late Lord Salisbury in regard to his belief. Writing in response to a request for his view in reference to his faith in Christianity, he said—
" To me the central point is the resurrection of Christ, which I believe, firstly because it is testified to by men who had every opportunity of seeing and knowing, and whose veracity was tested by the most tremendous trials, both of energy and endurance during long lives ; secondly, because of the marvellous effect it had on the world. As a moral phenomenon the spread and mastery of Christianity is without a parallel. I can no more believe that colossal moral effects, lasting for two thousand years, can be without cause than I can believe that various motions of the magnet are without cause, though I cannot wholly explain them. To anybody who believes in the resurrection of Christ the rest presents little difficulty. No one who has that belief will doubt that those who were commissioned by Him to speak—Peter, Paul, Mark, John—carried a divine message. St. Matthew falls into the same category."
This was written to the Egyptian Gazette on September 17, 1903. And we acknowledge Christianity in this House. We have prayers in this House as a corporate body ; we go to the coronation of our

651
King or Queen ; we date our letters from the birthday of Christ; we have national services, sometimes in sorrow and sometimes in joy. But this Bill deprives the Christian marriage service in every place of worship in this land of its reality.
It is easy to argue hard cases. I sympathise with every one of those which has been enunciated by the noble and learned Lord to-day, but, if he believed, as I do, in regard to this question of Christ's teaching on this matter, be would see that we are not simply passing by, we are not saying : "This is nothing to us,'' but our contention is that to remedy this by making a person commit adultery can be no help. There are numbers of laws based on the teaching of Christianity; why not the marriage law? A noble Lord, the other day, spoke of certain words of our Saviour as an abandoned superstition of the middle ages. That is not the feeling of the majority of the members of your Lordships' House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I have not said anything of the kind.
A NOBLE LORD: Lord Daryngton said "a" noble Lord.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I thought he said "the" noble Lord.
LORD DABYNGTON: No, I did not refer to what the noble and learned Lord said at all. The noble and learned Lord would never make such a statement. He referred just now to the question of the Sermon on the Mount and said that we were trying to carry out one particular command of our Saviour while we left others alone. I have heard this argument used before. It is, no doubt, very difficult in this world of ours to carry out all those commands. In that Sermon on the Mount there is this command:—
" If thy right hand offend thee cut it off and cast it from thee."
But, in speaking about this subject, men are rather inclined to look at the words of Christ in the same way as they would look at the words of Confucius, or Buddha, or Mahomet, and if your Lordships' House will forgive me I would like to read the words of Christ :—
" For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh;
652
" Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
" …. Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and who so marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
That is from St. Matthew. St. Mark says—
" Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
" And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Some people say: "Is there not a mistranslation in regard to this ? "I think, in considering the Sermon on the Mount, the way in which it has been interpreted and the effect it has upon mankind, it is only natural for us to consider first the rules and practices of the primitive Church.
Since I have been asked to occupy this position to-day, I have taken the trouble to try to find out what those practices were. They are very interesting. If we look at the Church of Borne, of Syria, of Egypt, and of Spain and throughout all the Greek Church, we find exactly the same position ; we find practical uniformity in regard to carrying out the words of our Saviour. Are we more enlightened than they ? Did not they live nearer to the time of Christ ? Were there not drunkenness and cruelty at the time of Christ as there are now ? We want to make this world better, but we do not believe that this Bill is likely to accomplish it. Clearly it allows the breaking of the Divine law and will help to disguise from our people the fact that, according to that law, they will be living in sin.
But my noble and learned friend, if I may call him so, and others would naturally say, It is all very well to say this, but what about the Scottish law? What about the Royal Commission which sat for three years? What about the evidence from other countries ? Do the people want this? "The only reply I have to the question as to the Royal Commission is that it is impossible for me, believing as I do, to carry out any alterations which I believe are contrary to the law of Christ.
The noble and learned Lord referred to some of the philanthropic societies

653
which have sent documents to him, and I should like to refer to one of them—the Central Council and Executive Committee of the Mothers' Union, the largest women's organisation in the Empire, which has a membership running up to 400,000. They write desiring to protest most earnestly against any further facilities for divorce, being convinced that any such loosening of the marriage tie must inevitably undermine the home life upon which the future of the nation depends. That is signed by Mrs. Hubert Berkeley, the Central President of the Mothers' Union. I can speak personally as one who has long been connected with the Church Army, of which I happen to be at the moment the president. We have at least a thousand captains and sisters who are working day by day in various towns in this country, many of them in slum areas. I do not believe there is one who desires such a Bill as this to pass, and they are really acquainted with the conditions of the people among whom they work. Most of the philanthropic societies of this country take the same view.
In one particular this Bill goes further than the laws of most of the American States—in making insanity a ground of divorce. Noble Lords will remember, I dare say, that the late President Roosevelt called a Congress to consider uniform divorce laws for America, and that the experts unanimously decided to exclude insanity as a ground for divorce. But the most specious and, I think, insidious argument which has been used in regard to this great question was that of the Bishop of Durham when he stated that our Saviour had said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and from that he attempted to show that this command really did not mean anything so far as we are concerned. I have much respect and admiration for his great talents, but I believe that the right rev. Prelate will find that there is practically no one in the Church of which he is an ornament who agrees with him. This is an acutely religious problem. I am not arguing to-day in reference to the National Church Assembly, though that Assembly is practically unanimous in regard to this question.
I agree with much of the procedure mentioned in this Bill in reference to reform. But when we see, as we do to-day,
654
crowds of persons flocking to the Divorce Court, ought we not to hesitate before we try to grant greater facilities ? Ought we not to realise that what is required is the recognition of the lifelong obligation of marriage ? These are the days of increased recklessness. Some men say : "We cannot consider the American position." But I think it is hardly unfair to consider that this Bill will probably cause the same calamitous state of affairs that we see in America where there is a real undermining of the basis of marriage itself, and where we see the Christian Church and many of the ablest lawyers and the leaders of philanthropy testifying their abhorrence of the condition into which many of these States have fallen. The other day I heard of a case where a woman was married and there were no fewer than seven of her previous husbands attending the ceremony. That is the natural consequence of laxity of ideas as to the marriage bond. We see in America to-day perjury, lying, collusion and infidelity. The late President Roosevelt once said that one of the most unpleasant and dangerous features of American life was the position in regard to marriage.
Before I resume my seat I should like to give you one quotation from one of the greatest men who has lived in our times, Mr. Gladstone. This is the advice which he gave to America. He said that marriage is essentially a contract for life, and only expires when life itself expires; that Christian marriage involves a vow before God ; that no authority has been given to the Christian Church to cancel such a vow ; that it lies beyond the province of the civil legislature which, from the necessity of things, has a veto within the limits of reason upon the making of it, but has no competency to annul it when once made; that according to the laws of just interpretation, re-marriage is forbidden by the text of Holy Scripture. If the spirit of Mr. Gladstone came down from the sphere he now inhabits to this sublunary sphere, and he could see the, position in which the United States is placed to-day, is it not possible that he would feel that the advice which he gave was sound ? I stand by the immutable Divine law of Christ, and I ask this House not to pass this Bill. I realise the humanitarian ideas of the noble and learned Lord who has introduced it, and of many of those who follow him who think this Bill

655
leads along the pathway of happiness. I, however, do not think that. I believe this Bill will be a stumbling block instead of a stepping stone.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the word (" now ") and insert at the end of the Motion "this day six months."—(Lord Daryngton.)
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I feel that I almost owe an apology to your Lordships for rising year by year, as it so happens, on this Bill or some Bill analogous to it, but I desire to add my voice again tonight to that of those who would ask you not to read this Bill a second time. I think that were I to be silent it might be supposed that I had departed from the attitude that I have tried to follow on former occasions. We have listened to-night to the persuasive eloquence of one who has the power when he speaks of making us all wish to agree with him. No one who has listened to his speech tonight but must have been touched by its eloquence, and impressed by the way in which he handled the great subjects with which he dealt. He has put before us once more the hard cases on which, as I venture to think, he relies too much when he is dealing with this subject, as he has dealt with it time after time.
My noble and learned friend regards us who oppose him as speaking largely from a narrow ecclesiastical standpoint, or as basing our arguments on Gospel texts which he would interpret differently from us, or as to which he attaches a different kind of weight. I am not going-over that ground to-night in its detail, because I do not think it is really conducive to the argument which will tell with your Lordships. On the large principle I bate no jot of the adherence I have often expressed from this place to the Gospel teaching, taken as a whole, upon the permanence of the marriage bond. That teaching, as I, at least, comprehend it, stands as the basis or background of the whole handling of this matter by Christian people as such. The phrase to which the noble Lord who has just spoken referred as having been used in a former debate—those references to the Church's statements on the subject as being the whisperings of the abandoned superstitions of the middle ages—is not a view which I believe your Lordships will regard as a sound one. I am quite sure
656
that such a phrase would never be used by the noble and learned Lord whose Motion we are discussing to-night. But I am not going over that religious ground afresh. I believe that my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster appreciates our position in the matter, though he differs from it. I want to deal with the question on somewhat different lines to-night.
If I understood Lord Buckmaster aright, he told us that he was resting his proposal on two distinct lines—one, the increase of the grounds upon which a marriage could be declared to have been annulled ab initio, and, secondly, the increase of the causes for which divorce could be sought. I think it is only fair to remind the House that those whom I may be in any way regarded as representing voted a few years ago for the first of these in its entirety—that is to say, the proposals which were contained in the Bill introduced by Lord Gorell, and supported by us, dealt with the questions of grounds for nullity in the very way in which this Bill deals with them. That we supported, and that we were prepared to carry. And what prevented us? The noble and learned Lord said: "I will not take your Bill with that as its essence ; I must add something else." And, adding something else, he rendered the support which up to that time had been promised to the Bill impossible, because he brought in additional grounds for divorce. Therefore I wash my hands altogether of the need of replying to any accusation with regard to the question of nullity, because that we have already said we were prepared to adopt when it was introduced as a Bill. So far as I know, we are prepared to do the same still.
I therefore come directly to the second part of Lord Buckmaster's argument in regard to the increase of grounds upon which a claim for divorce may be made. It is not a rare thing in the domestic polity of a people that we should have to dwell with stern persistence on some large and far-reaching rule, although the observance of it necessarily creates cases which would be difficult to defend on their merits were it not because of the larger rule. That is surely common experience in a great deal of the public life of almost every civilised country. Let me give an example or two of what I mean Take the principle of the sacredness of human

657
life. I suppose there is no principle upon which we could obtain a more unanimous agreement than the obligation which rests upon all of us, and all we can influence, to observe the absolute sacredness of human life, and the wrongness of taking it away, except in the one way and for the one cause and by the State itself, as capital punishment. Nothing else must impair the absolute observance of that rule.
What about the deliberate action which we take, and support others in taking, as regards keeping alive a person whom all of us have seen and known and watched in sickness and distress, who is longing to be released from the bonds of the earth which is no longer to him or her a place of joy but of torture, a person we desire to see set free from that torture and whom others desire to set free from it ? Yet we support those who, with medical skill and surgical science, adopt every means in their power to prevent the end coming. In such cases we feel that if we could take that case by itself, and isolate it from the larger and more general law, we should desire to see attained the end which we and the sufferer desire. But we do not. We deliberately and studiously keep someone alive who desires to die, one whom we should not be sorry to see passing away. We do that because to interfere with hard cases such as this would be to traverse the larger and general law. the fundamental law. which must govern us as a whole as to the sacredness of human life and the absolute duty of preserving it. The pathos of such a case is increased when we pass from the ordinary sick room to the sick room of an asylum, where people who are out of their minds are suffering. We long to see such a life brought to an end, but we allow the rule to hold there still. Notwithstanding such hard cases as these, which we are obliged to watch and tend, we decline to regard them as sufficient to override the fundamental rule.
Take another instance. Many of your Lordships know far better than I do the difficulties which attended the absolutely and necessarily strict discipline of an Army in the recent war. Your Lordships have had to deal as officers in command with many cases of young men who were condemned to death for something which, taken by itself, was not really a moral or penal offence. Perhaps the man lost his
658
nerve and ran away, or in some other manner offended against, and acted contrary to, the discipline of the Army. The penalty was certain. But is there one of your Lordships who did not feel his heart drawn to any young man who came to his death in that way? Was there any of your Lordships who did not feel that the hardness of the case was such as to make, if almost intolerable to exact the penalty ? Hard cases make bad law, but if any of the discipline as laid down had been relaxed, we should have been in an unworkable position in the conduct of the great campaign.
Take the ordinary discipline which is exercised in our common life on those who belong to my own profession. It has been my sad and grave responsibility for many years—twenty-one years—to be the central authority before whom comes the question as to how to deal with those clergy, comparatively few in number, who have offended against the moral law. They are offences which, though they would not be excused in the case of a layman, are not penal offences. But in the case of a man who is an ordained minister of Christ, who is trusted by the people and admitted to their homes, it is impossible to condone and treat them lightly. Time after time my heart has been rent by appeals which have come to me from the wife or children of the man whom we have been obliged to condemn to give up his profession, not because he has done anything for which any ordinary layman would have suffered any penal consequences but because he has broken the trust which we have to lay upon the clergy. If a man breaks that trust any relaxation of the law would be an incomparable mischief to the usefulness of the Christian Church. We look on such cases with compassion and pity, but we adhere to the larger principle which lies behind. It is on that account, and for that reason, that we who believe in the sacredness and permanency of the marriage bond regard the hard cases to which Lord Buckmaster has referred not lightly, not contemptuously, not as something which we are content to pass on one side, but as something which is inevitable and which we should do our utmost to avoid without relaxing any principle which we feel is really essential to the permanence of the marriage bond as such.

659
But apart from the hard case argument, there is another argument which I know is very cogent to many people who desire to face this matter fairly. I mean the argument that unless you allow divorce for desertion, insanity, and life imprisonment, you will greatly increase immorality on the part of those who are deprived of the protection of the husband or the companionship of the wife. That argument, sound so far as it goes, is, nevertheless, when we press it to the extent it is commonly pressed, based upon what I must call a doctrinaire view of what is likely, rather than a practical experience of what is actually happening. I profoundly distrust large generalisations. I know that case after case was brought before the Royal Commission. I have read the evidence with care. But these are the hard cases brought out of the midst of ordinary life, and I distrust the large generalisations which find expression in speaking of these things as common and familiar experiences of our ordinary life. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Birkenhead, spoke on a former occasion of thousands, I think he said tens of thousands, of such cases in our land, for which the Legislature would be responsible if they did not pass such a Bill as this relieving people from such temptations to immorality.
May I remind you of what happened in the war, and this is a matter in which I was concerned ? In the early days of the war, we heard a great deal of what were called "war babies," and certain men and women got up an agitation as to the number of babies that were likely to be born in the unhappy circumstance of the absence of their fathers. It was said that the number was so great that it would be absolutely necessary to enlarge the wards of our Poor Law institutions in order to admit them. I have the actual document here. I brought this subject before your Lordships, and I said that I had taken pains to inquire of the various places mentioned in order to ascertain the plain facts of the case. Had it not been so serious a matter it would have been almost ludicrous to find the contrast between what was said was going to take place and what, indeed, actually happened. The estimates of the number of babies that were to be born in three different places was 700, 600 and 800. I
660
asked what had been the actual numbers, and in those three cases they came out respectively as eleven, eight and three. That is a warning of the danger of talking in large terms of these matters, and saying that something is going to produce tremendous consequences, without testing it. When you test it you may find that a strange light is thrown on the subject.
Your Lordships will remember similar instances with regard to the deserted wives about whom we heard a great deal during the war. Of course, there were deserted wives—nobody doubts that for a moment—but we were told they were to be found everywhere in hundreds. Again I ventured to apply the calm test of a detailed statistical inquiry. I got into touch—I ask your Lordships' pardon for reminding you in case you do not remember—with the various organisations in and about London which had to deal with women, and particularly young women and children, who were in trouble, and I found that the number of deserted wives among these women had rather decreased than increased during the war, though, of course, there were plenty of them, as there always must be. In 1913, before the war, there were 144 deserted wives out of some 890 young women who were being looked after in these regions ; in 1918, that is to say, when the war was nearly over, there were 117, a decrease on the figure before the war ; and in 1919, after the war was over, the number had again gone up somewhat to 157. The whole, story of this vast increase of deserted women and the terrible results which were following from all that occurred was, I venture to say, blown to bits by a little inquiry into the detailed facts, and this seems to be an example of the rashness of generalisations on these subjects.
The noble Lord to-night, with most characteristic care and patience, did give us figures in this matter, but I think that any argument based on numbers, which should have very great weight when applied to the suggested increase of immorality which results from the absence of the provisions which he desires to introduce, requires to be tested, and, when tested, may be found, I think, to carry a little less weight than it is supposed to carry. Apart from numbers. I hope your Lordships will be a little careful regarding the nature of the danger that you

661
anticipate. You are told that, human nature being what it is, you cannot expect young men or women to be left in the circumstances which I have described without the certainty that immorality must speedily follow. When will that be likely to occur ? When is the temptation going to become most acute ? In the case of insanity you must wait five years before you can get the relief which this Bill would give; in the case of desertion you must wait three years; and in the case of drunkenness you must wait three years. But the danger would arise during the very time for which the Bill does not provide protection. If it be the case that you are afraid of the growth of that immorality, you do not provide, and I do not see how you can provide, for the very years in which the temptation would be greatest. Once those years are passed the temptation would be far less, and probably the mischief would be infinitely smaller. I believe that experience of facts will very often qualify conclusions which the theory of what is likely may suggest.
A few days ago—I apologise to your Lordships for even referring to it again—I ventured to speak of the great experience which by necessity, through no merit of their own but from their daily work, the clergy gain with regard to these matters. I am an old man and an old clergyman. It is fifty years ago this month that I was ordained to Holy Orders, and thirty-three of those years I have spent as a Bishop in advising men who were dealing daily with the problems of our domestic life. Within the compass of those long years reminiscences of one's experiences come up. I see before me now a woman in the prime of life who had become addicted to a deplorable degree to strong drink, and her home was thereby completely darkened. With the consent and aid of her husband, I consulted an eminent medical man who said distinctly and definitely that he was afraid that he could hold out practically no hope of cure in a woman of that age who had developed the habit, and that it was not likely that the trouble would pass away, or that she would once more be as she had been. That is a case of what is called incurable drunkenness.
Many years afterwards I knew that home, and for ten years at least it was one of the happiest homes I have ever
662
known. The man and wife were living together in perfect happiness and there was not a sign of the cloud which had darkened it in former days. That is the kind of incident that recurs to one's mind. We are told that we must have release from the marriage tie on the ground of what is called incurable drunkenness. Suppose an application had been made in this case and a petition granted, what would have happened to the husband of this woman and to the woman herself, as contrasted with the actual development of their lives?
And what is incurable insanity ? I apologise again for returning to personal reminiscences, but they are really practical, because they are concerned with practical cases which one has known personally. There comes before me the figure of an admirable parish priest, with an admirable wife, who went out of his mind. I had to deal with that case and to make careful inquiry into the question of whether he was likely to recover, and what would be the proper process of relieving him of his ministerial responsibility, the best way whereby he might resign his parish. No fewer than three doctors said that they could hold out no hope of that man again being fit, either for ministerial work or for the ordinary intercourse of society. I am bound to say that for years afterwards the matter rather passed from my mind.
Not very long ago I met that man in perfect health. He reminded me of what had happened long before, and told me how he had returned to his home—generous aid had been given to him for the purpose—and how he and his wife were perfectly happy together. Suppose that man, on leaving the asylum to which he was sent in a perfectly legitimate way, had come out again, healed and in his right mind, to find that he had not merely lost the home and office which he had held before, but that his wife had been married to somebody else. If we are dealing with hard cases, surely the noble and learned Lord would be able to picture the hardness of such a case as that, and it should be compared with some of those to which he has referred your Lordships to-night. I do not want to weary your Lordships with reminiscences, but such cases arise naturally and frequently in one's mind.

663
There are also cases, of which I know several, in which that forgiveness, of which it almost surprised me to hear the noble and learned Lord speak to-night almost slightingly, on the part of the husband of an erring wife, has not merely proved not wholly in vain but has ultimately resulted in the happiest homes. I can name a case at this moment in which the husband and wife have both died after years of happiness together. Yet they came to me years ago with the problem whether or not there ought to have been a divorce, which would have been naturally given, with a result which would have been utterly different from that which I have seen and rejoice to have known. I ask pardon for this reminiscence, but I think practical experience of what is happening in our homes tends to make us exceeding cautious in accepting wide generalisations as to the mischief which must result if you do not give the relief which this Bill asks.
One final word. I have asked, and I ask again, where do you see a definite demand for this Bill in England to-day? You may refer me to the petition which has been referred to more than once, and which was produced here some years ago, with 10,000 signatures attached to it, asking for a change in the Divorce Laws. What did it ask for? Cheaper divorce. But you have got it. It has been brought about already, and there is no longer a demand for it. The other thing asked for was equal treatment of the two sexes. You have it. This Bill does not go any further in that direction. The noble Lord taunted us on these Benches with having voted for equal treatment of the sexes, and my vote was given for that Bill on the ground that, whatever we had done before, it was at least fair that the husband and wife should stand on a par in these matters. These things we now possess, they are already law, and this Bill makes no difference in regard to them.
I wait to see what evidence there is that in England, to-day, the mass of the people of the country are wanting a further change in the laws relating to marriage. I do not believe that there is any such demand. I see no evidence whatever that such demand, if it exist, is a widespread one. If it were, it would certainly find expression, of which I see no sign. Of course, there are people who
664
do want this Bill, and a great deal more. We all remember one of the witnesses before the Royal Commission, a lady whom I happen to know, who said distinctly that divorce should be granted wherever it was desired by either of the parties to live apart from the other. I suppose there are people who hold that view now, but that is not the view of the noble and learned Lord. Is there in this country a genuine demand for the sort of change which we are asked to make? If there is, will the noble and learned Lord give us the evidence of it, and tell us whether it is on a wide and considerable scale, and where it finds expression ? We know that very strong protests are being made against the change, but I fail to find those who, on any large scale, or in any way that we can reckon or calculate, are actually demanding this change. Therefore, beware, my Lords, of opening a door which you can never again shut. That is certain. Note the warning which comes to us with no uncertain voice from across the Atlantic, as to what has happened in not a few States there from this opening of the door too widely. Do you think the people of England want this change? I believe myself that they want nothing of the sort. If they do, let them tell us so. With all my heart I ask your Lordships not to go ahead of that expression of opinion by giving a Second Reading to this Bill to-night.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, in his remarks this evening, made kind and generous allusion to the religious community to which it is my privilege to belong, and I thank him sincerely for those remarks. I know, however, that he will not mind, and will not think my gratitude the less sincere, if I venture to say a very few words in opposition to his Bill. On religious grounds, and as a Catholic, I am opposed to this Bill. It is directly contrary to the teaching, practice, and law of our Church, but I recognise that as regards this particular Bill, and at this particular moment, the religious side of the question is not of such supreme importance to my case. As the noble and learned Lord has told your Lordships, I and my co-religionists can feel that whatever the result of this Bill, whether it passes into law or whether, as I hope, it

665
is defeated here and now, it does not affect my co-religionists. We remain under the law of our own Church, and the indissolubility of the marriage tie remains as it ever has been since the beginning of the Christian era, when Our Lord Himself raised the dignity of women from what it had been under the old dispensation.
But if we are safely entrenched in an impregnable position as regards this Bill, at any rate we have a right, and we feel a duty, and a concern in the effect which it may have on the welfare of our country. I make bold to say that had the law of the land remained faithful to the law of the Church a vast amount of misery connected with divorce in this country would have been spared to many individuals, men, women and children, and it is because we feel the danger of additional facilities that we have a dread of this Bill and earnestly hope it may never become law in this country. I recognise, of course, as everybody must recognise who has the privilege of the acquaintance, and I hope I may say friendship, of the noble and learned Lord, the sincerity of his motive. I recognise that his heart is wrung with the tragedy of the hard cases of which we know. Words cannot be found adequately to describe them. That point has been, if I may venture to say so, well dealt with by the most rev. Primate, and it is not for me to take up the time of the House by repeating, what has been said much better than I can say it, that if we are to abandon the principles for the sake of hard cases then we do not see any logical stopping place where we can rest.
Allusion has been made to America. I do not pretend to have made a study of the laws of the different States of America on this question but I certainly believe that they are far worse than the provisions contained in this Bill. I would ask your Lordships, however, to allow me to make a quotation from President Roosevelt. It is probably well known to most of your Lordships, but, none the less, I think it so appropriate that I ask leave to quote it. These are his words—
" Easy divorce is a bane to any nation. It is a curse to society and a menace to the home, an incitement to married un-happiness, and an evil thing for men. but a still more hideous evil for women."
Those are the words of a great statesman, a man of affairs, and a great sportsman,
666
and I think we should do well to give serious consideration to the opinions which he expressed as to the effect of divorce in his country.
The noble and learned Lord, in his opening remarks, told us that he did not intend to proceed with this Bill unless he was satisfied that the Prime Minister would give facilities for it in another place. It is always dangerous to prophesy, but I venture to think that if my noble and learned friend thinks he will get those facilities he will be disappointed, not only because in all probability the exigencies of Parliamentary time will not permit it, but also for what I think is a more important reason. I do not for a moment believe that among the great mass of the supporters of the Labour Party in this country there is that favour for this Bill which many people think exists. On the contrary, quite apart from what their religious convictions may or may not be, I believe that among the great mass of the working classes and the poorer people in this country there is, deep down, a tremendous reverence for the marriage tie, which they do not want weakened. And I believe that feeling is shared by many members of the present Government, and, even if the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack employs his most persuasive powers with his colleagues in another place in the interests of this Bill, I think he will probably find that he will do so in vain. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be defeated, because I honestly believe that, if it were to become law, it would mean the weakening of the moral fibre and of the character of the English people.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HALDANB): My Lords, in the case of a Bill of high importance such as this it is right that the Government should give an indication of opinion. Whenever a change is proposed in the law of society of great magnitude it is natural and necessary that the Government of the day should take some part. But the question before your Lordships' House is one of unusual difficulty. A change so great as this could only be made if there were a large and settled public opinion behind the movement for the Bill. After all, it is public opinion which ultimately governs in these

667
things, governs Parliaments, governs Churches, governs all our institutions ; and you have to satisfy yourselves that that public opinion is present before you can embark on a course of legislation which may lead to a great organic change.
When one looks at the state of things to-day it is impossible to say that there is conclusive evidence of how public opinion is divided. Unquestionably there is a considerable volume of opinion against this Bill ; equally unquestionably there is a very large volume of opinion in favour of the Bill. Opinion is divided. I listened to the speech of the most rev. Primate, following that of my noble and learned friend (Lord Buckmaster), and the division between them represents very much the division among people in general. Even in the case of the Government we are not agreed about this matter. If my noble and learned friend Lord Parmoor, who feels very strongly about this Bill, were present, he would undoubtedly vote with the most rev. Primate in the Division which is impending. Speaking for myself as an individual, and as an individual only, I am in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill, as I have been on previous occasions. But, in this position of things, it is impossible for the Government to do more than leave it to Parliament to decide the question. We shall then arrive at something like an indication of how public opinion is divided, and where the majority lies. At present I find it impossible to say. Therefore the Government must leave the matter entirely to Parliament. It does not inter-meddle. I cannot in the name of the Government promise facilities for the Bill. It must take its chance, and must be dealt with according to the development of events.
But, while that is so, it does not preclude members of the Government—who are, after all, individual members of this House—from expressing their own opinion and from discharging the obligation which they are under as members of Parliament to have a view upon a matter so important. Speaking for myself, I listened to the eloquent speech of my noble and learned friend (Lord Buckmaster) with great sympathy for his motive. It was one of the most eloquent speeches I have listened to in this House. It represented perfect conviction. The criticism in my mind was not so much upon the tone of the speech—that was admirable—but upon the limitation of the
668
point of view which seemed to me to underlie it. My noble and learned friend spoke as if the only question was that of the unhappy husband and wife, the parents. But there are the children, and there is also the State.
I am not precluding myself from qualifying what I am going to say, but I have always felt that any relaxation of the marriage tie is a perilous adventure, not to be entered upon without great circumspection. People marry and they remain together, largely because it is the right thing to do, and because society enjoins it, and because in some cases there are strong religious sanctions which actuate them, and because in other cases they are thinking of the children which they have brought into the world. Therefore, any real relaxation of the marriage tie becomes something which is looked on with aversion by the great majority of men and women. I think that is right when you remember that the children, after all, are persons to be considered quite as much as the husband and the wife. Easy divorce permits of very great unsettlement in the position of the children, particularly in reference to their prospects. Easy divorce is also somewhat disastrous for the State which is interested in the maintenance of the family relation. That is true, and it makes me hesitate very much when I approach any question of the extension of divorce.
I listened very carefully to the speech of the most rev. Primate, who did not put his reasoning mainly on religious grounds but rather put it on that of the interest of society. There is a great deal in that, and there is a great deal in taking up the line of principle which he took up. But, unfortunately, that is not the condition of society in this country. In the year 1857 we introduced the Matrimonial Causes Act, and since that time divorce has been an institution among us, no doubt looked after carefully, but, still, an institution. Therefore, when I come to consider the question as to whether I shall vote for my noble and learned friend's Bill, I am face to face with a situation in which there is no such principle as there ought to have been if the most rev. Primate is right. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, the most rev. Primate spoke in favour of an

669
increase in the facilities for divorce by giving the wife the same right as is given to the husband. No principle is of universal application when it is qualified in its application by the necessities of the State. There is no principle left in the matter. You cannot contend for the maintenance of the principle even on religious grounds, because the Divorce Act has been accepted by the great majority of the people. I know that the noble Viscount who spoke for his Church a few minutes ago says, and truly, that the members of his Church do not recognise the application of the principle and do not take advantage of proceedings under the Divorce Act. That is quite true. But the Divorce Act was passed with some measure of acquiescence of the Established Church of the land itself.
Taking this Bill upon its merits. I think that there are truly cases which the law ought to be extended to cover. For that reason, speaking for myself, I intend to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill; but in Committee I shall look closely at some of its provisions. For instance, you must not make this relaxation too easy ; on the other hand, you must not make your Bill inoperative in view of the hard cases which undoubtedly exist. I hope that I have now put before your Lordships the reasons why the Government finds itself in a position in which it can give no lead to the House. We propose, as I said, to leave the matter to Parliament, and everybody will vote according to his own views and his own conscience.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I venture to differ from some of the remarks that have fallen from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He did not carry me with him, if he carried the rest of the House with him, when he said that there was no principle left in the matter. I believe there is a principle, and a very clear principle.
I do not speak as a rigid or frigid ecclesiastic ; far from it. The words of the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill went to my heart, as I have no doubt they went to the hearts of many in this House. The picture he drew of the miseries of married life when all love is gone, and the picture that he drew of the deserted wife with a husband who could not even be heard of were, indeed, very telling, and I, for one,
670
would most eagerly catch at any opportunity of relieving such suffering did I not in my heart of hearts believe that no alleviation can be found for these cases that will not, by a side wind, bring in something worse.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has rightly reminded your Lordships of the fact that there are three parties to a marriage. We often speak as if there were only the bride and the bridegroom, but there is the State, and the State has to see to the wellbeing of all those who are its members.
We cannot vote on an issue of this kind in any petty way. There may be some here who think that it would be an easy way of getting rid of some sad case which they know of in their own experience. There may be others who, in a more general way, are tempted to follow the noble and learned Lord who introduced this Bill in the path that he has put before us. But it is clear that what we have to consider is the general good, and the direction in which these things tend. I, for one, cannot see how the noble and learned Lord, having taken a particular line, is satisfied to say that so many years must pass before desertion is effective. Why should the poor woman whom he described to us endure those hard things for a year, or for six months ? I certainly cannot see any close following of principle in that instance.
In regard to the other question of principle I think it is clear. And I would very sincerely ask that it may not be thought, because I am speaking from this Bench, that I am putting forward one set of arguments when really and truly my mind is made up by another set of arguments. I hope, and I know, that the noble and learned Lord will give me credit for full sincerity in what I am saying. We learned in our youth the propositions of Euclid. There are several propositions of Euclid that admit of two demonstrations equally good and equally satisfactory ; but no one need say because one advances one particular proof that the other proof is a weaker one. I may have other grounds for forming some conviction on this subject, but I am perfectly clear in my own mind when I say that I believe that the principle at stake is this. We have a law of divorce, and upon what that law is founded your Lordships perfectly well know. That law recognises that the

671
line is drawn where the question comes of the misuse of physical union. I believe that line is perfectly clearly drawn, and that it is a line of principle. I am not saying—for I do not think it is true—that an act of adultery necessarily causes so much distress and misery in married life as some other things do. I entirely agree with the picture that the noble and learned Lord drew of those who have to sit facing one another day after day and coming to hate one another's company. I can believe that is a far more difficult situation, and one of much greater misery, than, may be, the other which I have indicated. But I say emphatically that there is a principle that this physical act is only permitted in married life, and, therefore, it is the one thing that creates a unique ground for divorce.
We have had these debates very often, and there is no need to say again what has often been said, and aid better than I can say it, but I remember that in the debate three or four years ago one noble Lord used the expression that some trivial act of adultery could not be considered so serious a thing as many other things which had been alluded to in the debate. I deeply deplore such an utterance, for I think that the general good taste, and the general sense of right and wrong, in this House could never regard adultery as a trivial act against married life and against married love. I ask your Lordships very anxiously not to say that the Church has accepted one ground, and therefore must be prepared to accept many others. I ask you to draw a distinction—and a distinction that the State would recognise—between an act of adultery and other things that go to make the misery of married life.
I do not think we need go over the ground that was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord as to the inconsistencies of the Church in this matter through the ages. We all listened very carefully to what he told us about the statement made by one who once worked in the house where I now live. All that seems to me something which we may let pass to-day. What we have to do is to remember that the homes of the people depend upon the maintenace of married life. I sincerely hope that the cases mentioned by the noble and learned Lord are fewer than he may suppose. He would say, in his persuasive and
672
passionate manner : "I do not care whether the cases are few or many, I want to relieve those who are suffering." But I appeal to him when I say that I believe the alleviation of this smaller number of cases—for it must be a smaller number of cases—would lead to distress on a bigger scale. "This man and this woman." One marriage. I believe we are discussing the principle of monogamy, and I believe that monogamy ought to be not only an ideal to be aimed at in happy marriages, but a regular rule to be accepted in ordinary life, with the one exception which I have mentioned and which, I believe, stands upon a wholly different footing.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships more than a couple of minutes from proceeding to the Division which we are about to take. This is not a case in which any side of this House, or any considerable section of this House, is likely to vote collectively in one direction or the other. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has told us that the Government itself is not united upon the matter, and has appealed to noble Lords to vote according to their opinions and consciences. He has indicated, not obscurely, that, whatever we do here, facilities for this Bill are hardly likely to be forthcoming in another place. Of course, there are certain sections of this House as to whose vote we are certain. The most rev. Primate speaks for the whole of the Episcopal Bench behind him. The noble Viscount Lord FitzAlan, who spoke so powerfully earlier in the afternoon, speaks for the whole of those members of your Lordships' House who belong to the Church of which he is a distinguished member. But what about the attitude of the rest of your Lordships ?
I have never before taken part in these debates about divorce, and I would not presume on this occasion, and at this late hour, to enter into any discussion of the broad principles to which the right rev. Prelate who has just spoken has called attention. I look at the matter rather from the point of view of the procedure and the practice of Parliament in cases such as this. This Bill which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, introduced—and here let me associate myself with what fell from the Lord Chancellor—in a speech, one of the most

673
moving and one of the most powerful I have ever heard in your Lordships' House, is no new Bill. It is not the first time it has been placed before your Lordships. This is not the first time we have heard the rival arguments from the two sides. Not only is it not the first time that it has been introduced, but your Lordships should remember that this Bill has been passed by this House. Four years ago—in the year 1920—this Bill was introduced. I think by the noble and learned Lord himself. It met with strong support from some members of the Government of which I was a member. I think one of its most vehement advocates was Lord Birkenhead, then Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships not only gave it a Second Reading ; you took it through Committee, you passed it, and it was only because of the state of business in another place that it got no further.
If those are the facts of the case, it would seem to me to be an unusual act—I think myself an unwise act and an unfair act—to deny the Bill of the noble
and learned Lord at least the chance of a Second Reading this afternoon. I say so for another reason. When we get into Committee then, and then alone, can we ascertain whether the opinion of the House in this year 1924 is the same as it was in the year 1920. Then, and then alone, can we discuss one after the other the separate grounds for divorce. I agree with the noble and learned Lord in some of these things ; I do not agree with him in all. I should like to hear the matter discussed in Committee, whatever be its fate at a later stage. I merely make these remarks not because I have any right to speak for the great body of Peers who sit behind me, but because I should like to explain the vote which I am about to give, and because I think that the considerations which will actuate me in giving that vote are such as may justify the appeal to other noble Lords in other parts of the House.
On Question, Whether the word "now "shall stand part of the Motion?—
Their Lordships divided :—Contents. 88 : Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Marchamley, L.

Burnham, V.

Methuen, L.

Devonshire, D.

Chelmsford, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Marlborough, D.

Churchill, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L.

Rutland, D.

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Newton, L.

Wellington, D.

Knutsford, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Milner, V.

Olivier, L.

Cuezon of Kedleston, M.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chambertain.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Aberconway, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Arnold, L.

Pentland, L.

Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Askwith, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

Avebury, L.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Raglan, L.

Ancaster, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rathereedan, L. [Teller.]

Buxton, E.

Blythswood, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carlisle, E.

Boston, L.

Riddell, L.

Clarendon, E.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Ritehie of Dundee, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sandhurst, L.

De La Warr, E.

Faringdon, L.

Sandys, L.

Howe, E.

Harris, L.

Sempill, L.

Kimberley, E.

Hemphill, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Lanesborough, E.

Hindlip, L.

Sinclair, L.

Liverpool, E.

Hothfield, L.

Southwark, L.

Lucan, E.

Illingworth, L.

Sudeley, L.

Malmesburv, E.

Jessel, L.

Sumner, L.

Northbrook, E.

Kilmarnoek, L. (E. Erroll.)

Swaythling, L.

Russell, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Thomson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Lambourne, L.

Wargrave, L.

Scarborough, E.

Lawrence, T.

Wavertree, L.

Stanhope, E..

Lilford, L.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Lyell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Northumberland, D. [Teller.]

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Beauchamp, E.

Argyll, D.

Bath, M.

Eldon, E.

Halsbury, E.

London, L. Bp.

Morris, L.

Lichfield, E.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Mowbray, L.

Midleton, E.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Morton, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Phillimore, L.

Munster, E.

Ravensworth, L.

Nelson. E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

St. Audrios, L.

Cross, V.

Carson, L.

Saltoun, L.

Finlay, V.

Chalmers, L.

Saye and Sele, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Charnwood, L.

Shandon, L.

Hood, V.

Daryngton, L. [Teller.]

Stuart of Wortley, L.

de Mauley, L.

Terrington, L.

Bradford, L. Bp.

Erskine, L.

Teynham, L.

Chelmsford, L. Bp.

Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

Treowen, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kylsant, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

MacDonnell, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

A SOUTHWARK CONTRACT.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given notice to ask His Majesty's Govern merit whether the Southwark Borough Council refused to accept the lowest tender for a printing contract on the ground that some of the employees of the firm tendering were not members of a trade union ; whether they accepted a higher tender, thus causing a loss to the ratepayers of £293 ; whether the district auditor surcharged the Council in this amount, and whether the Government have cancelled the surcharge.
The noble Lord said : My Lords, I have a Question down, but, as it is late, I think I had better postpone it until to-morrow.

FLECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Adlington, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of February, 1924, be approved.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, I beg to make the Motion, of which Notice has been given, for the appointment of a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs. As it was moved from this side of the House and supported from the other, I do not think that any arguments on my part are required in favour of it. I may say that the Committee, if it is set up, will be appointed to consider any matters referred to it by the Government or by Parliament. I am not aware that there are any questions of moment winch we should desire to submit to the Committee immediately, but if that which was foreshadowed in the Indian Legislative Assembly should mature—namely, that the Government of India should consider the question of possible extensions or amendments of rules under the Government of India Act—that is the kind of subject which we should desire to refer to the Joint Committee.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and to consider with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India.—(Lord Olivier.)
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to desire their concurrence.
House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER BILL. [H.L.] [SUBSTITUTED BILL.]
Presented, read 1a ; and referred to the Examiners.
LANARKSHIRE HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER BILL. [H.L.] [SUBSTITUTED BILL.]
Presented, and read 1a.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL.
Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAM- WAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Examiner's Certificate of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday next.
SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]

  LONDON ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
  Committed : The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with :
  County of London Electric Supply Company [H.L.],
  London Electricity Supply (No. 1) [H.L.],
  London Midland and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges) [H.L.],
  St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways (Abandonment) [H.L.],
  St. Just (Falmouth) Ocean Wharves and Railways (Revival of Powers, &c.) [H.L.],
  Southern Railway (Dock Charges) [H.L.].
  Sutton Harbour [H.L.],
  Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Rills introduced in pursuance of the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, have been complied with :
  Clyde Valley Electrical Power [H.L.]—(Substituted Bill),
  London Midland and Scottish Railway (Miscellaneous Provisions)—(Substituted Bill),
  Lanarkshire Hydro Electric Power—(Substituted Bill),
  The same were Ordered to lie on the Table.