Sitting of 8 May 1924

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [Lords],
Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Read the Third time, and passed.
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATESHEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL,
"to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the County Borough of Gateshead to construct a bridge over the River Tyne; to authorise the construction and working of tramways over the said bridge and the execution of other works; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

NEW WRITS.
For the Borough of Liverpool (West Toxteth Division) in the room of Sir ROBERT PATERSON HOUSTON, baronet (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Commander Eyre$Monsell.]
For the Burgh of Glasgow (Kelvingrove Division) in the room of WILLIAM HUTCHISON, esquire, deceased.—[Commander Eyres-Monsell."]

ALIENS (NATURALISATION).
Address for Return "showing (a) particulars of all aliens to whom certificates of naturalisation have been issued and whose oaths of allegiance have, during the year ended the 31st day of December, 1923, been registered at the Home Office; (b) information as to any aliens who have during the same period obtained acts of naturalisation from the Legislature; and (c) particulars of cases in which certificates of naturalisation have been revoked within the same period (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 58, of Session 1923)."—[Mr. Rhys Davies.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

    FINAL AWARDS.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Pensions if he will now make any statement as the final awards of service men's pensions, and especially as to the problem of recurring diseases and ailments?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Roberts): Cases of recurrent ailments are met by the provision of medical treatment, with the grant of allowances if necessary. As regard cases in which it is shown that an award was erroneously declared final at the time it was made, owing to a definite error of fact or judgment, I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member that cases of this kind are now in fact being put right by the Ministry, and the correct award, whether final or conditional, made in lieu of the award which had erroneously been made final. Where a man claims to need treatment on account of his condition, his case will be considered if, as a result of medical treatment and observation, error be discovered. Such claims go in the ordinary course through the local offices of the Ministry.
    Mr. HOGGE: How is it that a man who has had his final award can get treatment allowance for disability, but is not eligible for pension?
    Mr. ROBERTS: If my hon. Friend gives me notice of that question, I will supply him with a full answer.
    Mr. HOGGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that many men who have had pensions, but who have pensions no longer, are entitled to treatment allowance in hospitals for the disability which they incurred during the War, and how is that possible when the men are denied pensions?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I will take a note of the observations of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. ROYCE: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer apply to men whose appeal to the Appeal Tribunal has been rejected?
    Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. It applies only to the type of cases specifically mentioned in the answer.
    Mr. J. GARDNER: In ceases where final awards are considered to be wrongly made, is application to be made to the local committees?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: As I have numerous cases of a similar character, may I ask if the hon. Gentleman will look into the point1?
    Mr. ROBERTS: Yes; I will look into any point which any hon. Member brings to my notice.

    ADMINISTRATION.
    Mr. E. BROWNasked the Minister of Pensions what changes are proposed in the relations between the Ministry and the areas in the country?
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Minister of Pensions how soon he will set up his new scheme of Regional Advisory Committees, and what will be their powers and constitution?
    Mr. ROBERTS: While no change is at present contemplated in the existing procedure between the headquarters of the Ministry and the local offices, I am making arrangements for bringing War Pensions Committees into closer relationship with the Ministry by providing for an improved system of representation for Committees, on Advisory Councils and of representation, in turn, of Advisory Councils on the Central Advisory Committee. I am sending my hon.
    604
    Friends copies of a circular recently issued regarding the proposed changes—I may add that I am taking steps to obtain the views of War Pensions Committees before the powers and constitution of the new Councils are finally settled.

    SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has been reached with regard to the former powers of the Special Grants Committee to make grants to widows of ex-service men suffering from serious and prolonged illness?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement in this matter.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to make an announcement?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid it is impossible to state a definite date, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every attention is being paid to the matter, and I will endeavour to speed it up.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make an announcement, if I repeat the question next week?
    Mr. ROBERTS: That I cannot say definitely, but I will do my best.

    ENCEPHALITIS LETHARGICA.
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Pensions how many cases exist of ex-service men suffering from encephalitis lethargica; and whether the Department accepts responsibility for any or all of them?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available As regards the second part, if the disease be connected with service, as has in fact been established in certain cases, my Department accepts responsibility.
    Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the number of cases?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am told a large amount of research would be required, but if the hon. Member insists, I will endeavour to get the information for him.

    REVIEW OF ENTITLEMENT.
    Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Pensions what steps he has taken with a view to bringing to an end the systematic review of entitlement in cases of old standing?
    Mr. ROBERTS: I am glad to announce that the systematic review of entitlement by my Department ceased on the 31st March.

    WIDOWS.
    Captain RAMAGEasked the Minister of Pensions if he is prepared to make any change in the administration of dependants' pensions so as to remove the existing inequality of treatment in the case of widows who were living with their husbands and widows who were separated from their husbands at the time of their husbands' death?
    Mr. ROBERTS: It is a principle of the Pension Warrants that the liability of the State consequent on the death of an ex-service man is determined by reference to the liability in respect of his wife which rested upon or was recognised by the husband at the time of his death. I have seen no ground on which this principle calls for reconsideration, but I shall be happy to consider any particular case the hon. Member may wish to bring to my notice.

  ALIENS.

    CONVICTIONS.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what number of aliens or persons of foreign extraction have been summoned or arrested for various breaches of the law during the last 12 months; and what number of convictions have been registered against such persons and at what cost to the State?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): There are no Returns from which the information asked for could be obtained. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. A. Somerville) on 14th February showing that, of the 9,455 prisoners under sentence in England and Wales, 117 were aliens; and of the 1,820 prisoners in Scotland, 19 were aliens.
    Dr. SPERO: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all these questions relating to persons of foreign extraction are part of the campaign directed to bring into discredit the British pledge and signature given on naturalisation papers?

    ADMISSION.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he will consider as to the possibility of framing Regulations which will prevent the admission of aliens into this country in all cases in which their entry is likely further to enhance the present acute conditions of unemployment?
    Mr. HENDERSON: Under the Regulations already in force, an alien is not allowed to land unless he be in a position to support himself, or, if he desire to take employment here, unless he has a permit obtained from the Ministry of Labour. I do not think anything more is necessary. The hon. and gallant Baronet's object is already met.

  SUMMER TIME (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT).
  Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the names of the representatives of Great Britain who negotiated the arrangement with France, Belgium, and Holland regarding summer time?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The British Government was represented at the Conference in Paris on this subject by Sir Malcolm Delevingne, of the Home Office.

  EX-INSPECTOR SYME (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).
  Mr. LAVERACKasked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the case of ex-Inspector Syme; whether he proposes to set up a tribunal to inquire into the case; if so, under what conditions; and can he state who are the members of the tribunal and what are their terms of reference?
  Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, Sir. I have decided to submit all the circumstances connected with the dismissal of ex-Inspector John Syme from the Metropolitan

  607
  Police Force to the judgment of a Committee of three independent persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor. The Committee will be composed of the Honourable Mr. Justice Talbot (Chairman), His Honour Judge Parfitt, and Mr. Rayner Goddard, K.C., the Recorder of Poole, and their instructions will be
  "to examine the circumstances connected with the dismissal of Inspector John Syme from the Metropolitan Police Force, to report whether wrong was done to that officer, and, if it was, to indicate the measure of the redress due in equity to him."
  Ex-Inspector Syme has given an undertaking that he will abide by the findings of the tribunal, and on their part the Government have undertaken to take any steps that may be necessary to give effect to these findings.

  EDUCATION.

    DEAF CHILDREN (SPECIAL SCHOOLS).
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the President of the Board of Education the present accommodation in the certified special schools for the deaf, and the approximate number of deaf-and-dumb children in the country?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The present accommodation in certified special schools for the deaf is 4,582. The approximate number of deaf children in the country (including those who are partially deaf), based on returns furnished by local education authorities in respect of the year 1923, is 5,700.
    Mr. WHITE: Are those children who are not in attendance at the special schools in attendance at the ordinary schools, and are any steps being taken to secure to them the special education which they require?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I cannot give the hon. Member details without further inquiries, but I will make inquiries.

    SECONDARY SCHOOLS (FREE PLACES).
    Mr. F. GOULDasked the President of the Board of Education what are the present regulations of the Board regarding the provision of free places in secondary schools?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: As I have already announced in this House, I think that the time has come for reconsideration of the provisions which govern the system of free places, regard being had to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which reported in 1920. This reconsideration is now proceeding. At present in all fee-charging schools free places must be offered at the beginning of each school year to pupils entering from public elementary schools. The number to be offered is ordinarily 25 per cent. of the total number of pupils admitted to the school in the previous year, but hitherto this minimum percentage has been reducible in the case of a particular school. I think that, as a rule, schools applying for admission to the grant list in future should be required to offer the full 25 per cent. of free places. The restriction on any increase of the percentage of free places above the percentage awarded in the school year ending 31st July, 1922, which the Board's Regulations imposed is being removed, and school authorities have been informed that they will be at liberty to raise the percentage of free places to 40 per cent. The regulations also provide that fees must not be abolished without previous sanction of the Board. I have announced my readiness to consider on their merits applications from local education authorities for such sanction, and some applications from local authorities in Wales have already been granted.
    Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: What are the conditions governing the grants for free places in secondary schools? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that school managers complain that large numbers who come to the secondary schools do not complete the full time, but leave after six or eight months?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: That is a matter that can only be dealt with by Debate in this House

    UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NO. 2) BILL.
    Mr. E. SIMONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received representations from local education authorities protesting against the proposals in the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill, under which children between the ages of 14 and 16 are to be treated as industrial units and handed over to the Ministry of Labour

    609
    instead of being regarded as children who ought to be at school and under the care of the education authorities; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: No representations have been made to me by local education authorities on the subject of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. HERBERT FISHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into serious consideration the effects of this proposal upon the secondary schools in this country, and make recommendations?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: I am considering the matter, and, indeed, it has already been considered very carefully.
    Mr. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it takes some time for representations to local authorities to get through to the various committees of the councils?

    TOWER OF LONDON (ADMISSION FEES).
    Major BURNIEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that many provincial school children are visiting London this year to see the British Empire Exhibition; and, as this is an excellent opportunity for these children to see places of historic interest in the capital, will he use his good offices to have the admission fees to such places as the Tower of London remitted on days suitable for these parties?
    Mr. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand from my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that the greater part of the Tower of London is open on Saturdays free of charge, and that parties of school children, accompanied by a responsible teacher, are admitted free on Fridays to the whole of the Tower without previous application being necessary. For any further particulars, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman discourage any idea of taking children round to see the general sights of London if they are likely to be already exhausted by the extremely interesting sights of the Wembley Exhibition?

  UNLAWFUL DISSECTION, CLEATOR MOOR.
  Mr. GAVAN-DUFFYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that since the unlawful dissection of the body of J. M. Ashton, at Cleator Moor, and the removal of the deceased man's brains without the widow's knowledge or consent, an application has been made by the legal representatives of the insurance company for a further examination, and, as the widow has withheld her consent, the insurance company now refuse to undertake the cost of giving Christian burial to the part of the man's body unlawfully abstracted; and will he submit the matter for the consideration of the Public Prosecutor with the object of proceedings being taken against those concerned?
  Mr. HENDERSON: As this case contains some element of doubt as to the legal position, I propose to send the information in my possession to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE MANAGEMENT).
  Captain DONALD HOWARDasked the Home Secretary whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the present State management of the liquor control scheme in Carlisle; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of extending the scheme so as to comprise other areas?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and as far as the Government's intentions for this Session are concerned, the answer to the second part is in the negative.

  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  Mr. CLUSEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the complaints from workmen of the insufficiency of factory inspection; and whether he will make inquiries to ascertain whether these complaints arise from the need of more inspectors or from any other reason?
  Mr. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the

  611
  complaints to which he refers, I will have them investigated. As I have stated in recent replies in this House, I am not altogether satisfied with the present position and propose to review it at the earliest opportunity.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary what action he intends to take to remove the dissatisfaction caused by the non-payment of compensation for the first three days to persons injured, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, who are off work for more than three days but less than four weeks?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The provision referred to by the hon. Member was the subject of considerable discussion in Parliament last year when the Workmen's Compensation Bill was being passed. It could only be modified now by further legislation, and further amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Acts cannot be undertaken at present.
  Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many employers are now favourable to this practice, and, seeing that they were the people who opposed the Clause, will he make inquiries to find out if they are agreeable to having it adopted?
  Mr. HENDERSON: To make inquiries on a subject like this would be a very large order. Should the practice to which my hon Friend refers continue to grow, it will make it much easier for us to proceed with legislation.

  FACTORY EMPLOYMENT (MEDICAL FITNESS).
  Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Home Secretary when the Report is likely to be published of the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the provisions of the Factory and Workshops Acts for the medical examination of young persons as to their fitness for employment in factories?
  Mr. HENDERSON: The Report, which I have just received, will be presented at once to Parliament, and copies will be available, I hope, by the end of next week.

  EX-SERVICE MEN.

    BRITISH MUSEUM.
    Mr. LAVERACKasked the Home Secretary if it is contemplated to remove or transfer any of the Metropolitan police from duty at the British Museum; and, seeing that many ex-service men are already employed there on warding duties, whether it is his intention to fill vacant positions with ex-service men?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The trustees of the British Museum are considering the possibility of reducing or dispensing with the services of the regular police on warding duty; but no decision has yet been reached on the subject.

    POST OFFICE.
    Major BURNIE (on behalf of Major HORE-BELISHA)asked the Postmaster-General the total number of employés of all grades and branches in the Post Office and the percentage of these who are Regular ex-service men of the Regular Forces?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The total staff, male and female, employed in the Post Office (including industrial staff) on 1st May, 1924, amounted 210,496, of whom 94,081 (or 58 per cent. of the total male staff) are ex-service men. It would not be possible, without elaborate inquiry, to ascertain what percentage of this number are Regular ex-service men.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    BRITISH MUSEUM (WOMEN).
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reorganisation of the British Museum provided for the admission of women civil servants to that Department; whether he is aware that it has recently been stated in a Report that the chief need of British Museum clerks is foreign languages; whether he is aware that women clerks already in the service having a knowledge of three and four languages, including Latin, Greek, Arabic, Russian, Hindustani, and Spanish, would be willing to transfer; and whether he will give these women an opportunity of using these qualifications, which would apparently be of great service to this Department?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The question of the recruitment of women to the British Museum staff was not specifically dealt with in the recent reorganisation of the Museum staff, but it has been fully considered by the Trustees from time to time. Though a knowledge of foreign languages is by no means the main requirement for clerks in the Museum, the existence in the Civil Service of women possessing sucl qualifications will not be overlooked when questions of recruitment are being considered.
    Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that there is a large number of ex-service men, at present unemployed, who could be very suitably employed in the British Museum, as well as women?
    Mr. GRAHAM: There may be a proportion, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will notice that this question refers to a staff of very high qualifications. The point he mentioned will not be overlooked.

    ADMIRALTY (DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION).
    Captain Viscount CURZONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of entrants for the Admiralty departmental examination, and the number of vacancies which will fall to be filled by the existing ex-service temporary men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): I have been asked to reply. The number of entrants for the examination is 823. Fifty per cent. of the appointments made to the departmental clerical class are reserved for temporary ex-service men, and of the remainder 45 per cent. are allocated to ex-boy writers, and 5 per cent. to non-service temporary clerks. 150 vacancies have so far been announced to be filled from the competition, but it is probable that this number will be considerably increased.
    Viscount CURZON: Could the hon. Gentleman state roughly the age of the ex-service temporary clerks?
    Mr. AMMON: They are recruited at the appropriate age in accordance with Regulations adopted since the War.

    LAND VALUATION OFFICE.
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the cost to the State of the Land Valuation
    614
    Department during the years it was kept on after the actual tax collection was dropped?
    Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: The cost of the Land Valuation Office charged to the Valuation Office Sub-heads of the Inland Revenue Vote for the years 1920–21 to 1923–24 is as follows:

    £

    1920–21

    …

    541,964

    1921–22

    …

    503,075

    1922–23

    …

    388,515

    1923–24 (approximate)

    …

    359,000

    Mr. MASTERMAN: Has any tax answering to that description ever been imposed by the Land Valuation Department in connection with the collection of revenue?
    Mr. FOOT: Can the Financial Secretary say what was the increased amount gathered through the correct valuation of estates, and whether, in view of that increase, there was any cost at all?
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that, in spite of the enormous sum spent on the valuation, only one-tenth of the valuations of the country were ever made?
    Sir L. LYLE: In view of this brilliant example of how not to do things, will the Government immediately drop any idea of continuing this Department?
    Mr. SPEAKER: Some of the supplementary questions are matters for Debate; the others involve figures, and ought to be put down on the Paper.
    Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman has already given figures amounting to £1,500,000 that has been expended since the tax was dropped, and, considering that enormous expenditure, do the Government think it is advisable to again go into this question.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is merely a request for information.

    TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE.
    Mr. BRIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what class railway travelling is allowed to civil servants whilst on official duties?
    Mr. GRAHAM: The class of railway travel allowed to civil servants whilst on official duty depends on salary, and

    615
    status. As a general rule first-class travelling is allowed (a) to officers on scales of salary rising to not less than £500 (exclusive of bonus); (b) to officers whose actual salary exceeds £400 or in some cases £350 (exclusive of bonus); (c) to temporary officers whose actual salary exceeds £450 (inclusive).
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is it that the poorly paid officers are only allowed third-class fares, while the rich officials are allowed first-class fares?

  BUDGET.

    MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).
    Mr. BLACKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of motor cars in each horse-power section upon which taxes were paid in 1923; and the numbers in each section upon which taxes were paid for the first time in 1923?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. The information asked for is not available, and could not be obtained except at considerable labour and expense, but I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a statement which was issued to the Press on 8th February, 1924, showing the gross proceeds of taxation, under each of the various taxation categories, for the calendar year 1923.
    Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR - CLIVEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the present heavy taxation, he can state approximately what is the percentage of Imperial and local taxation which has to be paid by employers and workmen who are engaged in the manufacture of motor cars in this country?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave on 6th May to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mr. Lorimer), of which I am sending him a copy.

    NATIONAL INCOME.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state, as approximately as possible, the total national income from all sources for the years ending April, 1923, and 1924?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I know of no estimate of national income having been made for these years.
    Mr. BLACKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total gross amount of national income, as ascertained by the surveyors for Income Tax, before deductions of any kind are made for the years ending April, 1923, and 1924?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    Final statistics for the years 1922–23 and 1923–24 are not yet available, but the following estimates have been made for the year 1922–23 of the income assessable under the Income Tax Acts:

    United Kingdom.

    £

    Gross Income

    2,900,000,000

    Deductions (necessary to reduce the gross income to the actual income liable to tax for exemptions, repairs to property, wear and tear of machinery, overcharges in assessment, etc.

    600,000,000

    Actual income liable to tax, before deductions of personal or family allowances and reliefs

    2,300,000,000

    It will be appreciated that the significant figure above is that showing the estimated actual income, which means the statutory income of taxpayers, estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Acts, and excluding the income of individuals with a total income not exceeding £135 of assessable income. Only a minute portion of the income of such individuals comes under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue.

    DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.
    Sir EVELYN CECILasked the Chancelor of the Exchequer what will be the ratio of direct to indirect taxation if the proposals of the Budget pass into law?
    Mr. SNOWDEN: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary

    617
    to the question of the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) on Friday last, of which I am sending him a copy.

    INCOME TAX (REPAYMENTS).
    Major McKENZIE WOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that it is now the practice of the inspectors of taxes when making repayments of Income Tax to make payment by means of repayment orders, which must be crossed and passed through a bank, and that this inflicts unnecessary and unwarrantable inconvenience on claimants who have no bank account and must get a friend or tradesman to cash the orders for them; and whether he will instruct repayment of these claims to be made, as previously, by means of Post Office money orders, which are equally economical and secure?
    Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to a question on this subject on the 27th February last. I am sending him a copy of that reply.

    LAND VALUE DUTIES.
    Sir LEONARD LYLEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the actual expenditure under the operation of the Land Valuation Tax; and what was the net result of the tax during the different years in which it was in existence?
    Mr. GRAHAM: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon.

    Net Receipt.

    Year.

    Increm. Value Duty.

    Reversion Duty.

    Undeveld Land Duty.

    Mineral Rights Duty.

    Excess Mineral Rights Duty.

    Total Land Values.

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    £

    1921–22

    …

    -8,034

    -5,519

    -2,366

    221,658

    244,522

    450,261

    1922–23

    …

    -136

    —

    -3

    192,404

    24,564

    216,829

    1923–24

    …

    —

    —

    —

    266,000

    33,000

    299,000

  ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.
  Lord APSLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of claims put forward by men of the mercantile marine for losses of property or
  Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman consider what the meaning of the Land Valuation Tax is, and whether any tax answering to that description has ever been imposed?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I am not sure that that arises, but I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means.
  Mr. RHYS: Is it not the fact that the time the tax was in operation it cost 3½ million pounds?
  Mr. GRAHAM: That is a debatable figure, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the detailed reply I think he will find that the information has been very fully given.
  Following is the reply:
  I regret that I am unable to divide the cost of the Land Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue Department between expenditure in connection with the Land Value Duties and the other functions of that office, which include the valuation of property passing on death for the purposes of estate, etc., duties, and valuations of property for other Government Departments. The net receipt from all Land Value Duties from their inception to the 31st March, 1924, amounted to £6,151,008. Details for each duty for the years from 1910–11 to 1920–21 will be found in Table 99 of the 64th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Cmd. 1436). Particulars for the remaining years are as follow:
  injuries sustained through enemy action at sea; how these compare with those put forward in respect of property on land damaged by enemy action; and what hitherto are the total awards in value made in respect of each category?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I am asked to reply. The number of officers and seamen of the mercantile marine (including fishermen) and of their dependants who have lodged claims against the £5,000,000 fund is approximately 23,000. 20,267 of these claimants have received £1,491,239. The number of claims lodged against the £5,000,000 fund in respect of property on land is 9,566. 3,662 of these claimants have so far received £1,846,830. In addition, about 25,000 persons have notified claims which will be considered against the proposed £300,000 fund for belated claimants. It is estimated that 90 per cent. of these claims are made by seafarers.
  Mr. ROYCE: Is it possible to give greater consideration in the assessment of these claims to the physical sufferings occasioned by the claimants?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: The intention is to give the same or greater consideration as laid down in the Report of the Commission.
  Mr. ROYCE: Yes, but in the case of men suffering lifelong sufferings occasioned by war injuries, would the hon. Gentleman give consideration over and above the others?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: If the hon. Gentleman will give me any special case he has in mind, I will look into it.
  Lord APSLEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, on a pro rata allocation of available funds by the Reparation Claims Department to all admitted claims, the men of the mercantile marine, who lost nearly all their property, will receive very little; and how does he propose to deal with their cases?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply to this question also. The majority of the persons in question have received full payment out of the £5,000,000 of the assessed value of personal effects lost at sea, after deducting any compensation already received under the Board of Trade insurance schemes, payment in full having been made in every case up to £25. It is not proposed to take any further action.

  HOUSING.

    CONCRETE HOUSES.
    Mr. T. THOMSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his suggestion that houses to be erected under the Government's new scheme might cost £500 each, his attention has been drawn to the offer by a firm of well-known British manufacturers to erect six-roomed concrete houses at £250 each, substantially built and guaranteed suitable for our climate; and will the Government have this method of construction thoroughly examined before arranging any terms with the builders of brick houses?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. A. Greenwood): My right hon. Friend had some correspondence with reference to an offer in general terms to build concrete houses, upon an American principle, at the price mentioned. He has informed the manufacturers concerned that he would concur in any proposals which local authorities might submit for erecting a small number of houses by the method proposed, subject, of course, to the scheme, submitted conforming with the general requirements of the Ministry, and to the houses being erected and completed at a reasonable cost.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the Minister has considered this question of concrete houses very carefully, and their suitability?
    Viscount CURZON: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask if this is a suitable method of constructing houses, why the Government only propose to allow a small number of houses to be built, why not a larger number? [HON. MEMBERS: They are an experiment!"]
    Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague), I am aware of what he says. As a matter of fact, in two housing schemes that have, adopted concrete houses have been sanctioned, are being built, and will still be built. In reply to the Noble Lord, I said nothing that should lead hon. Members to believe that we regard this necessarily as a satisfac-

    621
    tory method. The whole purpose of adopting the schemes was to get experience as to the suitability of the houses.
    Mr. J. GARDNER: What time does the hon. Gentleman consider a reasonable period to discover the result of an experiment of this kind?

    GOVERNMENT SCHEME (COST).
    Sir KINGSLEY WOODasked the Minister of Health whether he can now give an estimate of the cost this year of the Government housing scheme?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to state what extra cost, if any, would be incurred under the proposed housing scheme in this financial year.
    Sir K. WOOD: When are we going to have some particulars of this housing scheme?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member must know quite well that negotiations are now proceeding with the local authorities, and that the Bill has to be produced and passed through the House before any estimate can be made.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Are we to understand from that reply that the Bill will be passed first and the estimate of the cost arrived at afterwards?
    Mr. GREENWOOD: We cannot tell until the Bill has been introduced and passed through all its stages what will be the actual cost?

  PROFITEERING.
  Mr. BAKERasked the Prime Minister whether he will adopt the suggestion to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the charges of alleged profiteering by middlemen and retailers?
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The suggestion will receive careful consideration.

  NAVAL ARMAMENTS (LIMITATION).
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information with regard to the
  622
  reported adding of a rider to the Naval Appropriation Bill by the United States Senate requesting the President to call another conference on disarmament to deal with all surface and sub-surface craft of 10,000 tons displacement and less and aircraft; and what action His Majesty's Government propose to take to assist in the calling of such a conference?
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I cannot at present add anything to the answer which the Prime Minister gave to the hon. and gallant Member yesterday.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the answer yesterday of the Prime Minister, that he would be very glad to give an opportunity for the discussion of a similar Motion to that passed by the United Stales Senate of the House of Representatives, and will he consider giving a day for the Motion standing in the name of myself and the hon Gentleman the Member for North Hackney (Mr. J. Harris)?
  Mr. CLYNES: In his answer yesterday the Prime Minister referred to opportunities arising on the Estimates.
  Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on the Navy Estimates we cannot pass a Resolution, because Mr. Speaker has already been moved out of the Chair? Could we not have a little time for the Motion; so far as I am concerned, that time would not be long?
  Mr. CLYNES: I cannot at present go beyond the answer given by the Prime Minister yesterday.

  DISTRESSED TENANTS BILL.
  Captain WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Prime Minister whether the Government are prepared to grant facilities to the Distressed Tenants Bill; and will he state precisely what steps the Government have taken, or are taking, to prevent the eviction of unemployed tenants who cannot pay their rent?
  Mr. CLYNES: The Government cannot see their way to give facilities for this Bill. With regard to the latter part of the question, the hon. and gallant Member will recollect that the Government made

  623
  proposals for the protection of unemployed tenants which a majority of the House refused to accept.
  Captain BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government intend to take no steps themselves, and will not permit a Private Member's proposal to have facilities?
  Mr. CLYNES: I did not say that we do not mean to take any steps ourselves, but I reminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman of what the House had done, and that we cannot take over the particular Bill in question.
  Captain BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question on the Paper, namely. "What steps the Government propose to take?"
  HON. MEMBERS: Answer!
  Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. May we not have an answer to the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman?
  Mr. SPEAKER: The question seems to be as to whether the answer already given is not sufficient.
  Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. If you, Sir, took particular notice of the reply that was given by the right hon. Gentleman you would see that he did not indicate what steps the Government intended to take; are we not entitled to know the view of the Government on that particular subject?
  Mr. CLYNES: I can only add, on behalf of the Government, that we welcome the evidence of the friendly interest in this matter of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS BILL.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLasked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce the Pre-War Pensioners Bill?
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret that it will not be possible to take the Financial Resolution required for this Bill next week; but it will, I hope, be possible to do so in the week following.
  Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making
  624
  the provisions of this Bill retrospective in view of the very considerable delay which has already taken place?
  Mr. CLYNES: That is rather a big point, but it will be considered.

  ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.
  Sir F. HALLasked the Prime Minister when he expects to be in a position to inform the House of the results of the negotiations now proceeding with the representatives of the Russian Soviet Republic?
  Mr. CLYNES: I regret that I am unable to foretell the duration of the Conference, but my right hon. Friend proposes to take an opportunity immediately to hurry it up.

  SURPLUS WAR STOCK (LIGHT MOTOR CARS).
  Brigadier-General MAKINSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total number of light cars which have been thrown on the market since the Armistice by the disposal of surplus War stock?
  Mr. GRAHAM: To furnish the information in question would require a search through the accounts of the Department at home and abroad for over five years, and I regret that, with the depleted staffs at present available, it is not possible to undertake that work.
  Brigadier-General MAKINS: Given the number of commercial vehicles under the Disposal Board, why are the light cars not more than 60,000?
  Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Would it be possible to give the number of light cars which would be withdrawn from the market if the McKenna Duties are cancelled?
  Mr. GRAHAM: There is a very great difference between the commercial cars and the cars to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers in this question. These are light cars which can be used at home or abroad, and the disposal of them would be very difficult to trace. It is altogether different from the 60,000 commercial cars for which we can provide more or less accurate records through the Disposal Commission.

  RICHBOROUGH HARBOUR.
  Mr. BRIANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if Richborough Harbour and the property attached to it have been disposed of; if so, what was the price obtained; and has the full payment been completed?
  Mr. GRAHAM: Richborough Harbour and certain property attached thereto were sold under an Agreement dated 24th March, 1921, the total purchase price being £1,407,000, plus cost of acquiring certain additional land. This contract, however, has not been carried through and is still the subject of legal proceedings. The final outcome of the contract cannot be stated until these proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  Mr. BRIANT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long these proceedings have been going on, and is it not a fact that during this period an immense number of barges and other property has been rotting and rusting away, and this has been going on for several years?
  Mr. GRAHAM: I agree that a considerable time has been occupied in this matter, but recently the engineer's report was received, and this raises questions which I am bound to bell the House cannot be settled without a very complete investigation, and I am doing my best to hasten it on.

  MILK SUPPLY.
  Mr. SIMONasked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the responsibility of the local authorities for safeguarding the cleanliness and purity of the nation's milk supply, he will add an adequate number of representatives of the local authorities to the newly-appointed Milk Advisory Committee, on which they have at present not a single representative?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Committee was originally appointed to act as an advisory body on questions relating to the technique of production, handling and distribution of milk as they affect the dairy industry. As at present constituted, the Committee consists mainly of representatives of the various branches of the industry. It is thought desirable that representatives of dairy workers and of consumers should be added, but my right
  626
  hon. Friend does not think it would be practicable to include representatives of local authorities. He assures the hon. Member that the fullest consideration will always be given to the views of local authorities on all questions affecting the cleanliness and purity of milk.
  Mr. SIMON: Is it not a most extraordinary thing that in regard to a question like the milk supply, which is under the control of the Ministry of Health, the Milk Advisory Committee is without a single representative of the local authorities upon it?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: The Advisory Committee is appointed jointly by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health, and the primary purpose of the Committee is to deal with the question of the production and the distribution of milk. Questions affecting the local authorities are important, but they are not quite in the same category, and do not arise in connection with this matter
  Mr. SIMON: In view of the fact that the reply is so unsatisfactory, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this question?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: There is a difficulty about this matter. I have already stated that we intend to add considerably to the representation on the Committee, but if we have to extend it still further it would mean putting on representatives of various classes of local authorities with varying powers as regards public health.

  BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.
  Sir K. WOODasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any public statement to make concerning the present dispute in the building trade, particularly in relation to the Government housing operations; and whether he can state the extra cost to working-class houses if the demand for 2d. an hour advance in wages is acceded to?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw): With regard to the first part of the question, I understand that a further meeting of the employers' and workers' organisations is to be held on Monday next. I am not in a position to make an authoritative statement as to the effect of the suggested increase in wages upon the cost of houses.
  Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to that part of my question which asks him whether he is having regard to the Government housing operations in connection with this dispute, and can he say whether it is a fact that the actual date of the strike has now been fixed?
  Mr. SHAW: The actual date of the strike has appeared in the papers, but I am not responsible for the accuracy of that report. All I can say is that our information is that another meeting will take place between the two organisations on Monday next. My Department is watching the matter, and will do its best to prevent, if possible, by conciliatory methods, a dispute breaking out.
  Sir F. HALL: May we take the statement which has appeared in the papers as being inaccurate?
  Mr. SHAW: If I may give a general warning, I should ask hon. Members to accept any statement in the papers on this question with a very considerable grain of salt.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to set up a court of inquiry into the dispute?
  Mr. SHAW: That will depend on the circumstances. To talk about courts of inquiry while the parties are negotiating might do far more harm than good.
  Sir F. HALL: Are the statements appearing this morning in the "Daily Herald" to be taken as not correct?
  Mr. SHAW: I decline to make any invidious distinctions.

  SCOTLAND.

    LOCHBOISDALE PIER.
    Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has now solved the problem of Lochboisdale pier; and, if not, what steps he has taken, or is taking, to protect this island community from distress and damage pending a settlement of a dispute over which they have no control?
    The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Adamson): The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the remainder of the
    628
    question, I am unable to say more at the moment than that efforts to arrange with the proprietrix to keep part of the pier open have so far been unsuccessful and that the question of its future maintenance is having my close consideration.

    ROADS (LEWIS).
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether the grant applied for by the Harris District Committee for the construction of a road from Amhuinsuidhe to Huisinish has now been made available?
    Mr. ADAMSON: I am informed that the Unemployment Grants Committee have approved this scheme for the purpose of a grant.
    HON. MEMBERS: What is the name of the place?
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Which is going to be the terminal point of this road?
    Mr. SPEAKER: It is stated in the question.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a further communication from the Lewis school management committee regarding the necessity for constructing a road to enable the children of Orinsay to attend school; and whether he has taken steps to ensure that these children will have access to the school at the earliest possible date?
    Mr. ADAMSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part. I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his question on the same subject of 13th March. I understand the Board of Agriculture have forwarded for signature by the holders concerned a document containing an undertaking to implement the conditions referred to in that answer, and that when the document is signed and returned the construction of the path will be commenced.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (BRICK-MAKTNG INDUSTRY).
  Mr. WHITEasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the brick-making industry in the months of March and April, 1924?
  Mr. SHAW: The number of insured contributors under the Unemployment. Insurance Acts who were registered as unemployed in the brick, pipe, tile and fire-clay goods industry in Great Britain on 24th March was 4,134 as compared with 4,876 on 25th February, 1924. Figures for a later date are not yet available.
  Mr. WHITE: How is it that there are any unemployed in this industry having regard to the shortage of materials?
  Mr. SHAW: I cannot give any explanation of the figures. I merely know that these are the figures asked for.
  Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is it the fact that there are brickworks in the Midlands area working short time?

  BAG AND SACK INDUSTRY DISPUTE.
  Mr. MACKINDERasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there has been a dispute in Liverpool for the past five weeks in the bag and sack industry, involving over 900 women, and that the trade union concerned has offered arbitration, which has been refused by the employers; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. SHAW: I am aware of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The Department is in touch with both sides, and all possible steps will be taken to assist in reaching a settlement.

  IRISH CATTLE (DETENTION).
  Mr. STURROCKasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the immunity of Ireland from foot-and-mouth disease, he can see his way to reduce the period of detention of Irish cattle imported into Scotland from 28 days to six days, as desired by members of the National Farmers' Union" of Scotland?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): As there were 63 outbreaks in Great Britain during April, seven of them in Scotland, my right hon. Friend is advised that it would not be safe at present to reduce the period of 28 days' detention which Irish animals
  630
  have to undergo on farms in Great Britain. This view would appear to be supported by agricultural opinion, as 46 local authorities in Great Britain, including eight in Scotland, have in force Regulations prohibiting or regulating the movement into their districts of Irish animals.
  Mr. STURROCK: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are not several areas in the country subject to foot-and-mouth disease, but practically two only, and that this prolonged detention of 28 days at this season of the year is seriously adverse to all grazing areas, and will he consider the point now?
  Mr. SMITH: I can assure the hon. Member that these Regulations will not be kept on longer than the Minister believes them to be necessary in the interests of agriculture.
  Mr. STURROCK rose—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot now make speeches.

  POST OFFICE.

    LEAFIELD WIRELESS STATION.
    Mr. STURROCKasked the Postmaster-General if the Leafield wireless telegraph services to India have been closed down; and, if so, for what reason?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): Prior to the 1st May, the Leafield wireless station was reserved for a short period daily for the transmission of urgent Press telegrams to India on behalf of certain newspapers and news agencies. This service, which occupied a time totally incommensurate with its value to the Post Office or the senders, has lately fallen into disuse and has accordingly been suspended.

    TRAMCAR POST-BOXES.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Postmaster-General if, seeing that the latest reports from Manchester record the great success which has attended the introduction of post-boxes on the tramcars and that the total number of letters posted increased by 100 per cent. in four months, he will, having regard to the need for improvement in the postal facilities in Bristol, consider the desirability of introducing a similar system in that city?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I will have inquiry made as to the position in Bristol and will communicate with the hon. Member.

    IMPERIAL WIRELESS CHAIN.
    Mr. BAKERasked the Postmaster-General whether the Government have come to a decision in regard to the public ownership and control of the Imperial wireless chain?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: The Government hope to make an announcement on the subject at an early date.
    Mr. HOGGE: Are we to understand that the Government will still adhere to the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister that there will be a discussion in the House before any decision is come to?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I have no recollection of having made any such statement.
    Mr. HOGGE: I will give it to you.
    Mr. STURROCK: Is it not most important, in view of the decision the Government are coming to, that the question of the control of wireless should be considered by the House before the Government comes to their decision?
    Mr. HARTSHORN: I do not know.

  KENYA AND UGANDA (RAILWAY CONTRACTS).
  Mr. LUMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with regard to the placing of contracts for the new railway extensions in Kenya and Uganda, or invitations to tender; whether any of the 3½ millions voted by Parliament has yet been drawn upon; and when it is anticipated that actual construction work will commence?
  Mr. MORGAN JONES (for Mr. THOMAS): With regard to the main extension from Turbo to Luzinga, I have been advised that invitations to firms in this country to tender for the work would involve an extra delay of 12 months in beginning work, and I have therefore decided that, when the surveys and staking out have been completed, and I have received and considered a full estimate of the cost of the line, the work shall be
  632
  undertaken departmentally, with a free use of local competitive contract for particular parts of the construction. The question will be separately considered for other lines, but the Thika-Tana River branch, which is not one of the lines covered by the £3,500,000 assisted loan, is already under construction on the same basis. So far as I am aware, no expenditure under that loan has been incurred, except on the surveys, which were authorised before the Vote was passed. Construction of the Turbo-Luzinga line is expected to be begun by the 1st January next.

  CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (COAL PROFITS).
  Sir K. WOODasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has made any investigation into the net profits on coal sold by the co-operative societies of the country?
  The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): No, Sir, but I am meeting representatives of the co-operative societies next week.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman make investigations into the net profits of co-operative societies, and when he has done so, will he publish the reply in a similar way to that in which he published the other Report?
  Mr. SHINWELL: I shall certainly ask the co-operative societies for information as regards coal prices and profits, and I have no reason to suppose they will not willingly furnish them.
  Sir K. WOOD: Will they be made as public as the results of the other inquiries?
  Mr. SHINWELL: Certainly, but the balance sheets of co-operative societies are already available.

  MILK LICENCE CHARGES.
  Sir COURTENAY MANSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether milk licence charges will now be refunded to producers?
  Mr. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply. The Government will abide by the judgment of the House of Lords,

  633
  which decided that the charge imposed upon the milk licensees was illegal. Where licensees have already paid this charge, the obligation on the Government is to repay them, and no one else.

  PAYMASTER-GENERAL.
  Major BURNIE (on behalf of Major HORE - BELISHA)asked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to make an appointment to the office of Paymaster-General, and whether he will state the reason for the delay in making such appointment?
  Mr. CLYNES: My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport was sworn Paymaster-General on the 2nd instant.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    CHIEF STOKERS (VOCATIONAL TRAINING).
    Major Sir BERTRAM FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty why chief stokers of the Portsmouth Port division in their last year's service are not allowed to take vocational training courses; whether the reply, "cannot be spared at present," generally given to these ratings, is correct; and, if so, how it is proposed to remedy this state of affairs?
    Mr. AMMON: The Admiralty Fleet Order promulgating the scheme for affording vocational training facilities to the men of the lower deck distinctly states that none of these facilities should interfere with drafting arrangements. With regard to the third part of the question, the scheme is designed to utilise the limited funds available in the most advantageous manner, but no rating has an absolute right to vocational training, and it is not proposed to alter the arrangements at the present time.
    Sir B. FALLE: Would the Admiralty issue an order to the effect that these men shall be given this chance?
    Mr. AMMON: That is already done. It has been already conveyed to the men that this opportunity is given to them.

    HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "VERNON" (MESS).
    Sir B. FALLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
    634
    whether he is aware that in H.M.S. "Vernon" shore establishment the chief petty officers are not messed in accordance with the principles laid down in Article 852., paragraphs 2 and 5, of the King s Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, inasmuch as they are not entirely messed by themselves; that they have definitely expressed the desire to be self-contained and to have a chief petty officers' mess and bar; and whether, in view of the fact that the Admiralty admit the principle of separate messing accommodation on shore establishments for chief petty officers, they will accede to the request of the chief petty officers of H.M.S. "Vernon," in accordance with the desire expressed in the reply to Item No. 57 of the 1919 welfare requests?
    Mr. AMMON: With regard to the first part of the question, the chief petty officers in H.M.S. "Vernon" are messed separately. With regard to the second part, the existing arrangements under which chief petty officers and petty officers have recreation, etc., rooms in common are in harmony with the views expressed by the representatives of the lower deck to the Welfare Committee, 1919–20. The chief petty officers of the "Vernon" did not express a wish for separate accommodation until the structural arrangements had proceeded too far to admit of alteration. With regard to the third part of the question, the Admiralty does not admit this principle, and Article 852, quoted by the hon. Member, distinctly states that, with certain exceptions, "chief petty officers are to be messed together or with the petty officers, as may be convenient."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask what will be the business for next week?
Mr. CLYNES: On Monday, the Local Authorities (Emergency Provisions) Bill, and Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill—Report and Third Reading; Supplementary Estimate for the League of Nations, in Committee of Supply; Friendly Societies Bill, Second Reading; Report stage of Budget Resolutions.
Tuesday: Motion on New Import Duties, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

635
Wednesday: British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee)—Money Resolution in Committee of the Whole House; War Charges (Validity) (No. 2) Bill, Committee.
Thursday: Supply—Home Office Vote.
Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Motion on Tuesday is a Vote of Censure—whether the Opposition stick to their guns?
Mr. CLYNES: Although the Motion is not cast in the customary terms, the Government do regard it as a Vote of Censure.
Mr. FOOT: Should I be in order in asking at what time the Government intend introducing the Administration of Justice Bill, having regard to the fact that, until this Bill has been dealt with ill this House, the work of the Supreme Court is held up?
Mr. CLYNES: I cannot make a definite statement on that matter, but will look into it.

SCHOOL TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee C.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

POOR LAW EMERGENCY PROVISIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Queen's Ferry Bridge Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Company of Proprietors of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Navigation." [Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the consolidation and conversion of the capital and loan capital of the Bristol Waterworks Company; and for other purposes." [Bristol Water Bill [Lords.]
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers upon the Malvern Hills Conservators; and for other purposes." [Malvern Hills Bill [Lords.]
Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Bill [Lords],
Bristol Water Bill [Lords],
Malvern Hills Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JAMES BROWN in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY.
    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1924–25.

      SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £7,045,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not quite know what the order of the Debate is going to be. I understood yesterday, through the usual channels—which I, also, sometimes consult—that there was to be a demand from the Oposition for an enhanced and increased building programme of warships, but, apparently, like the much heralded Vote of Censure, that is to be postponed. I understood that there was to be a Debate on the general warship strength, which, I think, is covered by this Vote for shipbuilding, which would last until about dinner time, and that then the House would relax itself into what I may perhaps, be permitted without offence to call the Dockyard Soviet, when the dockyard Members, of course with the assistance, which I know they are always glad to get, of the ex-naval officers who sit in this House, would raise matters of pressing grievance in the dockyards. Apparently, however, that is not to be the case, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) is not here, I presume he will take part in the Debate later. I want to raise a matter of policy in connection with the dockyards, and I take the opportunity of apologising to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for not having given him notice of the points that I am going to raise, as he would naturally expect me to do. Of course, I was really waiting for the attack
      660
      of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sparkbrook, and on this occasion I was sharpening my sword and girding on my armour to defend my hon. Friend's Department against the Opposition. That accounts for my not giving him notice that I was going to raise this particular point. He has, however, heard me raise it before, and I will give him the same opportunity of dealing with it that I gave to his predecessors in office, and, I hope, with more success.
      We are asked to find, in this Vote, an additional sum of £531,000 over last year for the dockyards generally, and I think that this Government, which I understand claims to be a business Government, should examine the situation of the dock yards from the business point of view. The other day, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) made a very interesting proposal with regard to the great naval dockyard of Chatham. I found myself very much in agreement with him, having made a similar proposal on one or two occasions myself. Chatham is only one case in point. The great Royal dockyards have grown up with the needs of successive naval situations, leading, in most cases, up to war. We have the Port of Plymouth, which was developed at the time when Spain was the bogey that the Conservatives of those days held up before the country as the enemy against whom we had to fight. Portsmouth, a very ancient naval dockyard, first came into great importance in the reign of Henry VIII, as an answer to the French naval menace from the other side of the Channel, and it has remained of very great importance. Chatham, and its later adjunct, Sheerness, was developed and became of great importance in the Dutch wars, and Rosyth was built and developed to meet the menace of Germany. It was proposed to increase—and it would have been carried out if the Conservative Government had remained in office—the dockyard of Singapore against an imaginary menace from our ancient friend and ally, Japan.
      It is quite obvious that if we are to have one port against the Dutch, another port against Spain, a third port against Germany, and a fourth port against Japan—
      Mr. PRINGLE: And a fifth against America.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, I am glad that the port of Halifax is not being developed, or the port of Bermuda.
      Mr. PRINGLE: Not yet.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Jamaica has been very much reduced. It is obvious that we do not need all these dockyards. I can remember some of the heated Debates that we have had in this House over the question of the Pembroke Dockyard, which the Admiralty admitted was not required for naval purposes, but the retention of which the Government defended on political grounds. Quite openly, they said, "We have allowed a community to grow around this dockyard, and gas-works, water-works, etc., have been built, therefore we must go on making work for this dockyard, and must go on spending money on it." With regard to Pembroke, I have modified my attitude a good deal, but for quite another reason from that which was given by the Government of the day. My reason is that Pembroke is one of the most distant ports from the point of view of air attack from possible enemies. That is an additional reason, which was not put forward then, for retaining Pembroke as a building and refitting yard.
      With regard to Chatham, a port against which I have no personal hostility—although the local leaders of opinion there seem to think I have—I have nothing but the friendliest recollections. Chatham is, however, particularly exposed to aerial attack. It is also unsuitable for the largest and most modern types of war vessels, and it is not strategically well-placed in the event of the most probable war, in preparation for which we have to spend money and build up our forces. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge suggested putting Chatham under the Port of London Authority and developing it as a great commercial centre. I am very much in agreement with that point of view, although I realise the responsibility that Governments have to the communities which have grown up around the dockyards, and the difficulties which confront them. At the same time, I realise that the Treasury will have far heavier burdens placed upon it in future. There will be great demands for urgent social expenditure on very much more useful objects, and badly needed objects, than expenditure on dockyards beyond the
      662
      barest and most essential needs. With regard to Chatham, we have responsibility for the highly-skilled workman who have settled round that dockyard, and I consider, therefore, that this Government should seriously consider in office what they used to advocate in opposition, and what I used to advocate when I was also in opposition.
      Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Are you not now in opposition?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No. I am not in opposition.
      Viscountess ASTOR: What are you?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I give general support to the Government, I am happy to say. The Government should very seriously consider afresh, and, in a more sympathetic way than previous Governments have done, the question of utilising the very excellent and modern plant in the Royal dockyards and the skilled and highly-gifted workmen who work in those dockyards, for the manufacture of useful engineering products, for the building of merchant vessels, locomotives, and so on. With regard to the manufacture of war material, for the reasons that I have given in regard to Chatham being so vulnerable to air attack that it is very unsuitable under modern conditions as a great naval arsenal, I do not think that war material should be manufactured there. Generally speaking, with regard to the other dockyards, such as Plymouth—
      Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Devonport.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Plymouth. There is no such place as Devonport.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Plymouth is the more general term. Of course, every one knows the dockyard of Devonport, as well as that of Stonehouse. Plymouth is not so open to air attack, but, in view of the rapidly increasing efficiency of aerial attack, that position will not long remain. However, in regard to Plymouth, much more armaments might be made in that dockyard than in the private armament making firms.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
      4.0 P.M.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is, I understand, a tendency in the Council of the League of Nations to veto

      663
      the private manufacturer and traffic in armaments and munitions, and we should be prepared, therefore, for a step which I hope will be taken, namely, a veto by international agreement on all private manufacture of armaments and munitions. Then we should not have this unhealthy political pressure from armament centres which is just as unhealthy as the political pressure from the Royal dockyards. I have mentioned the Clyde, and I will deal with it if my hon. Friend wishes. After all, the great prosperity of the Clyde has been due to the building of merchant vessels, and it is only recently that they have fallen from grace by building war vessels. What is needed is a thorough-going inquiry into what dockyards we actually need. These dockyards are enormously expensive, and it is unhealthy to have these redundant naval establishments. They, in their turn, demand work, and war vessels are laid down. Then we get Japan and the other Powers increasing their naval strength, and thus the naval race is accelerated. What dockyards are really required and which can be reduced. That is the first point. Secondly, how can the redundant establishments and redundant plant be best utilised? What steps can be taken for the compensation for those displaced, and how can the dockyards be utilised for the manufacture of useful articles or the building of ships? This is the dockyard side of the question that I wish to raise on this Vote. I hope that I have not expressed these ideas in a way that will be considered as hostile by the dockyard Members, because I quite understand their difficulties.
      At Question Time, I asked for time to discuss another matter, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said that the matter could be discussed on the Navy Estimates. I was in much doubt—and expressed my doubt—whether I should be in order on the Navy Estimates. I do not think that I shall be in order—I am sure you will inform me if I am correct—in attempting to raise the question—although it is really a ship-building matter—of the very important Resolutions passed in the Senate on the American Navy Appropriation Bill which allows for the building of eight cruisers. The Senate, following the example of the House of Representatives, has sent a recommendation
      664
      to the President, asking that he should consider calling a conference of the Four Powers concerned to consider a fresh limitation of naval armaments. Perhaps I might refer to it, as an item of this Vote has to do with actual shipbuilding, and as three new vessels are being laid down and are being built in the dockyards.
      The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): The Navy Votes which we are discussing to-day are to be taken in three parts, and the Question which is to be put first deals with personnel.
      The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): Although I used the word "Estimates," I had not the Vote of to-day in mind, but the Foreign Office Vote.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That clears the matter up, and I do not intend to pursue it.
      Mr. AMERY: Vote 12 raises the question of the general policy of the Admiralty.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not see how either on the Foreign Office Vote or on Vote 12 of the Navy Estimates we can pass a Resolution, Mr. Speaker having been moved out of the Chair on the Civil Service and Navy Estimates. There are two right hon. Gentlemen in the Committee with much greater Parliamentary experience than I have, and perhaps they can explain how it can be done. My impression is that in Committee no Resolution can be passed, and therefore some other time will have to be found. Here we are spending over £500,000 on the dockyards more than last year. The great part of that expenditure, especially with regard to the payment of wages, is for the building of war vessels outside the scope of the Washington Agreement, and, while not attempting to develop that argument now or to anticipate the discussion which I hope will take place at an early date, I do trust that we shall make some answer to the Resolution passed in the two Houses at Washington. It is a matter of the very highest importance. No one knows better than my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal how essential it is to look for a reduction in expenditure wherever a reduction can be usefully made, and our greatest field for saving money is undoubtedly

      665
      in the three fighting Services, and of those three I still believe that, with international co-operation and agreement, the greatest saving can be made in the ship-building Vote. I have raised the so particular questions, and though I do not expect any detailed answer, I do hope that this question of the suitability and needs of the existing dockyards, and the possibility of great economies without undue hardship to the people concerned, is engaging the lively and careful attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and that he will be able to give us some satisfaction before we pass the Vote. I have an Amendment down for a reduction, but under the present circumstances I do not propose to move it but will wait for the reply.
      Sir B. FALLE: It gives me much pleasure to follow my hon. and gallant Friend. It appears from his remarks that Devonport has ceased to exist since my old colleague Sir Clement Kinloch-Cooke, has left this House. We were under the impression that Devonport was the dockyard. It now appears that it is Plymouth. I do not think so. Devonport is the dockyard, and continues to remain the dockyard.
      Viscountess ASTOR Viscountess ASTOR rose—
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: You do not give way to the lady.
      Sir B. FALLE: It is true that a good many of the Devonport dockyard workers live in other parts of the town, but it is the same in Portsmouth. The dockyard is in my own constituency, but a great many of the men who work in the dockyards live in the centre and on the south of the town, and on those grounds all the three Members are members of the dockyard committee. In the same way, the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) is a member of the dockyard committee, not because she represents the dockyard itself, but because a good many of her voters work in the dockyard. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member made his interruptions in a louder voice, I might be able to reply to them. My hon. and gallant Friend wants to scrap Pembroke, and he wants to scrap Chatham. The reason he gives is that they are within the range of air attack. I am surprised to hear that he is so backward in his ideas. A
      666
      very few years ago all those ports would have been outside the range of any air attack, and, if we are to have 10 years of peace—and Heaven forbid that we should have any less, because we are utterly unprepared at the moment—who is to say that it will make the smallest difference either to a rigid airship or to an aeroplane whether the distance be 50 or 500 miles.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. I admitted, with regard to Pembroke, that I had modified my attitude a great deal, because it is not so vulnerable to air attack as Chatham.
      Sir B. FALLE: Ten years hence it will be just as vulnerable as Chatham. The French gentleman who is flying to Cochin-China and who has beaten our own and the United States airmen has shown that those distances are nothing to him. He does his 800 miles in six hours, and, whether the distance be 80 or 800 miles, 10 years hence, when it is possible that we may have another war with a civilised Power, it will make no difference whatever. The hon. and gallant Member also seemed to think that preparation for war leads to war. It seems to me absurd that anybody who has read history should entertain the notion that preparation for war leads to war. Can anybody give an instance in which preparation for war has led to war?
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: The late War.
      Sir B. FALLE: Germany with her armaments kept the peace for 40 years, and she did it because she was prepared for war and the others were afraid to attack. When she was ready to attack, she did so. Do hon. Members think we are going to spend 40 years more before somebody attacks us?
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: We hope so.
      Sir B. FALLE: A lot of use your hopes will be.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: "Hope springs eternal in the human breast."
      Sir B. FALLE:
      "Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
      Wha struts, and stares, and a' that;
      Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
      He's but a coof for a' that."

      667
      My contention is that preparation for war prevents war. I do not pretend to be original in that idea. We have it from the greatest Empire that the world has ever seen except our own, and they knew considerable about war and peace. If hon. Members do not like their views they can go to the good Book itself—
      "A strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."
      Mr. FOOT rose—
      Sir B. FALLE: I dare say that the hon. Member knows a great deal better than the Book itself.
      Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. and gallant Member quote the whole passage?
      Sir B. FALLE: I do not want to quote the whole passage, but it only emphasises my argument. If the stronger had not been more prepared he would not have come along.
      Mr. FOOT: Would you give the whole passage?
      Sir B. FALLE: Why do you want the whole passage? The point of the argument is that if you are prepared for war, nobody will attack you.
      Mr. FOOT: The whole passage answers the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument:
      "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace;
      But when a stronger man than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."
      Sir B. FALLE: Just so. The man, for instance, who will not have a dockyard in the Pacific, and objects to Singapore in the Indian Ocean, who makes it so that his ships cannot go into those parts of the world at all—when a man who is stronger, and has prepared better than himself because his preparations are inadequate comes along, he beats him, and takes from him even that which he hath. That only strengthens my argument.
      Mr. NICHOL: How many have been preparing for war?
      Sir B. FALLE: All of them except ourselves. Why are they preparing for war? Because we have every single thing in the world that they want; that is why.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Who is "we" that is the whole world?
      Sir B. FALLE: The British Empire in which you are not interested.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: But I am very much interested in it.
      Sir B. FALLE: The British Empire has every single thing in the world which the other people want. That is why they are preparing for war. That is the reason that we should be prepared. There is hardly a spot on the habitable globe, outside of Europe and America, to which a white man can take his wife and breed his children that does not belong to this country. There are other peoples who would like to have some of that territory. Japan herself looks naturally with longing eyes at Australia, which is populated at the rate of one man for every square mile As long as we do not increase the population of those countries we have no right to hold them, and those who prepare sufficiently will take them from us. Preparation is to meet the necessity for holding all our possessions abroad. One of the preparations is to have our dock yards in good order.
      I know that it is the habit to say in this House that the dockyard Members must protect their dockyards, but that is not one little bit more the case than that the Members for Glasgow, or the Members for any other place must speak for the places which they represent, but Members are elected, not only for their own constituencies, but to represent this country and this Empire in this House, and I should be very loth to think that any of the speeches which I make or questions which I ask or arguments which I raise in this House are definitely and entirely confined to the dockyard itself. Portsmouth has many other interests. Of course, I look upon Portsmouth as the premier dockyard of the Empire and of the world, and when we have got the premier dockyard it would be folly to throw away its advantages. On the other hand, Chatham is an old dockyard, and I believe, a very useful one, which is represented by an old friend of mine, who came into the House with me, and I trust, sincerely, that the Government will keep it. I do not think that we have got a dockyard too many.
      One of my reasons is that if we were to shut them up we would immediately

      669
      cause a great deal of unemployment which this Government is pledged to curtail. In the same way my hon. Friend suggests putting down the private yards. Why? Because they are a menace to other peoples. That may be a reason, but again it means throwing thousands of people out of employment. The old idea is that if you cannot get armaments you will stop war. Did the lack of armaments ever stop war? Never, so far as I know. If you cannot get guns to kill at 2,000 yards you will get a Brown Bess to kill at 20, or if you cannot do that you will get a club to kill at close quarters, but none the less there will certainly be slaughter. I was reading a horrible Persian story of a conqueror who had brought to him on trays 70,000 right eyeballs of those whom his army had killed.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How did he know they were right eye-balk?
      Sir B. FALLE: The left eyeballs were left in their natural sockets, and then the others were piled in front of him.
      Mr. HARDIE: You are going back pretty far.
      Sir B. FALLE: If we go back to the time of Hannibal, we read that every knight wore a gold ring, and, in addition to those given to Hannibal and his generals and to every Tommy in his service, he sent back three bushels of gold rings to Carthage. That gives one an idea of the slaughter which took place in those days when they had only got swords and pikes.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. Member is quoting "Æsop's Fables."
      Sir B. FALLE: I am sorry that I do not hear the hon. Member's interruption, but it seems to be of interest to himself. If men cannot get a sword or a spear they will kill with the naked hand. A great man—no doubt a relative of the hon. Member opposite—once killed 300 men with the jaw-bone of an ass. As long as men live in this wicked world and one man's possessions are another man's wants, so long will there be fighting. This country has everything which the other people want and it is unctuous rectitude on our part to say to the others: "Let us do away with armaments and let us have peace." There was an old story which was told many years ago,
      670
      not long after the Franco-German war. It was the story of a horse in his stall, and a hen which used to come and pick the grain which the horse dropped as he fed. The only thing that troubled the hen was that as the horse moved about his feet got in her way, and so she suggested to the horse that they should both give up kicking.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is that supposed to be a joke?
      Sir B. FALLE: Not in Glasgow!
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do not tell them all to-day. Keep some for to-morrow.
      Sir B. FALLE: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he will be in a better condition to understand them in the morning? I was under the impression that Glasgow people were teetotallers.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Withdraw!
      Sir B. FALLE: I did not mean it in any way as detracting from the people of Glasgow.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: We accept the apology.
      Sir B. FALLE: There are two points which, as a Member of the Dockyard Soviet, I want to bring forward. The first is as to the established list in the dockyard which I have the honour to represent. Can the hon. Gentleman opposite tell me what are the numbers, and how many in each dockyard, and if the full establishment is borne at Portsmouth? There is one delicate point which I want to raise. I do not raise it as a party matter. There, were brought to my knowledge before this Government came into power, certain cases of intimidation in the dockyards. There was one the first year I was returned to this House with my colleague Lord Charles Beresford. We brought the matter up, and we had that particular case righted. I will say that the man himself did everything possible to put himself in the wrong. There is a certain amount of intimidation going on now in the dockyards, and there is need for some statement from the hon. Gentleman to put it right. Men are being told that the ballot is not secret and that numbers of ballot clerks belong to certain parties, and they have it in their power to say what men voted and what men did not and which way they voted. That

      671
      is a very wrong thing, and it requires an authoritative statement from that Bench to say that such things do not, and cannot exist.
      Of course the ballot is secret. At the same time, if you found a man from the dockyard saying, "I voted Labour," and there was no Labour candidate, you would know that he was not telling the truth. We want a statement that, whatever party is in power, the ballot is secret. The men are told that, if they wait advancement in the yard, they must belong to a certain party. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would state that there is nothing of this kind in the minds of the Government, or in the dockyard itself, whatever Government comes into power, for if there is one Government to-day, there may be another one to-morrow. Another idea is, that Whitley councils and yard committees are made up of men of one particular persuasion, and only of that particular persuasion. That is a very great mistake, and this inaccuracy should be pointed out by my hon. Friend opposite. I trust that my hon. Friend will see that the matters to which I have referred are put right, and if he does so, I shall be much obliged.
      Mr. FOOT: I do not wish to occupy the time of the Committee in discussing the difference between the views of myself and those of the hon. and gallant Member who has just resumed his seat, but I am glad to think that there is a profound difference between the views which he has expressed and the views heard on these benches so far as preparations for war are concerned. I should have thought that if there was one hoary fallacy which had been exploded by the experience of recent, years, it would rte the suggestion that, if you want to secure peace, you must prepare for war. Surely the danger is that when the whole of Europe becomes a sort of powder magazine, as it did a few years ago, all that is necessary is some diplomatic trouble to drop in a match which will send the whole thing up in an explosion. Generally, if two people fall out, they are less likely to hurt each other if they have no weapons handy.
      Sir B. FALLE: If the hon. Member had a personal difference with Georges Carpentier, what would happen? Would he fight?
      Mr. FOOT: I should decline the combat. Of course, if two people fall out in a temper, and see red there is more likely to be bloodshed when there are weapons handy. If the hon. Member wants to go back on the declaration of old truths, I can refer him to a declaration made long ago—
      "How oft the sight of means to do ill-deeds
      Makes ill-deeds done."
      I do protest against the attempt to take part of a passage of Scripture and to give the blessing of the New Testament to the policy of building up armies. The spirit of the Book is that we should forget our quarrels, that there should be no real difference between one nation and another, but that all our differences should be forgotten in one common concord. I join in this Debate simply to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). I hope that there will be common agreement in the House on the question of the position of the dockyards. Just as a different spirit is being manifested in this country, I hope that a different spirit will be manifested among the nations of the world. What is to be done with regard to these vast establishments that have grown up for national purposes? The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull said, speaking of Pembroke in particular, that it was our duty, seeing that other interests had grown up around the dockyard, to require that those interests be considered by the Government of the day. In that respect I think that he did not state the case strongly enough. I would like to take again the case of Plymouth. The hon. Member who spoke last said that Devonport existed no longer. I do not think that the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton (Viscountess Astor) who interrupted him intended to say anything more than that in 1914 Devonport, which had been a separate municipality, then became one with Plymouth in a united municipality. We recognise in Plymouth the claims of that part of our own town, but even there the name now being generally used is that of Plymouth, which takes us back to the great struggles of many years ago. In Plymouth, however, we do not put the case upon that low ground; we do not say "You must have regard to the interests that have grown

      673
      up around this national establishment." We put the case on very much higher and stronger grounds. In Plymouth we have a harbour which, I suppose, is one of the finest in the world.
      Sir B. FALLE: Have you ever been to Rio or Sydney?
      Mr. FOOT: Plymouth is certainly one of the finest harbours in this country. It is capable of great development, and it would have been a great commercial harbour if it had not been set aside for Admiralty purposes. I am not setting the claims of Plymouth against Portsmouth, although I should have thought that no one but a Member representing Portsmouth would have sought to put the claims of the two places side by side. When the hon. Member who has just spoken has pursued his studies a little further, he will find that, while there is occasionally another Portsmouth in other parts of the world, there is no town in the world that has had its name copied so often as the town of Plymouth. In America almost every State has honoured itself by using for some town the name of Plymouth. As a result of the Admiralty action the ordinary commercial development of Plymouth has been retarded. Again and again, according to the earlier as well as the more recent records of the town, those who have been concerned with the welfare of the place have sought to develop its natural advantages. Had its natural and commercial advantages been developed, probably Plymouth to-day would be one of the leading commercial ports of the country. Again and again, when proposals were made, the Admiralty said that the first claim upon Plymouth was as a dockyard town and naval port. Other commercial propositions were never allowed to develop because of this commanding need of the nation.
      Seeing that the ordinary life of a community such as that has been put into an artificial channel for national purposes, we ask that when the national policy is changed some responsibility should be recognised towards that community. It is not an unfair claim to make. I hope that progress towards disarmament will be accelerated. I do not understand anyone who would not vote that such international relations be established. Whether they are possible now
      674
      may be a matter for difference of opinion, but surely we all look to a time when the unhappy relations that now exist shall no longer prevail. In bringing about that happy state of affairs, in securing something of what we call the brotherhood of nations, it is not enough simply to make perorations. We must realise our responsibility to these communities. When the Debate arose on the cruisers I was influenced by the responsibility that we had towards those communities as far as employment was concerned. I looked upon that as a legitimate argument, and in that respect I differed from many on the Liberal Benches. The suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is one which might very well be adopted. I believe that the Government would do the greatest possible service if they would make an inquiry as to what could be done for these establishments, as the policy of disarmament develops. I believe that the policy of disarmament might be more readily adopted if we had an assurance, not only in these communities, but throughout the country, that some proper provision was being made. I know that there must be loss and suffering and hardship borne in these communities, but that hardship ought to be lessened, and it could be lessened, by some scientific plan and some deliberate thought.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will hold out some hope that this proposal will be considered by the Government. There is no hurry for a decision, but a decision will relieve the minds of many who are entitled to speak for these communities. I recognise that I am not a Member for that constituency in particular, but I am a Member of Parliament. We all come here realising that the dominant consideration is the need of the whole country. None the less, it is consistent with Parliamentary traditions that we should especially voice the claims of our own localities. I have no right to voice the claims inconsistenly with the needs of the whole nation, but it is not unfair to put forward that special claim at this time. It is not enough for speakers to speak generally of disarmament, unless they consider how best they can discharge their responsibility to these communities, which have a special claim upon the nation, because they have been created

      675
      for national purposes. That is the only request which we have to make of the Government.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I hope that the hon. Member who has just spoken will remember his remarks when we come to discuss the McKenna Duties. I should be out of order, however, if I proceeded further on that subject. I wish to bring attention back to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull. He referred to a suggestion I had made in regard to Chatham, owing to the fact that there had been a complete reorientation of naval power, and I agree with him that it is a matter which this House has to consider very carefully. If we in this country are considerably over-dockyarded, it means that we have a permanent charge on the taxpayers of this country. The Admiralty Vote, which has already been brought down below what I believe to be the margin of safety, is carrying a dead burden for which it gets no useful return in offensive power. Just in the same way as any private undertaking has ruthlessly to scrap its plant when out of date, so a great fighting Department like the Navy must scrap its plant when that plant gets out of date, What is the situation to-day? We have 40 large vessels to keep in repair. In 1904 we had 66 large vessels, and for those 66 large vessels we had one dockyard less than we have to-day, namely Rosyth, which was then not built. Therefore, to-day we have more dockyards for two-thirds the number of ships. In the Debate on Singapore, I suggested that Chatham should become an extension of the Port of London Authority area, not for the reason which the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull mentioned—that it was more open to air attack than any other port in this country—but because it is the only naval port which can readily be transformed into a commercial harbour. Plymouth has no hinterland. Portsmouth is in competition with Southampton, and also has no hinterland. But Chatham is very close to London, is really a part of the manufacturing area of London, and by building a tunnel between Gravesend and Tilbury it could be connected with the transport system.
      Another point to be considered in the transforming of a redundant dockyard
      676
      into a commercial proposition is this: If such dockyards are looked upon for manufacturing, or building, or ship repairing purposes, they will be comparatively useless, because, having been selected and established for strategical purposes, they are not close to iron or coal or the general manufacturing requirements of a shipbuilding area. It seems to me that unless you can take one of your redundant dockyards, and turn it into move of a port for handling merchandise, such as the Port of London, you will not be able to make a commercial success of the undertaking. If we look round on the dockyards which we have, we come to a conclusion which I think is very favourable. It is that the most useless dockyard from the strategical point of view is also that best adapted for conversion into a commercial port. I would like the Admiralty to set up a Committee on which the Port of London Authority could be represented—a Committee composed of commercial persons, who would really investigate this matter, and have a report ready for this House when the period which the Prime Minister requires for investigating the effect of his friendly gesture shall have expired.
      It has to be remembered that the Prime Minister stated that if this policy of a friendly gesture should not be successful, he would have to consider the construction of a base at Singapore. It was largely for that reason that many hon. Members supported the Prime Minister in regard to Singapore, notably the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher), who made an interesting speech on the subject. If that be the case, surely it is only right that we should ask the Government to make preparations and arrangements which will come into effect in the event of the Prime Minister's policy not being successful. Although Members on all sides of the House hope that the Prime Minister's policy will be successful, yet there are many who doubt whether it will have that success. Therefore if the Prime Minister takes those measures which anyone in his position should take, it is only reasonable to suggest that he should make this investigation, pending the possibility of having to extend Singapore. I make that suggestion for this reason. If the Singapore base is going to be built, as it will have to be, unless you get practically a complete naval disarmament throughout the world, obviously money

      677
      will be required for it, and the Admiralty Vote will be swollen by that amount. Therefore, it does seem to me that the Admiralty are not able to afford to carry these redundant dockyards upon this Vote, purely from the point of view of employment. They should be carried upon the Unemployment Belief Vote, or some other Vote.
      Let me turn for a moment to the question of the actual effect of turning a dockyard of this type into a commercial port. The majority of men at these ports are on what is called the permanent establishment; that is to say, they are permanently employed in the dockyard. The number employed at Chatham is something like 10,000. I do not know the exact number, but I think that is approximately correct. If men be deflected to other ports, there does seem to be no reason why over a series of years—because any change of this character must take a series of years—there should be any unemployment whatever caused. There was another point mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull which I should like to take up. He said he hoped a very large amount of work which is undertaken by private yards might be concentrated in the Royal Dockyards, and more particularly he mentioned or, at any rate, implied, such work as the manufacture of gun mountings, torpedoes, armour, and matters of that kind. The point I would like to put to him is this. The reason he made his suggestion was that political pressure could not be brought upon this House, or upon public opinion, in order to provide more armaments than we really require to keep the peace.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The reason I put it forward was that the traffic in arms and munitions should be prohibited.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: For what reason?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Because of the influence, or supposed influence, of the firms in the direction of preparations for war.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: That was just my point. The reason the hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted it prohibited was because of the political pressure which these private organisations could bring upon the legislatures of various countries.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: For war.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: For war. I think the pressure which has been put upon this House by the Dockyard representation is at least equal, if it does not exceed, that put upon this House by Members representing places like Sheffield, and, in fact, the pressure by those political interests as represented by the Royal Dockyards and by Woolvvich—I think my hon. Friend who represents West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is alway very vocal in this direction when the Army Votes are under discussion—is much greater than that brought upon this House by Members who represent places like Sheffield.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The pressure brought to boar by armament firms is not in the open, but is behind the scenes.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The hon. and gallant Member suggests that this pressure is brought by persons behind the scenes, but is it not a fact that every Government in Europe to-day, with, perhaps, the possible exception of Spain, is supposed to be a popular Government, and any money that has to be voted for armaments has to be voted by the equivalent of the House of Commons in those countries? In the ultimate act it is the political pressure which is brought upon this House or similar institutions that matters. Therefore, I think that hon. Members opposite, especially of the Labour party, if I may so express it, seem to have a bee in their bonnet in regard to that very special point.
      I would rather turn the attention of the Committee for a moment to the practical objections to carrying out what the hon. and gallant Member has suggested The cost of armour and gun-mountings made in Royal Dockyards would, necessarily, have to be very much higher, for the very reason which I gave when I said that none of the present Royal Dockyards would be of any use as a commercial manufacturing establishment, because they are removed too far from the industrial centres of the country. Admitting for one moment that work in a Government establishment is as efficient as in private establishments, which I do

      679
      not think hon. Members will ever find carried out in practice, but admitting it for one moment, one still has the difficulty that the actual geographical situation of these dockyards is wrongly selected for a commercial manufacturing centre. It is for that reason I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull should modify his opinion in regard to that. I will turn from dockyards to another matter. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) stated that it made no difference to an aeroplane whether it had 50 or 800 miles to go, if an attack had to be carried out.
      Sir B. FALLE: In 10 years' time.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The laws of nature which govern the present design of aeroplanes will not change in ten years' time. They remain absolutely constant, and whatever improvement there may be in aircraft—and the rate of improvement, as the Committee knows, is very rapid—the fact remains that a distance of 800 miles, as opposed to 50 miles, will make an enormous difference in the amount that any machine can carry. I would like to point out one further reason why I think the Admiralty policy should be changed in relation to these home dockyards, and that is the view that, with the development of aircraft, the control of the narrow waters is bound to pass more and more into the hands of the Air; that is to say, that just as the invention of the submarine and the mine has driven the surface ship further from the coast for any operations it has to carry out, so, inevitably, will the development of the torpedo and bomb-dropping aeroplane drive the surface ship still further out.
      Therefore, if the craft for which our dockyards were originally constructed purely for the surveillance of the narrow seas, have their functions carried out by craft other than those for which they are constructed to assist, it is an added reason why there should be some change of policy with regard to our over-dockyard-ness in this country. But I would not like to mislead the Committee as to the power of aircraft as far as the Fleet is concerned, because, to my mind, there is a very great difference as between the Fleet at sea and the Fleet in narrow waters, as, in
      680
      the latter case, it can be attacked by aircraft more easily. I have lately been making a study of this question, and I think some of the figures may be of interest to the Committee. The other day I took the cost of one of these aircraft carriers which are attached to the Fleet. They carry only some 14 pilots and machines, and I worked out the actual cost of one aeroplane with a pilot. It came to the enormous sum of £35,000 a year. That is to say, the actual cost to the Navy of one aeroplane with pilot, if used for the Fleet at sea, is £35,000 per annum per machine and pilot. In itself it is a consideration which, I think, this Committee has to take into view when considering this suggested change of sea-power to air-power, namely, the enormous cost of a matter of this kind. Obviously, each machine does not cost that, but if you take into consideration the actual cost of the building of your aircraft-carrier, depreciation, and sinking fund to replace it in 15 years, and so forth, I think hon. Members will find that those figures are not very far wrong.
      5.0 P.M.
      Another matter of interest, with regard to the effect of air on the sea, is that the actual use of these aeroplanes, such as flying off aircraft carriers and the like, is not nearly so great as the public outside really believes. We read all sorts of newspaper paragraphs that the battleship is dead, because the aeroplane would bomb it out of existence. I would like to mention one or two practical difficulties in regard to that. It may be of interest to the Committee to realise that, supposing an aircraft carrier is accompanying the fleet, in order to get its machines into the air, she may have to go away from the fleet, in order to steam head to wind, and she may take anything from 10 to 20 hours to regain her station, simply because the speed of the fleet and the aircraft carrier is not very different—some four knots—and, therefore, if you have a following wind, your aircraft carrier, which has to turn into the wind, may very rapidly separate your aircraft carrier from your fleet by 40 or 70 miles. It depends on the wind. The point I am trying to put forward is, that many of these newspaper articles, to the effect that the power of the aircraft is such that, within a year or two, or five years, and so forth, the battleship can be swept out of existence, is an invention on the part of the writers of the articles. I

      681
      think this bears very much on the question of Singapore, which is bound to come up at a later date. One of the reasons put forward for not building the Singapore base is that aerial development in a very few years will make it unnecessary. To return to my point. Aircraft carriers cannot accompany the fleet with any degree of accuracy, because so much depends on the wind which happens to be blowing.
      There is a further point. These airplanes are of no use for attacking ships. They are only light scouting machines, of about 30 cwt. and they can carry no great weight of bombs or torpedoes. The big torpedo and bomb dropping planes of which we read in the American Press, in regard to experiments carried out there, are all machines which have started from shore or from the enclosed waters of a harbour. They have not been sent off carrier ships, and they have not proceeded into the air from the open sea. Therefore, it is obvious that there are two very great differences as between what I term the narrow enclosed waters and the open ocean waters in regard to air attack, and it is for this reason that I should like to turn the attention of the Committee to these four points because, to my mind, they are all co-related—that is to say, the amount of over-dockyarding in the country, the fact that the control of the narrow waters will pass into the air, the fact that there has been, and now is, an entirely new orientation of naval power which necessitates dockyard accommodation in the ocean spaces, and, fourthly, the difference in the effect of air power in the narrow waters and in the open spaces. It will not be too much to say that, with the aerial devices which we now have, the power of the aerial weapon in the ocean spaces is practically negligible except for reconnaissance, and it is for that reason that I would press upon the Admiralty to set up this Committee to investigate whether or not it is possible to turn Chatham into an extension of the Port of London Authority so that that report may be ready for this House when the question of Singapore again arises, in order that the money which might be saved in that way may be used for the building of Singapore.
      Mr. NICHOL: I do not pretend to be a dockyard Member, and this day in Committee
      682
      has very largely in the past been a preserve of dockyard Members. I am certain we shall hear still some more of them. Perhaps there is on their part a good deal of special pleading so far as their districts are concerned. I do not think that is at all objectionable. I do not think we should go without that special pleading, but we must take into consideration that element in weighing up the evidence. The whole question of our national dockyards is a question of historical growth. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) dealt seriatim with some of the dockyards, but it is quite a notable fact that even the Rosyth dockyard was not at the best place for a dockyard in the last War, although it was specially built for that purpose, and that most of the South of England dockyards were practically useless. If I were going to make any observations on the subject I should have imagined that a dockyard somewhere in the Shetlands or the Orkney Islands would have been the strategic place in the late War.
      But we are in the position, that with the historical changes we have had in two or three centuries—I admit that the growth of the community under special conditions through these centuries is a point which we must take into consideration so far as employment is concerned in particular, but we have had continuous additions during various wars, or as the result of various particular enemies in the past, to our number of dockyards, and we are now overstocked. We have had naval agreements reducing the number of ships, but the dockyards go on growing steadily, and we have more now than we had previously, with 50 per cent. more ships than we have now. It would be out of order to follow the argument of disarmament which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle), very largely, I admit, owing to interruptions, but so far as the general dictum is concerned, that if you want peace you must prepare for war, that itself has a much longer history than any dockyard in Great Britain. I should imagine it was thrown about first of all in epigrammatic Latin form in the earliest Senate in Rome, and it was not original even then, because I believe there is a Greek epigram of about 600 years earlier which has this as its essential basis. We

      683
      have had about 2,500 years' experience of this dictum of national defence and 2,500 years' experience of its complete failure, and the more history goes on, as evidenced by the last War, the greater the preparations the greater the failure of the formula. I do not want to enter into that consideration.
      I think the Admiralty might take into consideration the suggestion which has been put forward from various quarters that a national survey should be made of our dockyard accommodation and that the various interests should be represented on it. I do not know that Chatham is so very much more obsolete than Plymouth or Portsmouth. I think all three are probably very nearly in the same category, and the argument of the hon. Member for Portsmouth is quite a valid one for suggesting that some more of them will be obsolete in 10 years. This House has in the present Session plainly evidenced, in its voting, that it is not in favour of disarmament, except for 13 or 14 of us, but if we are going to have armaments we ought to have them efficient and up to date, and I think a case has been made out for a general survey of our dockyard accommodation from a national point of view. That inquiry should also deal with the question of alternative employment in the case of any dockyard that it is decided to dispense with. It surely does not pass the wit of this Government, or even of a much less brainy Government, to devise means of employment for the dockyards. The equipment of a dockyard is essentially shipbuilding, ship repairing and engineering equipment, and if anything was evident in our war experience it was that men who have been trained and are skilled in any of these employments can very easily be transferred to some similar employment. We have had evidence on the Continent. The wholesale transformation of very large sections of the Krupp works at Essen and elsewhere in Germany has shown that these alternatives can be carried through very successfully. That whole experience should be taken into consideration, and I would press upon the Admiralty that now is the time for getting ahead with a general survey of the whole situation and that all these considerations should be taken into account.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I should like to explain that when I said there was no such place as Devonport what I meant was that hon. Members did not realise that there had been an amalgamation of the three towns. We tried to get that unity at Plymouth which we hear so much of in this House, and the three towns are one. Of course, Devonport Dockyard will come under Plymouth, and Devonport Dockyard men are in all three constituencies. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) for the way he put the case for Plymouth Dockyard. It is not because we are fighting for a bigger Navy that we speak about the dockyards. It is not because we want war that we are interested in the Navy, but it is simply because we want law and we want peace. The community owes something to places like Plymouth and Chatham, which have been built up for national purposes. If you are going to do away with them you have to think of some other plan. The hon. Member who spoke last suggested that we should have a survey of the dockyards and see whether they are redundant. That is a reasonable suggestion. No one wants over-lapping in anything, and certainly we who represent the dockyards do not speak in any aggressive way, and I hope we leave out pride, prejudice and partial affection. We try to put the case clearly from a national and not merely a local point of view. I am always pleased when I hear people talk about peace. I love hearing people talk about peace. The world needs more peace, but it is a strange thing that the people who talk most about peace are very often the most quarrelsome people in the world. It is a beautiful thing. I hear hon. Members talk about brotherhood and international love and a better world. They would knock you down if they got you in the Lobby. They have done it, too.
      Lieut, - Commander KENWORTHY: The last person to strike a blow was your leader.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I think the world wants peace, but I do not think the world is ready for peace. I believe the worst thing in the world yon could do at this moment would be to have disarmament. You might as well get rid of the police, and have done with it. We have the police because we want law. What the world needs now is law.
      Mr. TOOLE: You can have law without armaments surely.
      Viscountess ASTOR: If you live in this island you might think that, but if you travel about the world—if you look at Europe, if you look at the East—you would never say that, because anyone who has travelled knows it is essential to the peace of the world that you should have a strong Navy, not for aggressive pur-purposes, but simply to police the world.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why not international police?
      Viscountess ASTOR: If you had international agreement you could have anything. But you have not got it; you have not even got local agreement.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We will not get international agreement if the Noble Lady goes on as she is doing.
      Viscountess ASTOR: I go on most peacefully. I want any amount of peace. When hon. Gentlemen opposite hurl insults at my head, do I care? Not in the least, because I realise that the only way in which you can get peace is by striving for it in your own consciousness. An hon. Member on this side has written a book, in which there is a very good passage which, is not unrelated to this question of war. He says the Socialists are always worrying about what their neighbours are doing, whereas the Christian is always worrying about what he is doing himself. That is the only way you can get peace. You cannot force peace, and I ask hon. Members to give us credit, even though we believe in a strong Navy, for wanting a strong Navy because we are interested in peace and not because we are interested in war. I think the suggestion which has been made as to the manufacture of armaments being taken out of private hands, if carried out, would be a tremendous step forward in the world. I am all for that proposal and against the exercise of any pressure in this respect, but what we ought to do as democratic people is to resist all pressure of this kind by any interests, whether armament interests or other interests. Democratic countries have to guard against such pressure, and I trust the people of this country will do so, but, while I am not against private firms, I do think it is dangerous that this matter
      686
      should be left to private enterprise, and I would be quite willing to join with those who want to get it out of private hands.
      That however is quite a different thing from always talking about disarmament, and I think the greatest enemies of peace in the world are the pacifists. They talk of peace when there is no peace. I do not wish to be controversial, however, on the question of the Navy. I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench take a different view of the Navy since they came into office, and many of us who put country ahead of party are delighted at the fact and are very grateful. I think the Navy should be ahead of party. I do not like to think that the Navy, upon which our national existence depends, should be a subject of party controversy. Nor should the dockyards be made a subject of party discussion, and with regard to the proposal which has been made that we should have an inquiry to see whether we have too many dockyards, I say by all means let us have it. Although I speak as a dockyard member, I am perfectly certain that the country as a whole, while desirous of a strong Navy, does not want redundancy and cannot afford it. As I have pointed out before, the men in the Navy are just as much interested in education and housing and other questions as any other section of the community. They have children who require to be educated, they have wives living in horrible houses, and they are just as much interested in those questions as anybody else. I wish to call attention to one or two matters of local importance, but before doing so I urge upon those who are always talking about peace and who are always belittling the Navy—not in this House, but in the country—to consider that they are doing a very dangerous thing, because the Navy stands for law and order, and without law and order no country is progressive. Even a political party cannot get on without law and order, and the leaders know how difficult it is to maintain law and order in their own ranks. You are all very "much of a muchness." Sometimes I laugh to hear one party getting at another for not being united. All parties have their forward members and their backward members, their selfish members and their unselfish members, and all parties have their half-wits.

      687
      I urge once more on the Admiralty to take certain steps in connection with the dockyards to which I referred the last time this subject was under discussion. There are certain conditions and practices obtaining in the dockyards which would not be allowed to go on under private enterprise. If hon. Members opposite want to make State ownership attractive, let them take the first steps in this direction, and let them begin with Devonport. The dining rooms in the dockyards are literally such that the men cannot use them on account of the way in which the rain comes in, while the roads are in a lamentable condition, and if they are not attended to, will get much worse. On the question of the messing allowance, I would call attention to the fact that 9d. per day is the fixed sum, and that it bears no relation whatever to—
      The CHAIRMAN: The victualling of the Navy does not come under this Vote.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Does the question of widows' pensions come under this Vote?
      The CHAIRMAN: That is under another head.
      Viscountess ASTOR: In that case I have nothing more to say except to urge once again upon my hon. Friends opposite not to think that they are the only people who are interested in peace. Their peace would have had us all doing the goose-step now.
      Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I wish to be permitted in a few words to refer to a matter arising out of the Shipbuilding Vote which affects the men of the lower deck. I wish to point out the inconvenience which the men of the lower deck suffer in consequence of certain things connected with the construction and fitting-out of modern ships of war. First, there is the fact that the cooking galleys in our great ships are placed on the mess decks, and inasmuch as the men sleep on those decks, the cooking, especially in the early morning, is a source of very great discomfort and annoyance to the men. When they are reposing in their hammocks they have to put up with the poisonous smells which arise out of these galleys, and the steam in connection with the making of tea, cocoa and such like is very
      688
      objectionable. I suggest to those who construct our ships that the cooking galleys might be placed on the main deck instead of the mess deck. Although the matter has been raised before nothing has been done. The men have made complaints from time to time, but their applications to have the matter considered are always turned down with the words "Not approved." It is because they have repeatedly made this request without success that I raise the matter to-day and advocate their case. I do not know what objection there can be to moving the cooking galleys from the mess deck to the upper deck.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that the hon. Member is in order. We are not discussing conditions on board ship in this Vote; we are discussing the dockyards.
      Sir T. BRAMSDON: With all due deference, Sir, I submit that we are discussing the building of ships, and my point has relation to the construction of ships.
      The CHAIRMAN: The section of the Vote which is now under discussion relates to personnel. Another section which comes on later is in connection with contract work in relation to shipbuilding.
      Sir T. BRAMSDON: Then I ask permission to be allowed to return to my remarks when that subject comes under discussion.
      Major LLOYD-GEORGE: In view of the fact that certain remarks concerning Pembroke Dockyard have been made, I feel it my duty to intervene in this Debate. I am pleased to note that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has had a very pleasing change of opinion in this respect. Two or three years ago he did not think much of the dockyard of Pembroke, but now he has changed his mind, and I am glad he has done so. As he quite rightly mentions, the reason which was given at the time for main taming the Pembroke Dockyard was the fact that the community there had literally come into existence because of the establishment of the dockyard, and it was a responsibility on the country to see that unless some alternative was provided, that dockyard continued to exist. The hon. Member for Bodmin

      689
      (Mr. Foot) rather looked down upon this attitude and said that in Plymouth they did not put their case on the same grounds as Pembroke. Yet I noticed that later in his speech he asked the Government to realise their responsibility towards Plymouth, and said that, having chosen the place, it was their responsibility to see that the people did not suffer. This is a very serious question for a community such as Pembroke of 15,000 inhabitants, who are there simply and solely because of the dockyard. I am told that 80 per cent. of the people of Pembroke own their houses That fact alone will make it a very serious matter if the dockyard is closed. I, personally, however, have never agreed that this is the only reason for maintaining the dockyard. Its strategic position on the west coast is a sufficient reason for its maintenance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sparkbrook Division of Birmingham (Mr. Amery) speaking last year, said it was quite possible the geographical position of Pembroke would make it necessary to utilise it to its fullest capacity once more.
      It lies many hundreds of miles from the nearest point on the Continent, and it lies several miles up an arm of the sea, the entrance to which is very easily defended. In view of the development in air craft which is going on, it is the most favourably situated dockyard in this country. The hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) said that with the development of aircraft 10 years hence the position of Pembroke would be as vulnerable as that of any other dockyard. He mentioned the flight which took place the other day from Paris to Aleppo, and said that in a short time long-distance nights would be very easy, but I would point out to him that flying in peace time and over peaceful countries is a different thing to flying on a hostile mission over a hostile country. Flying to the west coast of Wales from the Continent involves crossing 200 miles of hostile territory, and for that purpose the enemy aerodrome would have to be situated on the coast and open to attack from our ships. The distance from our coast to Pembroke would make it very difficult and dangerous, and, in fact, the flight would have to be at such an altitude that it would be difficult to do any damage, and during the whole of the journey hostile aircraft would be open to attack.
      690
      I would like to support the plea that was made that more work should be concentrated in the Royal dockyards. It has been said in this House this afternoon that the danger of that is that political pressure is brought to bear, but I would suggest that the pressure brought to bear by dockyard Members is certainly of a more wholesome character than that which is brought to bear from other directions, because whatever pressure is brought to bear by dockyard Members is brought to bear in this House and is open to the criticism of every Member here, and I maintain that that is a far better and healthier thing to have than the other pressure, which is not quite so open for criticism. It has been suggested that an inquiry should be held into the condition of all the dockyards. Personally, I would welcome such an inquiry, because I feel sure that no dockyard member would wish to keep open any dockyard that did not answer the requirements, and I feel certain, speaking as the representative of Pembroke, that not only would it not suffer from such an inquiry, but it would greatly benefit.
      Major WHELER: I make no apology for saying a word or two as a dockyard representative. Something has been said about political pressure being brought to bear by dockyard Members. As another hon. Member has said, dockyard towns have been built up for the purposes of dockyards, and you can search the length and breadth of England, and you will not find anywhere else, to anything like the same extent, communities which have been brought for a specific purpose to a certain place—I am alluding to Shocrness—as you find in certain of our dockyard towns. That being so, I think we are entitled in this House, if we have the honour to represent these communities, to put their case when we get the chance, and to urge it from our special point of view. They have been brought there and established in those towns, and, if I may take the instance of Sheerness, you have a dockyard town there, established on an island 10 miles from the mainland. While it is very easy to talk about the transference of men from the Royal dockyards to commercial work, it must be remembered that when you have an isolated town of that sort, with a community which has become established and which has worked up a very flourishing

      691
      building society, with the result that a largo number of those men own their own houses, to talk of the transference of these men from one place to another is to forget that you are only going to transfer them at a very great loss, and any question relating to the alteration of our dockyard system must be considered from a broad national point of view. I do not think that in the case of the smaller dockyards that has been sufficiently recognised.
      Of course, as far as Sheerness is concerned, with its position, its deep water, and so on, I think it would hold its own very favourably in any inquiry that might be held. Be that as it may, I do not hesitate to say that if an inquiry is desirable in the national interest, I have not the slightest objection to it, but, if an inquiry is held, you must go a good deal further than looking at it from the particular point of view of whether men are wanted or not at the moment. You have to go into the past history and see why they were brought there, and you have to look at the promise which has been given to such a community, by believing it was brought into the dockyard to be kept there and trained there. That is the main reason why I rose, but I did so also because, in a paragraph of this Memorandum which has been issued, I see it says:
      "The labour conditions in the dockyards during the current financial year have been generally stable, and no discharges on reduction have occurred."
      I hope that sort of thing will be able to be maintained, because when we talk in this House about the question of unemployment, taking my own special case of Sheerness, if discharges are made at a time like this, and if, as is the fact, those men have to go at least 10 miles to find work elsewhere, it must be seen that they will become a serious charge on the community, and therefore, even at times when work is very short, it seems to me to be better to find some sort of employment for those men at the dockyard rather than to let them become a charge on the Unemployment Fund, and so on, as they are bound otherwise to do. Therefore there are a good many points of view from which I would urge the Government to remember these dockyards.
      I make no apology for bringing forward these detailed points, because we
      692
      have heard about pressure brought from elsewhere, and we know very well that the big industrial centres bring a very large amount of pressure to bear on the Government, but it is only right that some dockyard Members, on the few occasions when they get the chance, should talk of their own constituencies and utilise the opportunity of voicing the interests of these men whom you have trained up in the dockyards—a large number of very experienced, established men. I look upon these men as an insurance that work can be done on pressure in a way, probably, in which it could not be done anywhere else if an emergency arose. That fact should be in the minds of everybody who talks airily about cutting down the dockyards. You have a type of man there trained after many years' experience, and it is very dangerous to lose any of those men. I wish to say once more to the representative of the Admiralty that this is a very vital matter to Sheerness.
      Sir GERALD HOHLER: A good deal has been said about Chatham. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) smile. He has a wonderful theory, quite a new one, launched, I think, in this present Parliament, and his idea is that you can exchange Chatham Dockyard, close it down, and build Singapore. Has ever such folly, even from a gentleman retired from the Navy, been uttered in this House? What on earth has Chatham to do with building a harbour at Singapore? The conditions are wholly different, and the purpose and object are wholly different. That matter is now in abeyance, and it may have to be arranged, but when it is put forward as a pretext or an argument in regard to Chatham Dockyard, I respectfully tell my hon. and gallant Friend that, in my humble judgment, it is specious nonsense.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think my hon. and learned Friend is misrepresenting me somewhat. The only reason why I suggested that Chatham should be done away with was that I think it is strategically useless, and, therefore, the money could be expended to better purpose for a dockyard elsewhere. It is the money that we want to save, not Chatham.
      Sir G. HOHLER: I heard the hon. and gallant Member's speech, and I have heard his explanation, and I observe that

      693
      his explanation was that I had misrepresented him somewhat. It is not a question of somewhat, for I do not think I have misrepresented him at all. His argument was, and is, that the money to be saved on Chatham could be spent on Singapore. The Singapore scheme is not in progress, but the hon. and gallant Member never has informed us what relation Chatham dockyard has to Singapore, and he never will be able to do so. Let him try next year, when the Admiralty Estimates come up again, and see if he cannot put forward his point a little better. He talks in a wild and senseless fashion about this proposed subway, or railway, or tunnel from Tilhury to Gravesend, but I wonder how long it will be before the plans for that undertaking mature, and I wonder how long it will be before it is actually constructed, and I wonder if the hon. and gallant Gentleman really recollects that Chatham is on the Medway and not on the Thames. Meanwhile, what is Chatham Yard to do? I think he is very premature in his suggestions, and when they come to be examined, if they wore stated before the Board of Admiralty I think those great men, greater, if I may respectfully say so, in the Service than is the hon. and gallant Member, would treat them with the contumely they deserve.
      He and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) referred to aeroplanes, and told the House with confidence that Chatham Yard will no longer survive. Well, we survived in the last War all right, and we did great and useful work, and they did us substantially no damage. Those hon. and gallant Members, whose brains must have some glimmer of intelligence, should recollect that London is rather a more important place to attack than Chatham, and that aeroplanes will not dwell over Chatham, but will pass on to London. They seem to think that, because in the last War a great advance was made in regard to aeroplanes, and forms of attack were carried out that we had never known before, we have heard the last thing in aeroplanes. Not a bit of it. Are their views so limited and their imagination so short that they think and believe that if and when another war comes there will not be some invention as great to destroy aeroplanes in the air as we should have had to destroy—so I am
      694
      credibly informed—submarines under the sea had the last War continued? I believe it is a fact that there are now proposals before those responsible for a device to stop and check aeroplanes. When they talk about a great attack, and of Chatham being a point of attack, I would remark that it is London that would be the point of attack; but if all these things that they say are true, everything is useless, and the lives of all our countrymen are at the mercy of any Power which has great aeroplanes and seeks to attack us. I believe there is no foundation for these things. When I think of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull—and I have had to remind him of this before—I remember that he was a rejected aspirant for the constituency for which I sit.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What has that to do with it?
      Sir G. HOHLER: I am going to tell the hon. and gallant Member what it has to do with it. He never got so far as being adopted, but I wonder what his arguments would have been, when he went down to offer himself as a candidate for Gillingham, if he had said, "These are my views." He will see that it has a great bearing on this matter. If he had never been to Gillingham, it would be another thing, but when I think of it, it mikes me doubt very much the real value of the opinions he expresses. If he had been accepted for Gillingham, and if, being accepted—and this is a large assumption—he had got in, I doubt very much whether he would not have left all that he has told us to-day unsaid. Then there is the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), who takes a complete interest in Plymouth. That is quite right, but when he told us that he voted for the five cruisers, which had been the subject of attack by the Liberal party—and, if I rightly remember, it originated with the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle)—it is not surprising to me that the hon. Member for Bodmin, who, I understand, resides in Plymouth, voted, as I suppose be did, with the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) and, I expect, the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha), both Members of the Liberal party, for the five cruisers. As I gather from hon. Members opposite, they vote in the way they do because

      695
      they suppose it will possibly give employment. While, on the other hand, it is like waving a red rag before a bull discussing reasonably the question of armaments in the presence of Members of the Liberal party unless, unfortunately, they happen to represent or misrepresent Portsmouth, Plymouth or other dockyard constituencies. There was a Member who preceded me in the representation of my constituency. He was a Labour Member, and I remember, with great amusement, though I was not in the House at the time, that though a member of the Labour party, his colleagues allowed him to vote in favour of the Navy—for obvious reasons. I attach very little weight or value to what is said in regard to this matter from either the Liberal or the Labour Benches, and especially what is said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), whose political history I will not dwell upon.
      But let us look at the matter in the light of the circumstances. What about Chatham, and Portsmouth, and Devonport? Portsmouth is the oldest dockyard, and Chatham comes second. We have a history there. It was there that the Chatham Chest was founded, the forerunner of the Greenwich age pension. We have got, I think I can say, without exception the finest naval barracks of any dockyard. I do not know exactly what the commanders or the late commanders of the Navy in the House think of the matter, but the chief petty officers and men of the Navy will be very sorry to abandon Chatham Dockyard. We have also got the finest naval hospital. There is no question about that. Last, but not least—and this should make us immortal—we have got the naval memorial opened lately by His Royal Highness the Price of Wales to the memory of the men who fell in the Great War. Yet we are attacked by those on the opposite benches whose security of tenure may be a year, or 18 months, or five years. They have no knowledge of what the dockyard is. They really do not seem to understand that Chatham Dockyard is the premier repairing shipyard for the Navy. They seem to be unaware of the simple fact that many years ago—some 30—the Admiralty tried what could be done to repair ships outside in private yards, and after experimenting they had to come back to
      696
      Chatham, who have done the work admirably. We know what is done in this matter in private yards. When outside contractors have spent what they think is enough on a particular repair no more is done, although a large expenditure may still be necessary. It is the old story of the builder over again, but the only way you can get repairs properly done is by men properly paid and understanding their work, and this applies to Chatham. An inquiry is asked for. By whom, and what is the reason for it? It is ridiculous and absurd. The Admiralty know much better than some hon. Members who speak on this subject. Five cruisers are to be built; only three have been allotted to the dockyards. We have got the slips and the men to do the work. The other two have gone away to private yards. I do not complain of that, because I know the unemployment that exists. But I am pointing out what can be done in the dockyards. There are casualties at sea. Ships get into collision. They require to be repaired. They come into Chatham. It is within my own knowledge that we have had submarines recently at the Chatham Yard, and you must have some place of the kind for the vessels. Therefore do not let the House be too anxious about this matter of aircraft. We are quite willing to run the risk of our lives if hon. Members are not. Do not let there be left any question of uncertainty or doubt in the minds of the people of Chatham. What is needed particularly at Chatham, Rochester, and Gillingham—the division that I represent—is housing accommodation. The thing is a great scandal, and when the Government propose to build I shall be glad to discuss it. But to hold an inquiry into these other matters means to suggest doubt and uncertainty as to the future of the yard, and to prejudice the situation in regard to the greatest evils existing in our midst—that is, unemployment and the lack of housing. People are not willing to put their money into private enterprise in the neighbourhood if they think there is a risk of the dockyard being closed down.
      Hon. Members have spoken in a light and airy fashion of opening the dockyard for commercial purposes. Have they considered it? Do they know that after the War the Admiralty made every endeavour to use a part of Chatham with the view of employing men and inducing private owners to give them work? I know it,

      697
      because I took part in some of these negotiations. The proposals did not interfere with matters inside the dockyard, but what was proposed was in relation to a particular portion of land bordering on the Medway. These schemes failed, unfortunately. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will tell us whether there is much probability of getting employment for the men who need it if Chatham Dockyard is closed. I thought shipbuilding was one of the trades that was in as much difficulty at the present, if not more than any other trade. That is not all. People do not always realise—it is perhaps natural in the case of men of comparative youth like the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who are very healthy—that there are a great many men in my constituency who are getting on in years, some of them approaching my own age, and they, like myself—and we know it—are not so marketable as we once were, and this point ought not to be lost sight of. I ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite not to close the dockyards down in view of what may happen in another war, which, I trust, is infinitely remote. It is about time, I think, that these unfounded and unwarranted attacks on dockyards should cease. I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he comes to speak on this matter, will have no part or lot in appointing a committee of inquiry. Hon. Members speak of the Navy—somei of them—as having been the cause of war, or having provoked it. The British Navy has never been an instrument of war. It has always been a great instrument of peace, defence, and protection to our people. It protects the trade routes and our merchantmen in foreign seas. What would have happened had we not been in possession of our Navy when, in the Baltic two or three years ago, the Russians seized a vessel outside the three-miles limit?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was on the Murmansk coast!
      Sir G. HOHLER: I accept the correction. At any rate, if you have no cruisers and no fleet how can you protect your interests, supposing an incident happens at sea which is a violation of international
      698
      law and in waters in which there was no right to seize your vessel? Our Navy makes for peace. It will be a sorry day for this country if anything is ever done to weaken its position. At any rate, so far as the attacks that have been made in the direction of a reduction of the establishment to which I have referred, I trust that the Secretary of the Admiralty will without hesitation or question turn down the suggestions that have been made in regard to our famous dockyards.
      Mr. W. WATSON: As one interested in a dockyard constituency I should like to be allowed to take part in this discussion. In doing so I shall not be expressing opinions different from the opinions I have expressed before. On former occasions I was under the impression that I was expressing the views of the party to which I belong. This party, and this Government is not disregardful of the welfare of the Empire or the defence of the Empire. We are as much interested in defending the Empire as any other party in this House. Attacks are being made repeatedly outside the House—not so much inside—and attacks have been made both before this Government took office and since on this matter to the effect that we could not be trusted to defend the Empire.
      We are not disregardful of the welfare of the Empire. I was certain, when I was speaking from the other side of the House last year to the effect that we were concerned about the welfare of the Empire and its defence, that I was expressing the opinion of my party. After all, if we have to defend Canada and Australia and other far-flung parts of the Empire, which we are defending so long as we make ourselves responsible for their defence, we are defending our own sons and daughters, our own people, our own kith and kin who have not been able to get a living in this country. So long as we hold these different parts of the Empire, we must take the ordinary precautions for their defence. Therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in this Government coming forward and proposing recently that there should be five cruisers built for the purpose of replacing cruisers going out of commission, and in keeping the Navy up to a certain standard. I am certain that while we are keen on peace, while we have always advocated peace, and while we

      699
      wish to see peace established, that while things remain as they are we cannot be disregardful of the defence of the Empire.
      Viscountess ASTOR: Hear, hear!
      6.0 P.M.
      Mr. WATSON: I wish to refer to some of the remarks that have been made this afternoon with regard to dockyards. It seems to be agreed, as was stated by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler), that there is a case for an inquiry into the dockyards, and I agree that it will be a good thing for the dockyards themselves if that took place and those employed there were given to understand where they stood for some time to come At present where are they? They do not know, and they have not known for years past, more especially since the big reduction in 1922. Ever since that year the men in the dockyard have never known what was going to happen to them, and what guarantee have they at the present moment?
      Supposing there was to be another Washington Conference and another big reduction in naval armaments, and the same thing that happened in 1922 happened again? We should have another large decrease in the number of men employed in the dockyards, and so long as this state of uncertainty prevails there will be dissatisfaction and discontent, and that is perfectly justifiable. These men ought to know where they stand. The Admiralty ought to come to a decision, and there ought to be a proper inquiry as to what the requirements of the country are with regard to dockyard accommodation for a considerable period ahead.
      Personally I do not believe that we shall have greater armaments in the future than we have had in the past. On the contrary, I believe there will be a gradual diminution in this respect. Keeping that in mind, I think there ought to be a certain inquiry as to the amount of accommodation that is required in our dockyards, I would press upon the Admiralty to have a searching inquiry as to their needs for some time to come, so that these men may be given some idea as to whether they are going to remain permanently in dockyard employment. There has been far too much transference of men from one dockyard
      700
      to another, and they are being continually transferred. I am acquainted pretty closely with the condition of affairs existing in our newest dockyard.
      Sir G. HOHLER: And there is a great expense involved to the families by this transference.
      Mr. WATSON: I know that there is a very serious expense involved, and inconvenience as well, in many cases, by the transference of dockyard workers from one dockyard to another. I am well acquainted with the conditions prevailing in the Rosyth Dockyard, and those employed there have been brought from all the other dockyards in the country, some of them coming from Chatham, Pembroke, Devonport and Portsmouth. They are congregated together there, and they do not know what is to be their fate in the days to come. I know the question of closing Rosyth Dockyard has been mentioned in this House. It is said that that dockyard has now served its purpose and is no longer required. I think it is for the Admiralty to satisfy themselves as to whether it will ever be required again for naval purposes, and if they are satisfied that that is so, then there is one clear and obvious duty that falls upon the Admiralty, and that is to provide alternative employment for the men employed there.
      I hope we shall not have this or any other Government saying to dockyard workers in the future, "We require your services no longer and you have got to go, we do not want you and we are not concerned as to what you are going to do next. It is your business to find other employment, and not ours." I hope we are going to have a longer view than that taken at the Admiralty, and if it is necessary to close Rosyth dockyard or reduce the number of men employed there, I hope proper steps will be taken to provide other employment for those workers before any dismissals take place. I hope we are not again going to have thousands of men brought together for national purposes without any consideration as to their future. There ought to be at the Admiralty some outlook for the future. They ought to know what they are going to do with this dockyard, whether they are going to reduce the personnel or whether they are going to use it for other purposes.

      701
      At Rosyth, with the machinery and equipment and accommodation there, that dockyard could be used for many other purposes. It is in the centre of a big industrial community, and before now I have pleaded with the Admiralty that if this dockyard is to be no longer required for naval purposes steps ought to be taken to provide other employment, Rosyth is a dockyard well equipped for the repairing of merchant ships, and I am certain that work could be done there. Any amount of commercial work could be done at Rosyth, and if at any time, even in the distant future, it was decided that that dockyard was no longer required for naval purposes, I think it is only fair to the thousands of men brought together there that there ought to be alternative work provided, so that the conditions which prevailed at the time of the great reduction in 1922 will not again be imposed upon the men who are skilled workmen and have been highly trained. They are men who know their work thoroughly, and they ought to have more consideration shown them than has been the case up to now.
      If such an inquiry, as that suggested this afternoon, does take place, and if the change we all desire comes about; if we embark upon a real peace policy, which will enable us to reduce our Army, Navy and Air Forces, I hope the Admiralty will take a longer view of the question and prepare for that time. I do not want them to come to such decisions as they came to as the result of the Geddes Committee, when they instantly cut everything down. I think they should take a much longer view and prepare for the time when we shall require less in the way of armaments of every description than we do at the present time.
      While the Labour party has always been strong on peace, and is ready to do everything it can to establish peace, I admit that we cannot leave the Empire undefended. I know speakers belonging to the other parties have always represented us as the Pacifist party, who are prepared to hand this country over to any other country that cares to come along and take it. While that has been the criticism we have been subjected to in bygone years, I wish to state that we are just as keenly interested in the defence of the Empire as any party can be, and so long
      702
      as we have a Labour Government—I hope we are going to have one for a good long time—I hope it will be our Government that will lead us forward to real peace conditions. Before we reach real peace conditions, we shall require to change things so far as our policy is concerned, and we shall have to give those who have been brought together for national purposes a better chance of fair play than they have had up to the present time.
      Mr. AMERY: The speech to which we have just listened is one in regard to which I should like to express my complete agreement, because I think the hon. Member stated the case for defence and for peace in the clearest possible way. We all want peace, and those of us who are concerned with the interests of defence want it too. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) spoke of the hoary fallacy that, if you want to secure peace, you must prepare for war. If it were suggested that the only way of securing peace was to be prepared for war, I might-agree with him, but that is not the only effective way of securing peace. The essential step towards securing peace is to have the will towards peace and the willingness to work for the promotion of peace. That purpose can be secured, not only by the absence of aggression in action or in policy, but also by avoiding anything that looks like an over-equipment of armaments, because anything that suggests that you are arming yourselves beyond the needs of reasonable defence may contribute to war.
      On the other hand, I think it is equally true that those who work for peace may see all their efforts frustrated if in a world which is not altogether peaceful they do not, at any rate, take the necessary minimum steps to secure their own defence. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Nichol), in an interesting speech, suggested that the motto which the hon. Member for Bodmin referred to had been proved untrue through 2,500 years of history. It has only been untrue in the sense that all wars have not boon prevented, but by no means untrue if you take some of the great events in history. I do not want to indulge in a long historical dissertation, but if we think of all that civilisation owes to the Greeks we must remember that it was the Greeks who fell at Salamis and Marathon who preserved that civilization

      703
      for the world from destruction by the barbarians. In the same way, it is worth while remembering that the greatest era of peace and well-being the world ever knew up to comparatively modern times was that of the Roman Empire in the second century. That Empire fell, not from excessive armaments, but because, in the pursuit of peace, it did not maintain, at any rate, a sufficient minimum of defence to shelter its territories and its riches from hungry, powerful barbarians across the frontier.
      If I might give another instance, I would ask the hon. Member for Bodmin, who is so proud of the great City of Plymouth, what would have happened to our religious liberties and our civil liberties if, when the Armada came, there had not been a fleet capable of sailing out from Plymouth to deal with that Armada? I do not know if I might add one personal reminiscence of more recent date, which occurred to my mind when the hon. Member was speaking. Hon. Members may have noticed in the papers that a few days ago a monument was unveiled to our soldiers who fell at Zandvoorde, just outside Ypres. I remember being in Zandvoorde, or rather what little remained of it, on one of the closing days of that battle, and, as I was sheltering from the shells behind the remnants of a wall, waiting for an opportunity to get somewhere else, I noticed the remains of an election placard on that wall, ridiculing the idea that Belgium should spend more money on its defence, pouring contempt on the suggestion that Belgium should base its Army on national service, and pointing out that there was no danger that could possibly threaten that little country. I do think, therefore, that it is going much too far to suggest that you can secure peace for the world, or for a particular country, simply by neglecting your armaments.
      Mr. FOOT: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not desire to misrepresent me. I did not make that suggestion in the course of my speech. I simply asserted that history went to show that, when armaments were built up, they were very often provocative of war, and that, if we pursued peace instead of pursuing war, it would be better for the whole world.
      Mr. AMERY: With that I am in entire agreement. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends ask for provocative armaments, but only for armaments in some correspondence with the immense responsibilities and interests that we have to defend. Perhaps I may turn from that to say a word about the argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and, in other Debates, by other hon. Members, that what provokes war is the making of armaments by private firms. I have often heard that argument, and I confess that I have never discovered any tangible foundation for it. More than one hon. Member on this side has pointed out that the pressure upon the House of Commons comes much more from those dockyard communities which are entirely concentrated upon the one industry of armaments. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull suggests that there is a secret influence. I can, at any rate, speak for one direction in which that suggestion as to a secret influence would apply, namely, the Admiralty, and, in the three years that I was there, I never discovered any trace or vestige or indication of pressure or influence being applied by any armament firm in order to induce this country to increase its armaments. We often had representations, both from centres of private shipbuilding and from dockyard centres, but they were always from the men employed and from the local authorities, and never, as far as I can discover, from private firms. Indeed, if you were to attempt to limit the making of armaments to Government factories, under modern conditions there is practically no limit to what constitutes armaments, and really it is, from that point of view, an impossible proposition.
      I would say, however, and here I am in entire agreement with more than one hon. Member who has spoken, that, in so far as you have to keep up a certain amount of necessary naval work, you should make your stable foundation the work of the Royal dockyards, and then any extra increase or extra reduction will fall upon the world of private shipbuilding outside. The hon. Member for East Renfrew put the case very fairly from the point of view of the men and their families engaged in that work, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that, from the Admiralty point of view, from the point of view of efficiency

      705
      of work, it makes an enormous difference if the dockyards know that the number of men employed in them is going to be stable. As long as there is always the fear of reduction, the temptation will be to try and delay and spread the work to avoid reduction. If the men in the dockyards know that their own position is reasonably secure, then we get the very best work from them. I have noticed, I think, in this Debate, and on other occasions, a certain amount of rivalry as to who does the work best, the dockyards or private firms. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm the view to which I certainly came, that there are some kinds of work which are much better done by private firms, and others which are much better done in the dockyards. The big shipbuilding work, which calls for tenders, is, on the whole, more cheaply done by private firms, who are accustomed to building numbers of ships; but the repair work is undoubtedly done more efficiently and cheaply in the dockyards, and some of the smaller work also. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) spoke with justifiable pride of the good work of Chatham, and I certainly know, from the experience we had recently in the building of submarines, that the work was done admirably and with admirable expedition. It could not "have been done better in a private yard. While criticism may have been directed against the total strength of our dockyard staff, compared with the Navy to-day and with our pre-War Navy—
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What about the anti-Socialist campaign now?
      Mr. AMERY: It has nothing to do with that particular question. It is because the dockyards are, if I may say so, in the hands of experienced senior naval officers, who know, when a bill for repairs comes in, what repairs that are asked for should be granted and what should be put off to another occasion. It is special expert knowledge of what is sufficient to keep a ship going, supplied by the naval officers at the dockyards.
      Mr. ROYCE: Was not the right hon. Gentleman speaking of new construction—of submarines?
      Mr. AMERY: There, too, there is a special case for very good work. I am not suggesting that the Government establishment—[Interruption.]
      The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Entwistle): I must not allow these interruptions on the question of Socialism.
      Mr. AMERY: I have no desire to follow up that point. When I was interrupted, I was dealing with the criticism that the dockyard establishment, in proportion to the Navy of to-day, is greater than our dockyard establishment before the War, but I think the answer to that is implied in what I was saying just now, namely, that a great deal of construction, in times of busy work in the Navy, is naturally given outside, but when you contract your work, and especially new construction, it is the outside work rather than the dockyard work which suffers. The dockyard work, especially repair work, is in proportion, not to the total mobilisation strength, but in proportion to the strength of the Fleet which is kept in active commission. With the much more complicated structure of modern ships, it is by no means surprising that our dockyard personnel stands at its present strength, and, as I said just now, I hope that, as far as possible, the Admiralty may see its way to keeping that establishment a constant one.
      There is one other quite small point in connection with dockyard wages on which I should like to ask for information from the representative of the Admiralty. It is a matter in which I have been interested for some little time, namely, the question of the basic rate of wages of the dockyard workmen at Malta. I remember that after the War, when I went to Malta to look at the economic conditions there, I came to the conclusion that, taking advantage, perhaps unconsciously, of the situation there, the Admiralty were undoubtedly very seriously underpaying their workmen in that dockyard. The basic rate of 9s. a week, when the cost of living had gone up almost as much as in this country, was grossly unfair, and, indeed, the dockyard population of Malta at that time was only able to sustain life by the help of a costly bread subsidy, paid out of general taxes, which threatened to bring the island to bankruptcy. Since then concessions have been made, but the basic rate has still been kept, or was kept till quite

      707
      recently, at that, to my mind, wholly unjust and unjustifiable figure of 9s. a week. Even if you allow for the simpler wants of the Maltese as compared with the English workman, it was not a fair wage. I hope it has been found possible finally to get Treasury agreement to a somewhat more reasonable basic wage for those who, after all, are British subjects and loyal British subjects.
      If I am not detaining the Committee I should like also to refer briefly to the interesting point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, and by a number of other Members, as to whether all our dockyards are in the right place, and whether it is not worth while very carefully to inquire where we should make savings and where, perhaps, we should enlarge our expenditure. This is a very difficult and complex subject. It would be quite easy if we were starting with a clean sheet. If we had no dockyards, and were beginning to construct them, we should only be concerned with the best strategical position from the point of view of accessibility from the ordinary peace and war range of our Fleet, and of security against air or other attacks. But we are not starting with a clean sheet. It is quite easy to suggest, for instance, that we should scrap Chatham and build at some other place. I admit that the position of Chatham is not ideal from the point of view of air defence against a European enemy. The position of Pembroke, as the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major G. Lloyd George) is himself anxious to point out, is in that respect far better. The position of Rosyth is better. But we have to remember that there is, first of all, an immense amount of capital sunk in a great dockyard like Chatham. And Chatham is not only a dockyard—it is one of the three great recruiting and supply centres for the whole of the Navy. One-third of the life of the Navy may be paid to be centred upon Chatham, and it is very difficult, quite apart from the consideration of the immense cost involved, suddenly to decide to scrap a great dockyard and naval centre like that and transfer it elsewhere. That is the real difficulty. There are other difficulties which occurred to me when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney)—who is not at the moment in the Committee—suggested that other uses
      708
      might be found for Chatham. But the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham has already pointed out how difficult it is, even to a small extent, to turn a naval dockyard to other purposes. It is far more difficult to think you can turn Chatham Dockyard into a great commercial repair and equipment station for commercial fleets. The mere fact that it is a good many miles from London militates against it. My impression is that a great deal of repair work on an ordinary commercial ship is done while she is loading and unloading, and to load or unload at the London Docks and send her to Chatham would create great difficulty. The actual work of repair is most easily done where the ship has to go in any case, and that is one of the great centres like London, Liverpool or Southampton.
      However, that is incidental. The real question is how far we can gradually shift our main centres of dockyard work. I very much doubt whether it would be worth while attempting to shift those great historical centres—Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth, even though Chatham is open to certain drawbacks from the point of view of air raids. The disturbance and cost involved would not be worth the while. But when you are dealing with work outside you have far more freedom in considering strategical considerations, and while we cannot shift, or perhaps reduce our main centres, there is very clear ground for being sure that our other naval docks are situated at points where, in peace and war, they can be of most use to the Fleet, and involve the least steaming backward and forward, and the least expense in this direction. It is from that point of view that the whole Admiralty staff concentrated on the importance of bringing up to date the docks at Singapore. It was a question not in the least connected with the designs or fear of a particular naval Power, but purely on dockyard considerations as to the future distribution of our Fleet, quite apart from wider strategical considerations which we are not discussing to-day. There is an overwhelming case for modernising, at any rate, one dockyard east of the Suez Canal, and once that is conceded there can be no doubt as to where that dockyard ought to be, and no doubt that the expenditure involved, spread over a period of years, is justified by the actual needs of the Navy and by the

      709
      economies which both in peace and war it would effect. I need not pursue that theme further, because we shall have to return to it in its broader aspects in the near future, but I quite endorse what the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge said, that it is desirable to inquire carefully and to continually review the relative merits and importance of our different dockyards, and even if you cannot scrap one and build it up in another place you can gradually alter the amount of weight which you throw in certain centres and keep it always in a state of adjustment which brings the basic equipment of your mobile fleets into the most effective use. If by peaceful policy we can reduce external dangers, and meet that reduction by making a reduction in our fighting fleet, so much the better for ourselves and for the world, but we must remember that the skeleton framework of our dockyards takes far longer to make good if you neglect it.
      The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): It may be for the convenience of the House if, at this juncture, I deal with some of the points which have been raised, and so remove some of the embarrassment which hon. Members find in keeping off the different sections and wandering from personnel to materiel. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has relieved me of a considerable part of my task by the way he has already dealt with some of the observations which have been made. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) made one or two points of first importance. In the first instance, he drew attention to the resolutions which have been passed by the American Senate in favour of some sort of conference. I cannot say more than that those resolutions have been noted with very great friendliness and very great pleasure by the present Government, who themselves will do all they can to show a reciprocal desire to enter into any negotiations or discussions, no matter by whom they are started, and they will be more particularly welcome if they are started by the great English-speaking nation across the Atlantic. Nothing will be left undone that is within the power of the Government to assist in that direction.
      710
      Reference has been made to the position that our dockyards occupy. No one can deny that the development and the higher offensive power of different weapons can alter very materially the position of the dockyards from the strategical point of view, and probably Pembroke occupies a different position from what it did some time ago. That has not escaped the observation and attention of the Admiralty. This matter and many others which have been raised have already formed the subject of inquiry, and those inquiries will be pursued and probably at the appropriate time some sort of settlement will be arrived at. Then, as was said by the Noble Lady (Viscountess Astor), you cannot ignore, in considering the alteration of or the cutting down of dockyards, the responsibility that the Government, whatever its complexion, has with regard to the populations which have grown up round the various dockyards and are dependent upon them for their very means of livelihood. The point is rather answered by the fact that to a great extent we kept up the personnel of the dockyards through the slump period, but you see the effect of that in those other sections which have grown up round the private shipbuilding yards, where there has been a dearth of work and there followed the results that come from lack of employment. That is one of the difficulties that we find ourselves up against.
      We found, in the construction of the cruisers which are now in hand, that we could not ignore the claims arising from the assembling of plant of very great value and of technical staffs of skill and efficiency comparable with what we find in our own dockyards. They are some of the things we had to give consideration to and they do not make the problem easier when we are considering a possible reduction of armaments and their eventual elimination when all of us have got to that stage of civilisation, here and in other countries. Something has to be done for the young life which has grown up in the dockyard communities, and the Government cannot wholly escape the responsibility imposed upon them in that direction. I gather the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman below

      711
      the Gangway (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy) as to the need for inquiry into the present location of the dockyards and the need for their continuance, but their points of view were different. The hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway hopes for such developments in the direction of doing away with weapons of offence that we might be able to reduce the number of dockyards.
      Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: And turn them over to commercial work.
      Mr. AMMON: On the other hand, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Uxbridge thinks the time has now arrived when you can simply shift a dockyard from one part of the Empire to another to meet changing needs. That raised the ire of a Member of his own party, which demonstrates that this particular discussion is above party. All the points raised by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite will be given consideration to. That they are new is no reason why they should not be given very careful attention.
      I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) that he need have no doubts or fears about the transference of people from Rosyth. There has been no considerable transference of men from Rosyth to other dockyards for a very long time. Our trouble now is to meet the requests of the men, who are at Rosyth, to be transferred to southern dockyards. We have not the accommodation in the South, nor the need for staff, to meet their request, but the Admiralty will not think of doing anything which is likely to land these men in an awkward position. The question was raised about the expenses when they are transferred for Service reasons. The expenses of removal, etc., are borne by the Admiralty. The Geddes Committee suggested that Pembroke should be disposed of, and a similar suggestion has also been made as regards Sheerness. There is evidently an alteration of the point of view of all sides of the House with regard to Pembroke, owing not to political reasons but to strategical reasons at the present time. May I here say that we are ready to consider an offer for Sheerness Dockyard for commercial work? It is still open for sale. With respect to wages in the dockyards, my hon. Friend opposite will be glad to know
      712
      that the wage for the labourers at Malta was increased by over 100 per cent. by a bonus. Since then, the basic wage has been increased by five shillings a week, and the bonus reduced by a similar amount. The bonus is now in accordance with the cost of living. The staffs there are well satisfied at having their basic wage increased, and they have now no fear that that will be cut off later owing to a decrease in the cost of living. I am glad to give the information that that has been a cause of great satisfaction there, and that it will lead to a considerable basic increase for the men concerned.
      Captain Viscount CURZON: I listened with care to the speech which has just been delivered, and I am not satisfied with the answer that has been given. I very strongly support the view put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) that there should be an inquiry into the whole of our dockyard position. I am not clear from anything which has been said by the Parliamentary Secretary that any such inquiry is contemplated. It is a matter of first-class importance that we should examine the position. A good deal has been said in regard to the menace to Chatham from the point of view of the air. Chatham might not only be menaced from the air, but it is within range of long range gun fire from the other side of the Channel. That is a very material point. Of course London is also menaced in that way. Obviously, the enemy would like to be able to put out of action one of our most important strategical centres.
      Chatham as a dockyard is only of limited use to the Royal Navy. That is one of the reasons why it has been so much referred to to-day. I do not think it is realised in this House that Chatham will not be able to take the largest class of aircraft carriers, and will not take the largest type of capital ship. Therefore, as it will only take light cruisers, it has a limited usefulness for the Navy. Rosyth, the arguments for which were put forward so ably by the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson) is in quite a different category. It is a modern dockyard, equipped with the most modern machinery, and it is the only dock which the Navy possesses at the present time into which the battle cruiser "Hood" can be placed when she requires

      713
      docking and refit. Therefore, Rosyth is of very great value. There is a small dockyard, Port Edgar, on the other side of the Firth of Forth. The older dockyards, Portsmouth and Plymouth, hardly come under the same difficulties as Chatham. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) made one or two rather astounding statements. He gave us to understand that Plymouth was not a commercial port. Plymouth is a commercial port. It is more a commercial port than any other naval harbour. It is constantly used by Atlantic liners as a port of call, and I doubt very much whether, if the Admiralty were to vacate Plymouth, it would be used to any greater extent by the mercantile marine of this country or any other country than it is to-day. It is quite possible that some arrangement might be come to toy the Admiralty in regard to Chatham.
      I plead with the Government that they should take seriously into consideration the suggestion of the hon. Member for Central Hull and set up a real inquiry into the whole of our dockyard position. I do not regard a strategic inquiry on the part of the Admiralty as quite sufficient, or that it meets the case. We need to go wider afield than that. If they would set up an inquiry upon which business men could be placed, I think they would have a much better chance, and this House would have a much better chance, of appreciating the position as to whether it was or was not possible to turn Sheer-ness Dockyard or any other dockyard into a commercial port. I am certain that we have more dockyards than our modern Navy requires, either for peace or war conditions, and in view of the tightness of money, I think the position should be reviewed with the greatest care. I agree with what was said in regard to the employés in the yards. They must be our first consideration and our first concern. I am certain that neither this Government nor a Conservative Government nor a Liberal Government could afford to neglect the interests of the employés. Therefore, we might agree upon that and set that question on one side as settled. I do hope that before we pass from this Debate to-day the Government will be able to indicate that they are going to accede to the request put forward by all parties that some more extended inquiry than has been indicated in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary will be set up.
      714
      Dockyards are a form of armament. Armaments have been much alluded to this afternoon. There are a great many people in this country and many Members in this House who, quite sincerely, honestly, heartily and with great vigour and eloquence, continually speak against armaments. Of course, our defensive force has been subjected to withering criticism fore and aft, but I would ask hon. Members whether I am not really stating an actual fact when I say that as far as the British Navy is concerned, ever since the American War of Independence, it has never been used for what can be described as aggressive purposes. I would ask hon Members whether it has not been repeatedly proved that the British Navy has always been one of the greatest factors for peace and stability which has ever existed all over the world. It may be that hon. Members doubt that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I wonder if hon. Members will take the words of an authority in support of my view. I will give them one authority, and I would submit it to hon. Gentlemen opposite with confidence. I will quote Professor Zimmern, who helped to draft the Covenant of the League of Nations in 1918 and who has been in close touch with the work at Geneva ever since. This is what he said at the Co-operative Union Conference at Southport recently:
      "He regarded British sea power, wisely and co-operatively used, as the world's best insurance against war. It had already stopped one war since the establishment of the League, between Serbia and Albania, and it had done it so noiselessly that the world hardly realised its significance."
      He also said:
      "The best way to prevent international difficulties from ripening into disputes was the promotion of a working arrangement for international co-operation."
      That is a very important testimony to the work of the Royal Navy, and I hope that hon. Members who look upon the British Navy as an instrument of militarism, possibly even of aggression, will not forget that testimony of an independent authority.
      I will submit another point for the consideration of the House. All of us, members of every party, are in favour of peace. We desire to keep peace. It has been said by hon. Members opposite that the argument, "If you want peace you must prepare for war," is a fallacy. The

      715
      hon. Member for Bodmin indicated to-day that he did not agree with that phrase. Surely, is the position not this, that if you really want peace it is much better to be able to tell the rest of the world that you mean to have peace and there is only one way in which you can enforce that statement, and that is that you are able to back it up? Even the League of Nations contemplates the use of force to enforce its decrees. You have a much better chance, and you are much more likely to get peace, if you can say that you desire peace and that you have the means, if necessary, of maintaining peace. You can do that if you are able to say to others, "We intend to have peace, and you must break it at your peril." It is no use saying that you are going to have peace and then you have, to beg for it.
      The argument that the Navy is used in an aggressive sense is not justified by the facts. Is it not true that no Government, composed of members drawn from any party, would continue to govern in this country if they ever attempted to use any of our forces in an aggressive sense? The forces of this country are defensive, and nothing else. I was glad to hear what has been said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline in his rather notable speech, and I was particularly glad to hear it, coming from the benches opposite. I only hope that it will command support amongst Members of his own party. I trust that we shall get an assurance from the Government tonight that they will set up the inquiry which has been asked for in all parts of the House.
      Major HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Member who has just sat down (Viscount Curzon) has delivered a vigorous and effective speech. Few Members can speak on this question with greater authority than the Noble Lord. However, when he comes, as he did, down to Plymouth, he is getting dangerously near the constituency which I represent, and I may therefore be permitted to join issue with him. The Noble Lord said that if the Devonport Dockyard were closed down, that would not give rise of necessity to any increase in the use which the mercantile marine makes of the port of Plymouth. The truth of the matter is that Plymouth could be a first-rate commercial port. The Hamoaze is
      716
      necessary, however, if it is to be fully developed as a great commercial port. Ships of more than a certain draught cannot get into the port of Plymouth, and we are constantly hearing of ships which break propellers having to go to Falmouth for repairs. Therefore, if commercial enterprises were allowed to use Devonport Dockyard, there would be a very great increase in the commercial shipping, and Plymouth and the rest of England would derive considerable benefit from it. That is the only point on which I desire to join issue with the Noble Lord.
      For the rest, I very strongly support him in the case which he made out for an inquiry into the uses to which the dockyards can be put. I put a question to the Secretary of the Admiralty upon this point, and I only refer to it now because the answer which he gave was somewhat inconsistent with what he has said this afternoon. I asked him whether he would consider appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the uses to which these dockyards might eventually be put, in view of the inevitable decrease in armaments, and he said:
      "I have no reason for anticipating any cassation of the economical use of the number of Royal dockyards for necessary naval work,"
      and he comes down this afternoon, and forecasts a period in which the dockyards may be of no use whatever. I know he was—
      Mr. AMMON: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I said this is a matter which is being considered by the naval experts. With regard to the other points raised, these would have their consideration—
      7.0 P.M.
      Major HORE-BELISHA: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me. I was alluding to another part of his speech, where he was alluding to the mililennium, in which the dockyards would be eliminated altogether. The whole programme of his party is based on the suggestion that the millennium is coming about. I suggest that now is the moment to consider what commercial uses the dockyards could be put to. For the rest, the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty was entirely vague and innocuous, and he successfully took up the time he occupied in saying absolutely I nothing and giving no indication what-

      717
      ever as to what the policy of the Government really was in regard to the dockyards. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty, from whom we might have expected some expert guidance, devoted a very large section of his speech to an historical disquisition, and he advanced some very cogent reasons for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. There is a great diversity of view as to what really caused the decline of the Roman Empire. Some attribute it to the use of Turkish baths and others to the great consumption of cherries. It is difficult, therefore, in a discussion of this kind to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on a subject which the right hon. Gentleman, judging from the time he gave to it, has very deeply at heart.
      The rest of his speech was entirely a speech of innocuous first principles. He laid down the proposition that what the dockyard workers wanted was security. Everybody will agree with him when he says that, but did he give them security when he was in office? I have the figures here for the employment in the dockyards while he was in office, and I find that in January of last year, in the Devonport dockyard, 11,044 men were employed; in April that number had decreased to 10,841; on the 10th July there were 10,736, and by the 6th October, 10,660. The right hon. Gentleman only began to give security to these workers in Devonport dockyard on the eve of the November election, when the numbers suddenly rose to 11,426. It is therefore rather out of place for him to talk of the virtues of security. The right hon. Gentleman was spoken of this afternoon as a Socialist, and I can only attribute the gradually increasing employment which took place at Rosyth alone during his administration to the fact that there happened to be a Socialist representative of that dockyard in the House. An explanatory memorandum which the First Lord of the Admiralty has issued makes this statement:
      "The labour conditions of the dockyards during the current financial year have been generally stable, and no discharges on reduction have occurred."
      I cannot conceive how he could have come to make a statement of this kind in view of the figures I have just read, and only yesterday, on the question of stability—and he forecast stability for the coming year—the Civil Lord of the
      718
      Admiralty told me that since March, a period during which his Government have been in office, 223 workmen have been discharged from Devonport, 459 from Portsmouth, and 441 from Chatham, and only the other day he was in Portsmouth making a speech in which he prophesied that under the administration of his Government, these workers would be given some surety of tenure.
      That is not all. Not only have these discharges, these very great discharges, been made over the last few weeks, but there are numbers of men under notice to quit; and he also informs me, in reply to the same question, that it is intended to give notice to quit to others. It is true that these men whom it is contemplated discharging do not come under this vote, but they are working side by side with the men who do, and if the Government really wish to play a part in the release of the anxiety of these men, I hope they will reconsider their decision to make these further discharges. It is really most disconcerting to these men to feel that from month to month the numbers to be employed vary so considerably. During the past few years they have been coming into the dockyard and coming out again as though a game of battledore and shuttlecock were going on. I hope this discussion will cause the hon. Gentleman to treat these men with greater humanity. These men should commend themselves to a Socialist Government, if its protestations about nationalisation mean anything at all. They have, in the national dockyard industry, a great many thousands of men, 37,000 I think, with a wages bill of over £7,000,000. They form the greatest nationalised industry in the country, and I think, by virtue of that, they should commend themselves to a Socialist Government.
      I hope that an inquiry will be instituted at no distant date by the Government into the conditions of employment prevailing in the dockyards, because it is not right that men who have served the State for 30 years of their lives should retire at the age of 60 with a pension of £35 a year. They have contributed, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) knows, towards their pensions, and have given the whole of their lives to the national service, and they are thrown out at the age of 60 on a

      719
      pension of £35 a year. That will scarcely be credible to the hon. Gentleman the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. A man who has contributed all his life—may I have the attention of the Civil Lord, because I am sure it will appeal to his humanity; he has fought for the miners, and I am sure, now that he is at the Admiralty, he will fight for the dockyard workers—should not be compelled to go out on the streets at the age of 60 with a pension of £35 a year. I hope the Civil Lord is discussing the desirability of dealing with this matter. A hired man makes no contribution, and when he comes out he gets £1 per week, perhaps, from the Employment Exchange, whereas the established man, who has contributed, finishes up with a pension of 14s. or 15s., or a sovereign a week, and he is in a very much worse position than the other man, and even in a worse position than some old age pensioners, because an old age pensioner and his wife get 20s. in many cases. I think these men should therefore commend themselves to a Socialist Government.
      There is one other small matter concerning the conditions under which the men work, and are paid and pensioned. Here is a representative case illustrating the difference between the pensions given now and the pensions that used to be given. Here is a man who, after 31 years' service, had a pension of 14s. 9d. a week on retiring the other day. If he had retired in 1921 he would have had a pension of 19s. 11d. a week, and if he had retired before the War he would have had a pension of 15s. 5d. He retires to-day, and gets only 14s. 9d. Therefore, the man retiring to-day is getting a lower rate than his comrade who took advantage of the better conditions before the War, or in 1921. The contention of the men retiring to-day is that on the 22nd February, 1922, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that a scheme would be introduced, whereby every pension granted after that time would be granted on such a basis that it would be brought into alignment with the cost of living. That has never been fulfilled, and many are now receiving lower pensions than they would have had before the War. I hope the hon. Member will take this into consideration, not only from the point of view of inequality, but from the point of view of
      720
      the absolute inadequacy of the pensions given to established men in State employment.
      While on the question of the conditions under which men work and are paid, I hope, too, that he will see his way, now that a Socialist Government is in office, to allow these men to have a holiday on pay. This is one of the few services in which the men do not get a holiday on pay at all. There are anomalies in the conditions of their employment. There are two grades of employment in the dockyard which must receive his urgent attention. I refer, of course, to the case of the generating staff, where men are working 56 hours a week, and being paid at a rate which a trade union outside would not recognise. Now that we have a Socialist Government in office, there should not be one moment's delay in seeing that these—[An HON. MEMBER: "What have you been doing all these years?"] If I had been in this House I would have raised the matter long ago, but you have an opportunity, and you may have the whole credit, as far as I am concerned, of doing it, providing you do it, and do not talk about it. Here was I opposed by Labour candidates at two General Elections, who told these men that the moment the Labour Government came into office these ships should no longer be sent to private firms, but would come to the dockyards. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member wish to say something? Now that the duet is over, and the Socialist Government is in power, I hope that the hon. Member will place the general considerations of humanity before the considerations of party and join with me in pressing on the Admiralty the justice of this claim. It does not matter about getting any credit out of it. Here are men working 56 hours a week and receiving a lower rate of pay than the recognised trade union rates. Many of them are elderly men. There is one man in particular who has not had a Christmas day off for 16 years. I hope that the Civil Lord will make it his business to see that these men are paid at a proper trade, union rate.
      It was somewhat surprising when he was asked why such things were tolerated in a national establishment to be told by him that dockyard workmen are in a category apart, and though the conditions are worse and the wages are lower than outside

      721
      side they were not comparable because they were part of a common industry. Every commercial worker now knows that under a system of nationalisation he stands a very good chance of having worse conditions and lower wages, if that is to be the argument. The hon. Member has made a very good reputation by fighting the case of the miners outside, and I hope that he is going to put the same vigour and determination, which are almost unequalled, into operation now to fight for the dockyard workers, and that they will get the full benefit of his trade union experience and his skill in getting concessions out of the Government. The generating men are not the only men in that position. There are yard craftsmen in the dockyards working 100 hours a week. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the conditions and the wages of these workers.
      There has been discussion as to the use to which the dockyards might be put. I hope that as a result we are going to have an inquiry. It so happens that in Devonport and Chatham rope is made, and better rope than can be made by any commercial enterprise outside, and rope-workers come under this Vote. I went through the ropery at Devonport Dockyard the other day, and I found that it was idle, and that established ropemakers are being turned out of the ropery and reduced 8s. a week, with the prospect of losing their establishment and their pensions. Why cannot the Admiralty explore the advantages that might accrue from the use of these roperies in Devonport and Chatham for commercial purposes? I note that the hon. Member for Gilling-ham (Sir G. Hohler) objects to Chatham being used for commercial purposes at all, but so far as Devonport is concerned I hope that the Civil Lord will inquire into the possibilities of using this rope for the national advantage. I am putting a series of questions about it because so many men have lost employment owing to the vast stocks of tarred yarn that have accumulated. During the War the roperies were working at full pressure, and a great deal of rope was produced, evidently more than the Admiralty required. Consequently these roperies are almost closed down.
      There are many other respects in which the dockyards might be used to the advantage of the country in accordance with Socialist principles. I mention this question
      722
      of the ropery, because the dockyard makes a different kind of rope from any produced by commercial firms and is not in competition with commercial firms. Also because a large number of women were formerly employed in the ropery. Whereas the number of women employed in the dockyard at Devonport in 1918 was 1,097, there are only 79 left to-day. These women make flags, doing needlework, upholstery and French polishing, and they work in the ropery. They receive a very low rate of wages, but the main point is that all these women are the widows of regular service men or the widows of dockyard men, and if we get 1,000 widows back into the dockyards it would be doing a great service to humanity.
      It cannot be said—and I regret to have to make the observation—that the present Government have been more favourably disposed towards these nationalised industries than any previous Government. So far no attempt has been made to give just wages and just conditions of work. No inquiry has been made into the disparity between the wages in the dockyards in some categories and those outside, and no endeavour has been made to demonstrate to the country that work in a nationalised industry is better, both as regards conditions and payment, than work in a commercial firm. Our Socialist Government have an excellent opportunity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and I am glad to have these cheers, which, I hope, mean as much bite as bark from hon. Members—of saying, "Here we have a ready-made nationalised industry. We are going to show the country and the world that we can run this industry a great deal better than any commercial firm." I hope that before the Socialist Government go out of office they will have demonstrated that they meant what they said when they said that they believed in nationalisation. So far the Government have shown their anxiety to foster private enterprise rather than public enterprise, and I was surprised when the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty said he was open to receive an offer for Sheerness. It is not often that a Socialist Government endeavours to secure offers of that kind.
      The Government have already spent colossal sums on private yards, and are ready to give guarantees to private shipyards. Although I do not minimise the distress that prevails, the

      723
      nation is under no obligation to provide work in private yards, because it does not undertake commercial shipbuilding. I notice that no money is allocated for the construction of mercantile vessels in the Royal Dockyards. There was some last year, but one would have thought that this Government would have explored the possibility of putting the dockyards to commercial use. I notice that the armour and gun mountings of the ships that are being laid down are going to private firms. Therefore I am disappointed in the hope, which I had genuinely in my breast when this Government took office, that something would be done to vindicate the principle of the nationalisation of industry, and I would press on the Civil Lord that he should institute an inquiry at once as to what commercial use these dockyards can be put to, and reconsider the policy of subsidising private firms when there is no reciprocity, and, generally, survey the whole condition of the rate of pay of hired men and of established men, and the claims of women and the pensions question, in order that the nationalised industries may be an example to the whole world.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not propose to deal with the speech of the hon Member for Devonport (Major Hore-Belisha) except to say that I am particularly delighted to know that he would like to see this Government go in for nationalisation and for social experiment.
      Major HORE-BELISHA: Not go in for, but to utilise what they have there.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: Therefore, I hope that when the hon. Member goes to his constituency, he will not indulge in wild criticism of Socialism.
      Major HORE-BELISHA: I never do.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: He will probably have a Labour opponent, and so I hope that he will be able to speak for himself. I would like to remind the hon. Member that we have only been in office for three months.
      Major HORE-BELISHA: Five months.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: Is it five months? It does not seem so long as that, but in five months you cannot undo all the work of previous Governments. But I did not rise to deal with the speech of the hon. Member, but to deal with some of the
      724
      speeches made this afternoon concerning the problem of peace. I think that nearly every Member who has participated in this Debate has expressed the hope that peace should reign on this earth, and we have had peculiar philosophies concerning the way you arrive at peace. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) suggested that the way to get peace was to say that we are able to back up our own particular point of view. If it be true we have got to be strong enough to back up our case, then, obviously, that philosophy has universal application, and the other fellow has got to be strong enough to back up his case. They have all got to be strong enough to back up their case, which means that each nation has got to be stronger than the other. That is the obvious and natural conclusion of that argument.
      The right hon. Member for the Sparkbrook division of Birmingham (Mr. Amery) suggested that our Navy has always stood for the peace of the world. I do no want—to use a vulgarism—to throw the cat among the pigeons, but it has always been our boast, on the one hand, that we are the boys with the bulldog grip, and, on the other, that we have built up the greatest Empire which the world has ever seen, because we were pacifists. Did we get this Empire by pacifism or by fighting? If we are honest we will say that the British Navy and British foreign policy have been responsible for as many wars in the world as the policy of any nation. But the sequel to the argument is that if we want peace and armaments make for peace then the more we arm and the more other nations arm the greater danger there is of peace. What does that mean? If we all disarmed and there were no armies and no navies at all, what terrible Armageddons we should have; what terrible battles there would be if there were no one to fight them and no battleships and no equipment for life destroying!
      We know, of course, that that is not true. We know that the more we arm the more other nations arm, and the more suspicion and temper there is in the world. We then arrive at the position when the assassination of a Crown Prince is all that is necessary to produce a universal war. Surely the last war taught us something! If armaments make for peace, why, during

      725
      the propaganda of the last war, did you blame the Germans for arming and preparing during 40 years? The truth is that experience has taught us that when nations are armed you get war. Suppose that we all decided as individuals that we would carry revolvers. I have lived in a part of the world where men carried revolvers, where they had guns and used them, and there were far more deadly feuds there than in any country where men are not armed. The Noble Lady who represents the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) suggested that the greatest enemy of peace was the pacifist. Let us see where that leads us. Was the Kaiser a great Pacifist? Suppose that in 1914 Carl Liebknecht had been the Foreign Minister of Germany, that M. Jaurés had been Foreign Minister of France, and that the present Prime Minister of England had been Foreign Minister of this country. If we had had such a Pacifist at the head of our foreign policy in 1914 I make bold to say that—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite recognise that there has been a very wide discussion permitted so far, but there must be some limit to the degree of latitude allowed. The hon. Member must try to hinge the Navy on to his argument.
      Mr. HAYCOCK: I do not like to transgress the rules, and all I am doing is replying to the arguments of the hon. Member for Sutton, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and the Noble Lord (Viscount Curzon) who represents South Battersea. They have had the privilege of making certain assertions, and I felt that I ought to have the opportunity of bringing forward arguments against them. If I break the rules I am sorry. I will not pursue that subject further, but will pass to the question of work. No person is more interested than I am in providing employment. I realise what a tragedy it is for skilled men to be out of work, and what a danger it is to the economic future of this country if such men are forced to emigrate. We try to find work by building cruisers, but if we are to think in terms of disarmament we must think of alternative employment for these men. There is no question about that.
      Rather than build cruisers I would build, say, 10 passenger steamers, which would cost no more than one cruiser, and would not cost any more to keep afloat.
      726
      I would use those passenger steamers in a national service. We could have floating sanatoria. We could use the steamers for emigration purposes, particularly group emigration, and we could use them in a thousand and one other ways. To say that we must arrange things just to produce more work, without having any idea for what end that work is to be used, is unreasonable There are some people who believe that if the Almighty had made the earth barren, and if we had had to work 22 hours out of the 24, we would all be better off. Work should not be an end in itself. If we could employ these men on other things it would mean that the total wealth of the nation would be increased. We cannot leave these men in the lurch. We must so organise things that we are able to look after the members of the community who need our help. Many of these men are now unemployed. We shall need them in future. The skill of these men is an addition to the assets of the country. I would like to see things so planned that they would be engaged on such work as would not only bless them but bless the 45,000,000 of people in these islands.
      Mr. H. M. SEELY: In consequence of the ruling from the Chair, I cannot follow very far the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I must say that I agreed entirely with his statement that in dealing with this question we have to consider alternative work when we have done away with the dockyards. Throughout this Debate, in spite of the dockyard Members and all that has been said, we still find running through it the line which was started by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy). He raised a very important question, which has not been answered satisfactorily either by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook or by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, namely, the very large question of what is to be the policy for the dockyards of this country. As has been said, the dockyards were started and developed because they were needed by the country. Times have altered, and we have got now to the difficulty that we cannot afford to spend any money except on what is actually necessary.
      We want a very thorough inquiry into the whole Question of these dockyards and

      727
      the future policy of the Government towards them. Could not a Royal Commission be set up to investigate the whole matter? It is a very vital question, which will affect us if ever there is a war again. In the last War we found that some of these dockyards, which were very large and had been very important before the War, were not of the use that they should have been, because of their position. That was the case with Chatham and to a smaller extent with Portsmouth. The defence which was put up so ably on a rather weak case in reference to Chatham was one which is going to play a bigger part in this question than many of us realise. It was brought in also by an hon. Member for Portsmouth. I refer to the question of the future of the air. Where are you to have the dockyards? They must be properly protected from air attack. I do not believe in the theory that Pembroke is safe from the air and that Chatham necessarily is in a dangerous position, because none of us can foresee what strength in the air will be in 10 years' time. I would urge that a Commission be set up to review the whole question and to see what dockyards are of the greatest use and the greatest strategical value to the Navy.
      Sir A. SHIRLEY-BENN: I shall not follow the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Haycock) in his interesting speech. I agree that it would be the very best thing in the world if armaments could be reduced and if we could live in peace, but I am sure that there is no Member here who would be prepared to stand up and fight with his naked fists a man armed with knuckle-dusters. We are living in a world of armed men. We have a vast Empire spread all over the world. Our highways are the oceans, and unless we can police them we cannot be certain that our people can go through them with safety. It is, therefore, necessary that we should maintain our Fleet. No matter what Government is in power, the maintenance of the Fleet is necessary for the salvation of the country. Therefore, we must have armaments. Our dockyards should not only be the first dockyards in the world, but we ought to have there the best men in the world, and we ought to pay them properly, and be sure that when they retire their pensions are sufficient to keep them from want. In 1919 I was in
      728
      America. I went to one of the biggest shipbuilding yards and there talked with three leading men. Each of them told me that he had worked in the dockyards at home, and that he went out to America only because he could not find work in this country. Fortunately, those men were helping to build ships for our friends, but they might have been building them for our enemies. A Commission of Inquiry has been suggested. It would be a most advisable thing, and I hope that the Government will give close consideration to the suggestion, with a view of ascertaining whether it is not possible so to utilise the dockyards that they could always be working.
      Mr. ARNOLD WILLIAMS: Had I taken part in the Debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) last evening, I should have stressed the fact that I was not concerned in the amount of the expenditure so much as in the question of whether the money was well spent. I am really concerned as to whether we get full value for our money. I think, therefore, it is time somebody in this Debate spoke from the point of view of the taxpayer. So far I have not heard anyone speak from that point of view. I would ask, not in any critical spirit, whether our money is being spent to the best advantage?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I initiated it.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry if I have misrepresented the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I think he will agree, by the time I have finished, that what I have said is correct. On the total Estimates I find there is an expenditure of £4,500,000 more than in 1914–15, and bearing in mind the change in value of our currency, we are apt to think this fact means that the Navy Estimates are satisfactory. I do submit, however, that these figures lend themselves to legitimate criticism, and, in some cases, call for fairly drastic reduction. May I remind the Committee that the personnel of the Navy to-day is only two-thirds of what it was in 1914–15, and that whereas, on the one hand, the personnel itself is costing us £16,500,000 more than in 1914–15, the second part of our Vote, which is concerned with the ships and the matériel, is costing £12,250,000 less? The personnel is £16,500,000 up, and the

      729
      matériel is £12,250,000 down. If I take that in detail per head of the numbers in 1914–15, the personnel cost us £119, whereas this coming year it is going to cost us £294, an increase of £175. On the matériel side, whereas in 1914–15 it cost us £202 per unit, now it has dropped to £181, a decrease of £21. I submit there is something sadly wrong, or something you will not find in any business in the country, and that there is some justification for asking why that should be.
      Then, while the staff in 1914–15 was 1,850, in the coming year it is going to be 2,789. Looking further, I find that the number of men employed has only varied by 300. Why, therefore, is it necessary that we should have 838 more men on the staff to look after only 300 men more than there were in 1914–15? It means that, whereas, in 1914–15, one staff man could look after 23 men, now a staff man is only capable of looking after 17. There may be some just reply to my question. If there is, I think the Committee ought to have it. I find, further, that comparing our total costs with costs outside, whereas in outside yards the wages were 70 per cent. more than pre-War—and I do not think that is adequate—our wages are 167 per cent. more than pre-War. In December, 1921, the Geddes Committee suggested that we ought not to have a personnel of more than 86,000 officers and men in that year. Here we are, two years afterwards, still providing for 14,500 more men than the Geddes Committee considered was quite adequate. On this particular Vote, out of every £1 voted in the year 1914–15, the wages paid away were 11s. 9d., while 8s. 3d. was paid for stores. In 1924–25, we are going to pay 16s. 4d. for wages and 3s. 8d. for stores, an increase in wages from 11s. 9d. to 16s. 4d. and a drop in stores from 8s. 3d. to 3s. 8d. I do submit that this is a fact, which is not borne out in any business in the country, that wages have gone up so much. They have gone up tremendously, but, even if we agree with that, it is not a fact that materials have gone down to that extent in business. By reference to outside shipyards, we get some light on it, and we find that for every £1 spent in our dockyards on matériel, £3 has to be spent in wages. In outside shipyards, for every £1 spent
      730
      in matériel, they only need 30s. for wages. I submit there is something to account for this, but what it is I do not know—either the situation of the dockyards, lack of labour-saving appliances, or something else.
      Sir B. FALLE: In one case it is fresh work, and in the other repair work.
      Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very glad to have that explanation, but I do not think it explains the huge difference. I should not agree with that in the ordinary business way. We have a 75 per cent. increase in the wages bill and 18 per cent. reduction in the cost of materiel. That does not explain the difference. There is one other point I should like to make. There are actually 548 policemen required for eight dockyards, and this year they are costing us £156,000. The hon Member for Bootle (Major Burnie) mentioned that the population of Bootle was 78,000 and only needed 100 policemen. Do we want 548 policemen for our eight dockyards? Looking at the question of experiments, again from the point of view of the taxpayers, let me say that, provided this money is being well spent, I shall not criticise it. I was one of the few Members on these benches who voted in favour of the five cruisers. I am not competent to deal with policy. I am only asking, Are we getting a pound's worth for every pound we spend? In 1914 we could carry on our experimental work with a staff of 36, which cost us £8,500. This year there is a staff of 147, who are going to cost us £50,500. Do we need four times as many men, costing us six times as much money, for experiments? Are we getting full value for our money? I only ask, is there any reason for this difference between 1914–15 and the current year? If so, the taxpayers would like to know what it is.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to hold up the Vote, but there is one question that can only be raised on this Vote; otherwise the opportunity is lost. The other day the hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Bramsdon) raised the question of workmen in the dockyard at Gibraltar. He pointed out that some 800 Spaniards come from Linea and work in the dockyard there, and he asked whether Britishers could not be employed. I am informed that at Gibraltar British working men who

      731
      live there are out of employment. The Admiralty official answer that there is no accommodation for extra British subjects for work in the dockyard therefore, I think, falls to the ground, and I think if there is unemployment in Gibraltar, and it is in any way possible to house British workers, employment should be found in the coal-ships and dockyard for Britishers rather than for these Spaniards who come from Linea. I have nothing to say against these Spaniards—I saw them a good deal during the War—but our own people should come first.
      My other question is with regard to the inquiry at which the Parliamentary Secretary hinted. I wish he had been a little more explicit. I know his difficulty. The Noble Lord who represents the Admiralty is not in this House, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will represent the tenour of the Debate to him, but with the exception of one or two dockyard Members, I think I carry the Committee with me when I say on all hands it has been agreed that some inquiry is needed into the number of our dockyards, and whether they are redundant or not. It has been pointed out, even by the hon. Member who represents Rosyth, that the feeling of uncertainty in the minds of the men employed in the dockyards has a bad effect on the work. Further, I hope in the inquiry there will be an investigation into the use that can be made of the dockyards for useful work, in view of what is bound to take place in our expenditure on armaments, especially naval armaments.
      8.0 P.M.
      I would like my hon. Friend to be more explicit on those points. It is no use having experts at the Admiralty to look into this matter. You want business men for such an inquiry, and impartial persons, including naval representatives. The whole matter should be properly reviewed, and I hope that will be done. I hope this inquiry will also include the question of Gibraltar itself as a dockyard. Gibraltar is open to mobile artillery fire from Spanish territory, and in the unhappy event of our being involved with war with a hostile Spain, the dockyard would be untenable and useless, quite apart from any aeroplane question. I have suggested to previous Governments
      732
      that the matter should be very carefully examined, with a view to seeing if some arrangement could be come to with our Spanish friends to exchange Gibraltar for Ceuta on the other side. Ceuta would be much safer, as being unexposed to artillery fire, and Ceuta has a hinterland with which trade could be opened, while Gibraltar never does any trade at all with Spain. No trade comes from Andalusia into Gibraltar. The only trade is with passing vessels. Whereas Ceuta could tap the rich and potentially important territories of Morocco, and a very great trading port could be established and built up there.
      It really is a question that cannot be put off until the day comes when we may find that we are in a very difficult position indeed in Gibraltar. This is a matter which might well be submitted to the Committee of Inquiry, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give them that problem to decide. In regard to docks, the present docking position, if we are going on with the building of capital ships after 1931 when the Washington Conference Agreement will come to an end, is extremely serious. Outside the United Kingdom there are only two docks on British territory that can take the latest warships—one at Quebec and the other at St. Johns, New Brunswick. There are two others under construction, one at Esquimault and the other at Durban, and we are lengthening the German dock at Malta. We have built these super-Dreadnoughts, and great aircraft carriers, without providing docks for them except in the United Kingdom, and when we talk about the mobility of the Fleet, that fact is apt to be overlooked. This matter should also form part of the inquiry. Another point is whether dock expenditure is not capital expenditure, and should be met by a loan instead of out of income.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC —MATéRIEL.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £5,397,900, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Materiel for Shipbuilding. Repairs, Maintenance, etc., at Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
      Sir T. BRAMSDON: In connection with the subject of the use of material in the construction of ships, I wish to draw attention to one or two points in connection with shipbuilding which bear very materially on the comfort of the lower deck of the Navy. The cooking galleys at the present time are constructed in the mess decks of ships. That is a very great drawback at times to the living accommodation of the men of the lower deck. When the men are in their hammocks of a morning, and the early cooking is proceeding, a very objectionable, poisonous smell is conveyed throughout the mess deck of the ship, to the annoyance and inconvenience of the men on those mess decks. I am advised there is no real objection to the placing of those galleys on the upper decks except when the ships are at sea in heavy weather. But I am told there ought to be no difficulty in covering those galleys, and so giving proper ventilation at the sides which will enable them to be used there satisfactorily. This question has been frequently brought up by the men of the lower deck, who have experienced considerable annoyance and inconvenience from the present position of the ships' and officers' galleys. They desire me to bring this matter up for consideration. When they bring it forward in a formal and official way, they are told that the suggestion is "Not Approved." That is the official method of turning a thing down. They desire me to suggest that these cooking galleys should be removed from the mass decks and placed higher in the ships so that objectionable results will not follow. I shall be told that this is not possible, and that the matter has already been gone into fully by the naval architects. The best answer to that is, that in some foreign ships the galleys are placed in the position I have mentioned, much to the comfort of the men. I would instance, in particular, two United States ships in which this situation exists, namely, the "Maine" and the "Colorado." If it can be done in foreign ships, surely there can be no objection to their being similarly situated in our own ships. Another question, in regard to which the lower deck find a good deal of difficulty, is that they have not a direct approach between the mess deck and the galley of those ships which have their ship's galleys, on the upper deck. They
      734
      have to go upstairs into the open, collect their food, and at times in cold and inclement weather, by the time they have got it down below the possibility is that it is very much affected by the cold.
      I would also direct attention to the living quarters in the lower mess decks, particularly in the oil fuel ships, near the chain lockers. I have spoken about the smell which exists in connection with the galleys, but perhaps that is nothing compared with the poisonous smell which exists in these places. Proper ventilation is needed, and I am told there ought to be no difficulty in bringing it about. I am sure we all wish that the members of the lower deck should live in something like peace and comfort under conditions which are often below the water-line. This could be done if there were only some desire to assist the lower deck. I sometimes wonder whether the architects who construct these ships ever board them at sea in order to realise the inconvenience created by this mass of life which exists in these difficult conditions. There is also the question of the lighting of these mess decks. It is at the present time practically all electric light, and I understand there should be no difficulty in getting natural light fittings substituted for iron coverings where the decks are piered for fuel and ammunition supplies, as it is often inconvenient and unpleasant for the men to live under these conditions. They are happy, I know, in the ordinary sense of the word, but the conditions in which they live ought to be improved wherever possible. Another circumstance with which they have to contend is that their living accommodation is very often encroached upon by space being allocated to various other objects. I suppose that in the course of construction there is a maximum and a minimum quantity of air space which is allowed for the mess decks of the ship. At first, such regulations are carried out, but for various reasons which intervene very often between the officers of the ship and the dockyard authorities this space is curtailed by various other things being introduced, which lessen the space between decks and leaves an insufficient amount of air space available. Cabins are sometimes constructed on these mess decks. In the space where cabins are built in the ship at first there is a good deal of space left around them,

      735
      but if any new cabins are wanted that is never considered the proper place for them to be built. Thus cabins are placed in various positions on the mess decks to the detriment of the air space of the men. This should be remedied.
      I want to refer to the vocational training of the men which has for its object the fitting of them for outside employment. This matter of vocational training of ex-professional sailors was considered by an inter-Departmental Committee, consisting of representatives of the Army, the Navy and of the Civil Service. It was appointed some throe-years ago with the idea of enabling ex-sailors to earn their living when they are discharged from the Navy. I submit that our sailors and marines, who are discharged sometimes without pension, should be so taught during this vocational training as to fit them to occupy positions in after life. There is a good deal of talk about this, but the actual result is limited. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will be one of the first to consider this a most desirable thing in the interests of the men. Some vocational training is already carried on, but to nothing like the extent it might be. Up to now the amount of vocational training has been more owing to voluntary effort than due to the encouragement from official sources. In connection with safeguarding our dockyards and the vast materials they contain, metropolitan policemen are employed. Some time ago a Committee recommended that the Metropolitan Police should be done away with in these dockyards for economical reasons. It recommended that in their place marines might well be employed, and also, perhaps, exsailors. I should like to know if anything has been done to carry out the extension of these suggestions because the safeguarding of these vast quantities of material is a very important matter indeed. If the Admiralty can assist by extending the policy of employing ex-sailors and marines especially on water patrols, and thus set Metropolitan Police free for employment elsewhere it would be a very economical arrangement and utilise the services of these men. I also wish to ask why it is that ex-naval
      736
      clerical ratings are not allowed to sit for the examination for Grade 3 clerks, and to know if the commanders-in-chief at the different dockyards have been consulted on this question. This is another point in connection with which use could be made of ex-naval men and it would be a great boon to them.
      Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I desire to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty to one matter which arises in connection with this Vote, and I do so in no spirit of controversy against the hon. Gentleman. He is no-doubt aware of the letter recently sent by the Treasury to the Admiralty drawing attention to the very large sums of money which the Admiralty in the past have demanded from this House, and which in the course of the year for which they are voted not being spent. Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, put the question to the Committee a few minutes ago that a large sum should be spent on this Vote, and the gross total of Section II of Vote 8 shows a very meagre reduction in comparison with the Estimates for last year. In this connection I turn to the Appropriation in Aid Accounts—the last Report published—dealing with this particular Vote, and with the experience of a previous year. In the year 1922–23 the Admiralty asked this House to grant £4,322,000, but in the Appropriation in Aid Accounts, page 31, I find that the Admiralty only spent £2,590,000. In other words, the Admiralty at that time asked the House of Commons to grant nearly double the sum which was actually required. Is the experience to be repeated this year? Let me press upon the attention of the Financial Secretary the letter which, as I have already mentioned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has addressed to the Admiralty on this subject. I find on page 143 of the Appropriation in Aid Accounts that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes grave exception to the practice, which the Admiralty have followed during the last few years of asking and receiving much more money than they require. On page 144 of the statement to which I refer I find these words:
      "If due allowance had been made for these factors, the original Estimates could

      737
      apparently have been reduced by at least £3,000,000."
      As I say, the present Vote only shows a meagre reduction in comparison with last year's Estimate. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, will he take steps during the coming year to curtail the very large expenditure on this Vote? During the last few years we have protested against the large sums of money which the Admiralty have requisitioned, and judging by the Appropriation-in-Aid Accounts our protests have been well grounded. It must be apparent to Members of the Government that the successful Budget of the Chancellor of Exchequer has been made possible by the large reduction in public expenditure. As the Budget has been made possible by large reductions in expenditure my request to him is that he should take steps to stop this over-budgetting. If this Committee places large sums at the disposal of the Navy, and the officials of the Navy throughout the world, it is only to be expected from human nature that the money should be spent. I am not arguing, at the moment, whether it is well spent or not, but if this Committee votes large sums of money it is natural that officials should not show the same carefulness as they would show if only a small sum were available. In view of the very trenchant criticism directed by the Treasury against the political chiefs of the Admiralty I hope we may have some assurance that the practice will cease and that in future years the taxpayers will receive the benefit which should accrue to them.
      Sir B. FALLE: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raised the question of the Gibraltar dockyard and it seems to mo, speaking with your permission, Sir, that it is a question which should have been raised on this Vote rather than on the last Vote. The hon. and gallant Member told us what he had learned some few years ago, namely that the dockyard at Gibraltar was within the range of fire from the Spanish shore, and therefore the dockyard at Gibraltar might be destroyed by Spanish fire from Algeciras. He did not, however, tell us what the guns of Gibraltar would be doing during the time that the Spanish guns were firing on
      738
      them. On this theory he proposes that we should exchange Gibraltar for a place which is called Ceuta which apparently he seems to think produced valuable commodities but which at the present moment, if we can judge by what appears in the newspapers, is producing only ferocious gentlemen known as Riffians, who it seems are "rightly struggling to be free" from the Spaniards. He adduced no real argument, firstly why Gibraltar should be taken over by the Spanish Government or, secondly, why we should be so unwise as to exchange a valuable property for one which would be at the mercy of the Riffians.
      Earlier in the day a very great authority told us that he thought so far as repairs were concerned, the dockyards were the natural home of such work, but that private yards were better for building than the Royal Dockyards. I do not altogether quarrel with what the right hon. Gentleman said. Having been a First Lord he must know a great deal more about the matter than I do, but I recall that a Dreadnought was built in a Royal Dockyard and was the finest ship of her time. She was built by Government employés, in the quickest time on record I believe only one year elapsed from the laying down of her keel until she was launched—a record which, I believe, no private yard could approach. I have been troubling, I am afraid, the Front Bench opposite for some little time on the subject of building engines and repairing engines in Portsmouth. We think at Portsmouth that we can construct boilers, particularly, just as well as any body outside, if not a bit better, and, such being the case and this being a Government yard, in which the Government desire to find as much employment as possible, we do not see why we should not have the building of all those boilers which are now going to be used in the five light cruisers, which, I presume, it is now definitely settled shall be built. There is another point which I have brought forward, I am afraid, on more than one occasion, and that is the fact that there is only one slip at Portsmouth and one at Devonport in which a small ship can be built or repaired, and there is no dock on the southern coast, except at Portsmouth, which will take a big ship. That seems to me very anomalous, and—
      The CHAIRMAN: That should be discussed on Vote 10, and not on this Vote. Vote 10 deals with "Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad."
      Sir B. FALLE: Can I not discuss this on Vote 8, which is "Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc."?
      The CHAIRMAN: That is the heading, but what we are now dealing with is Section II of Vote 8, the expense of the matériel for shipbuilding, repairs, and maintenance.
      Sir B. FALLE: I would not for a moment go against your ruling, but if that means that I can discuss the repairs of ships in the dockyards, but not the places in which they were built, it seems to me that the heading is incorrect. Where does the slip come in?
      The CHAIRMAN: Section III deals with shipbuilding under contract.
      Sir B. FALLE: But not at the Royal Dockyards.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but it cannot be discussed on Vote 8.
      Sir G. COLLINS: On a point of Order. May I direct your attention to Vote 10, "Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad," rather implying that it is for capital expenditure, and if I understand the hon. Member aright, this point is not dealing with capital expenditure but the ordinary repairs of ships. On Vote 10, under the heading, "Works, Buildings, and Repairs at Home and Abroad," are these words: "To defray the expense of works, buildings, and repairs at home and abroad."
      Mr. AMERY: May I submit that the difficulty is this: Vote 8, Section I, deals with the personnel engaged on the repairs in the dockyards; Vote 8, Section II, deals with the materiel employed in that same work, and I suggest that the question of ship repairing can be discussed from the point of view of the materiel expenditure required in carrying it out as well as from the point of view of the men required to do it.
      The CHAIRMAN: I assumed the hon. Member was asking for an extension of the dockyard.
      Sir B. FALLE: I was, and if I am allowed to discuss the repairs to ships I thought I should be allowed to discuss the place in which the ships were repaired. That might, however, be a, little extension of your ruling, and so I will not press it.
      Mr. AMMON: There are not a great number of points with which I have to deal at the present moment. The first was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Sir T. Brasmsdon), and had to do with the use of Metropolitan Police in the dockyards and their substitution by Royal Marines and others. That point has already been met. The Metropolitan Police have now been substituted by the Royal Marines who are used in our naval armament establishments, and at this moment I think I ought to take credit to the Admiralty for that fact. I announced it in my opening statement in introducing the Estimates, but it may have been overlooked in the great mass of detail, and I am glad to have had this further opportunity of bringing it to the notice of the hon. Gentleman. He raised another point, a complaint to the effect that ex-naval clerical ratings are not allowed to sit for the Grade 3 examination. Grade 3 clerks are dockyard civilians, and the examinations are governed by the Civil Service Regulations, which exclude these pensioners. It is not a matter that the Admiralty can alter, but some other Department will have to be pressed by my hon. Friend to see whether that particular reform can be brought about.
      I want to deal now with the point which the hon. Member raised about vocational training. While it is true that vocational training is not as widespread as we should like it to be, there has been a pretty fair start made in this connection, and arrangements have been made at the home ports to institute vocational training in trades suitable to men when they go back into civil life. Particular attention is given to it for men in their final year of service, and arrangements have been made for them to join municipal and technical schools in different parts and to get instruction in certain subjects. It is true that for the most part the funds are provided by the fees paid by the men themselves, and, of course, by grants which come from the education authori-

      741
      ties, but I hope that this matter may prove so successful in future that there will be a representative from the Admiralty with courage enough to stand at this box and ask for the money to take it over wholly. I can assure the hon. Member that we will leave nothing undone to extend this vocational training as and when opportunity arises.
      As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G Collins), it is true that to a large extent it seems that some charge would lie with regard to over-Budgeting by the Admiralty, but it would not be, to use a colloquialism, playing the game if one should let it go quite at that, without having regard to the factors that contributed to that over-Budgeting, especially during the last year. The one that occurred to my mind immediately, and the most serious, was that the boilermakers' lock-out extended over a considerable period and delayed the construction of those capital ships now on the stocks, which would have taken up a great deal of money that was granted under the last Budget. My hon. Friend shakes his head, but he is surely not seriously suggesting that capital ships can be built for a trifle in these days?
      Sir G. COLLINS: I do not want to inter into controversy with my hon. Friend, but the figures I quoted were for 1922–23, and I think, if my memory serves me correctly, the boilermakers dispute was in 1923, the year after.
      Mr. AMMON: I admit that I was referring to last year, but, even then, there is hardly ever a year in which there have not been trade disputes or other factors which have delayed work and thrown out of gear all the arrangements, and dockyards are particularly susceptible to this sort of thing. Then, last year, of course, there was the effect of the Geddes axe, and there was the cutting down of the programme adumbrated by my right hon. Friend opposite, and I am guilty of presenting a much smaller programme than he suggested, which would also account for a considerable reduction. I am defending, as I know he would do, in like circumstances, the Estimates from the point of view of those who were in office immediately before me, whatever politics might be represented. So much for the past. As to the present, so far as we are concerned, we have taken
      742
      serious heed of the letter from the Treasury, and it has already been expressed to me by one, who shall be nameless, of the officials in one Department that they did not expect they were going to get a lot with a Yorkshireman and a Scotsman at the Treasury. We have endeavoured to budget in such a way that we shall not have the charge of overbudgeting repeated against us on the occasion of the Estimates next year.
      Mr. AMERY: May I just say one word to supplement the clear explanation given by the hon. Gentleman as to the over-budgetting. There have been exceptional circumstances. Very heavy war charges were anticipated which, in some cases, owing to the devoted labours of the Admiralty staff, were substantially reduced far below any that originally might have been supposed they could reasonably be cut down to. Then again in connection with the suggestions of the Geddes Committee, the Admiralty have gone to the lowest point to cut down, consistently with other considerations, and in trying to produce detailed economies in fulfilment of the pledge given to the Cabinet. This is a matter for which I do not wish to take credit for those on this side of the House, but I should like that the credit due should be given to the Admiralty staff for their services in this matter. Other economics were forced upon us, and in many matters in which the House voted certain things the Treasury managed successfully to carry on a correspondence until such a time that it was impossible to spend all the money within the year. I want to say just one other word in defence of the Department against the criticism of the Treasury, and that is that our over-budgetting, and that of other service Departments, was a small thing compared with the £40,000,000 to £100,000,000 a year of over-budgetting which the Treasury Bench managed to get during the last three years.
      Sir G. COLLINS: How grave is the over-budgeting by the Admiralty is seldom realised. In my opening remarks I was not anxious to weary the House with figures, but in view of what has been said, and in view of the Treasury letter only having been sent to the Admiralty on the 22nd of June, may I remind the Committee of the following facts? From the Financial Statement published with

      743
      the Budget the House of Commons was informed that the Naval Estimates 1923–24 amounted to £58,000,000, while the actual expenditure was only £52,000,000. In view of the £9,000,000 which the Labour Government are spending this year in excess of the actual expenditure of last year—that is the contribution they are asking from the taxpayer this year—I suggest to the First Lord of the Admiralty that in this particular Vote he will apply his pruning knife ruthlessly and drastically so that the taxpayers in the coming year may receive, and may expect to receive, further reductions in taxation.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—CONTRACT WORK.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum not exceeding £5,820,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
      Sir B. FALLE: I should like to raise a point in respect to the building and repairs of vessels in the two southern yards. The contract work suggests giving a monopoly to the private yard. The giving of this monopoly means that there cannot be that competition that there ought to be. Whether it be a Labour Government, or a Socialist Government, or a mixture of the two, or a Conservative or a Liberal Government, competition will be recognised as necessary. The Government dockyards are practically nationalised, because they have been built up and aided by the Government, and it is right and proper that they should have, at any rate, the opportunity of building the ships of war. There is only one slip at Portsmouth, and one at Devonport. Perfectly irrespective of whether I represent Portsmouth or some other place, it is most important that they should be able to build ships there. There is room at Portsmouth and Devonport to make one or two other slips on which, at a pinch, another ship may be built. There is room at Portsmouth and Devonport to lay down proper docks and to dock big ships, and it seems to me that it is more than ever necessary, now that we have come to a time in which we believe we are going to get peace—according to
      744
      some optimistic people, for many years—some do not see in the least why we should ever be at war again!—now is the time when we are at peace and we shall annoy nobody by building, that we should attend to some of these things, so that we should be able to build ships even if it should be only those steamers that have already been mentioned in the course of the Debate. If we are to turn those docks to building commercial ships, at any rate we must have, first of all, a slip on which to build them, and a dock into which we can put those ships if injured either by collision or by war or by anything else. At the present moment we cannot do that. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this is not the moment to launch into such extravagance as the building of a slip or a new dock at either of our southern dockyards, but I maintain that it would not be extravagance, and that now, in time of peace, is the moment we might proceed with this work without offending anyone.
      I am strongly in favour of the Singapore base, but that would not be much use if you let down the docking facilities and other necessities at home. If you cannot make provision for doing the necessary repairs at home it is almost useless having dockyards anywhere else. There is no provision at the present time at Portsmouth to dock a ship of the size of the "Hood." I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will fully investigate this matter, because I am sure that he will find that these dockyards are not fulfilling the purpose for which they were primarily built in regard to accommodating large ships. I think it would be a wise thing to provide a second slip at the places which I have suggested on which, if necessary, we might build further ships to assist our Navy.
      Mr. HARLAND: We intended to raise on this Vote the whole question of the cruiser programme reduction, but as we wish to see an increase in the vote we propose to deal with that matter on the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty.
      Mr. AMERY: I do not wish to raise the general question of policy involved in the cutting down by something like one-half of the programme which I foreshadowed some months ago. All I wish to do now

      745
      is to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will tell the Committee how far actual progress has been made with the giving out of the contracts in connection, not only with the two cruisers to be built outside the dockyard, but also in connection with the machinery and armour plates for the ships which are to be built in the dockyards. It is very important from the employment point of view that that work, consistently with accepting reasonably low tenders, should be spread as far as possible, and I am sure it would be of great interest to the Committee if the hon. Member will give us some indication of how far the arrangements have gone both with regard to beginning the work in the dockyard and the contract work, and to what extent the Admiralty found it possible to spread the work in order to meet the difficulties of the unemployment situation in our great shipbuilding centres throughout the country.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: I am quite in agreement with those hon. Members who have urged the Admiralty to take steps to speed up this work. There may have been a difference of opinion as to the necessity for the five cruisers, but now that the House has agreed to vote them, I take it that everyone will agree that the work ought to be put forward as early as possible in order to relieve unemployment. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, if he possibly can, to use his influence to have this work brought forward at the earliest possible moment. Another point I wish to draw attention is in connection with these contracts. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman has any power in this matter, but I certainly think it is time something was done in this connection. I have listened to-day to hon. Members representing dockyard constituencies alluding to conditions affecting the employés, and I think they were quite right in raising those questions.
      I think we should all try to improve the conditions of the workers in the service of the Admiralty. We are also entitled to try to improve the conditions of the men engaged on the work of the Government in private yards. Some of this work has been placed at Barrow and on the Clyde, and many of the men engaged in it will be paid wages which are little better than sweated wages. When you recognise that on the Clyde 38s. a week is the standard
      746
      wage for a shipyard labourer, and £2 8s per week for a ship's carpenter or joiner, after serving five years at the trade, no Government, whatever its complexion or colour, can defend conditions of that kind. I think that this Government ought to take steps in the work that is going to be done. As I have said, we have had differences of opinion as to the necessity of the cruisers, but, once they have been agreed upon, I think the Government ought to insist that, in any work that is being accomplished or performed, the first charge ought to be a decent standard of life for the men engaged in the industry. I assert, and I am sure that Members in all quarters of the Committee will agree, that no man with a wife and family can maintain them on 38s. a week, or even on the tradesman's wage of £2 8s.
      In my constituency, in the yard where one of the cruisers is going to be built, there are men who, in many cases, will be as well off, if not better, unemployed. That is not to the credit of past Governments, and all I am asking is that this Government should try and alter, if it possibly can, the way in which past Governments have acted. I have only intervened in this Debate for these two reasons—firstly, to try to get the Admiralty, now that there is agreement upon it, to speed up the work and try to bring it forward as early as possible, with a view to alleviating the conditions that are so bad, both in Barrow and on the Clyde; and, secondly, to secure that the men employed in the industry, both at Barrow and on the Clyde, on this work, shall have at least wages and conditions equal to those of the men employed on similar work in the dockyards. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will at least secure to the men engaged in this work that small and, possibly, too meagre minimum. Even if that is granted, it will be a considerable boon to men and women who have been facing great hardships.
      Viscount CURZON: I see, on page 125 of the Estimates, this item:
      "Royal Reserve of Merchant Cruisers, etc.; Subvention for right of pre-emption or hire as armed cruisers or transports, £90,000."
      The same sum was also provided last year. I presume that this refers to the subsidy in respect of the "Mauritania" and "Lusitania" of the Cunard Line.

      747
      I think I am correct in saying that it was agreed to pay this subsidy in respect of those two ships, but it seems to me extraordinary that, now that the "Lusitania" has been sunk, the subsidy still goes on, and, as I think I am also right in saying, is still paid at exactly the same figure as when the original agreement was entered into. In any case, in these days, in view of the experience we had during the War, it is an extravagant sum. I quite agree that other Governments have been in power since the War, and might have gone into it, but they have not done so, and, surely, here is an opportunity for the present Socialist Government to go into this question and see whether this arrangement should be continued or not.
      9.0 P.M.
      If it is a question of contract, I suppose we are bound to continue some sort of agreement, but would it not be possible for the present Government to go into the matter and see whether they cannot secure a certain reduction in the figure? The sum of £90,000 is, in my opinion, far too large a one to be spent on the hire of a vessel which may conceivably never be, and I hope never will be, required for war purposes again. Speaking from memory, I fancy that this subsidy has a few years to run, but I do think it is a matter on which the Government might, in the public interest, if on no other ground, approach the company, and see whether it would not be possible to secure a reduction of this figure. This is a question on which the House might give us a certain amount of support, and I hope the hon. Gentleman, when he comes to reply, will give us some idea as to whether he thinks it will be possible to secure a reduction in what I, at any rate, regard as much too high a figure in respect of only one ship.
      Mr. AMMON: I want first of all to deal with two points to which the hon. Baronet the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) drew my attention, and on which he particularly wants an answer. I understood him to say that there was some suggestion of, shall I say, alleged intimidation with regard to how certain people employed by the Admiralty or in the dockyards cast their vote. I can only say that, so far as the Admiralty are concerned, we have no knowledge of any
      748
      such thing, and, certainly, it would be viewed with great disapproval, and we should deal with it in an appropriate manner if anyone endeavoured in any way to interfere, in whatever way, with the legitimate rights of men exercising their franchise as citizens.
      The hon. Baronet's other point was the composition of the dockyard committees, but that is a matter with which we have no concern. We are not concerned with their politics, their point of view, or anything else. It is the whole affair of the men, and it is left to them without any interference from the authorities whatever. Another point that was raised by the hon. Baronet—it is a familiar point of his, and I can quite understand it, not only from the point of view of his own position as representing a dockyard constituency, but from the point of view of those who have any concern about the equipment we have—was that we have not more than one slip which will take a capital ship. It is the fact that in the existing dockyards we could not build more than one capital ship, because the slips are too small, and the earliest date by which we could have got another slip, or enlarged a present one, would have been March of this year, and the cost of the work on the slip alone would have been well over a quarter of a million—£286,000 or £290,000.
      Sir B. FALLE: Most of which would be wages.
      Mr. AMMON: I have no idea; I am simply giving the cost. That outlay, however, would not have been accepted, and we should not have got authority for it. Moreover, the Law Officers of the Crown advised that, having regard to the Washington Treaty, it would be necessary that the new capital ships should be laid down before the end of the year 1922, and that could not have been done except building them by contract. Under the Washington Treaty no further capital ships will be laid down until somewhere about 1931, so that there will be opportunity to consider the point, if necessary, with regard to further accommodation.
      Sir B. FALLE: There was also a question as to the secrecy of the ballot in the dockyards. I have not the slightest doubt about it, but I should like to have a statement from the hon. Gentleman that, in the ballot at the

      749
      dockyards, as elsewhere, secrecy is rigidly maintained, and that by no possibility can it be violated.
      Mr. AMMON: I am afraid I did not make myself as clear as I hoped. I thought I conveyed the impression to the hon. Baronet—and I certainly intended to do so—that the ballot is secret, and that any attempt or suggestion of violation would certainly not receive any consideration, but rather condemnation in every possible way, from the Admiralty and dockyard authorities. A point was raised jointly by the right hon. Gentle man the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), and by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), with regard to the ships that have been given out to tender. All the tenders have been placed, and, while no definite date for commencement of work has been fixed, it is understood that they must be put in hand at the very earliest possible moment. Of course, the distribution of much of the work will largely be left to, and must be controlled by, the contracting firms. We had to have regard to what are known as the black spot areas, and the work has been distributed very well among all those places which have been particularly badly hit during the unemployment period. I am sure I am on safe ground in assuring the right, hon. Gentleman that as far as the limited amount of work will go, it is being spread with the maximum of assistance in the districts that need it. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals is preaching to the converted when he speaks of fair wages conditions with regard to those employed in the work on these ships. The Admiralty take every precaution—I have looked back into past records to test this, and find it has always been done so—to see that fair conditions and wages as acquiesced in by the trade unions are carried out in contract work, and they have pursued it even into the sub-contracts, and seen that it is carried right through; and it will be done in this case. I suppose it would be resented by the trade unions if employers interfered with regard to what should be the conditions of work and wages laid down for the men who are more or less under their jurisdiction. It might give my hon. Friend some comfort to know that there is an arbitration pending on shipyard rates, where the men are
      750
      not satisfied with the position and have taken the matter to arbitration. The most I can do is to assure him and the House that every precaution will be taken to see that the maximum rates of pay and the best possible conditions, as agreed to by the unions, are observed in all those yards which are doing Admiralty work, and nothing will be left undone to see that they get the best conditions. I deplore as much as he does the low rates which are ruling in certain places, and if those low rates of pay are under trade union rates, they have only to be brought to the attention of the Admiralty, who will take steps to see that the necessary pressure is brought to bear upon the contracting firms.
      The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) mentioned the £90,000 subvention for the right of pre-emption or hire of ships as armed cruisers or transports. The position is not quite so bad as the Noble Lord thought, though I admit it sounds rather startling. The subsidy is under the 1904 agreement, and it was originally for £150,000 for the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania." It is now £90,000 for the "Mauretania." The agreement has some years to run and I am afraid it is not within our power to amend it. I cannot give the exact number of years, as the point has been rather sprung on me at the last moment. I am afraid, from what I gather at the moment, that it is a binding contract and we have no legal remedy.
      Viscount CURZON: Would it not be possible to address an appeal to the Cunard Company to see whether they would not make some slight reduction on a sum which I am certain most Members in the House would regard as being very excessive for the use of one ship which, in any event, in war time would be commandeered by the Government?
      Mr. AMMON: Now the Noble Lord has drawn my attention to it I will make inquiries and, if necessary, follow up the suggestion he has made. I put in that little safeguard because I do not know all the facts at the moment. But I will follow it up and perhaps he will put down a question later on to see how far we have gone.
      Major WHELER: An important statement has been made to the effect that an

      751
      offer for Sheerness Dockyard might be made. May I ask what conditions will be attached and whether the men in the dockyard will be protected? The hon. Gentleman will realise that the uncertainty a statement of that kind will cause in a dockyard town will be great.
      Mr. AMMON: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me the opportunity to make that point quite clear. One of the conditions of sale will of course be that the staff therein engaged will be employed by the people who take it over. I gather what he wants is an assurance that a transference of ownership will not result in the people being thrown on the unemployed market.
      Major WHELER: May I press the hon. Gentleman once more? He says a firm might take it over and employ the men. What guarantee can he have that the men who are employed this year can have any continuing employment?
      Mr. AMMON: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman can see that when you are carrying out a deed of sale or a lease, you can see that the terms are carried out for the welfare of the people concerned. He may rest assured that if we get a favourable offer the Admiralty will see that conditions are carried out to safeguard the interests of the people concerned. I hope that will give peace of mind to him and to the people in Sheerness who might be disturbed.
      Viscount CURZON: Further discharges are not contemplated at Sheerness Dockyard pending any result of this sort?
      Mr. AMMON: No. This is not anything new. I am simply bringing forward something that was in hand when my predecessor was in office. Up to now we have not had any offer suitable for this particular dockyard, and we are not contemplating any alteration of the establishment in any way.
      Mr. LOVERSEED: May I ask whether the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" were subsidised in 1904; whether the reason for the subsidy then was the very great competition between them and German ships with regard to carrying mails; and whether the payment was £150,000 in order to help the Cunard Company with regard to these two ships? Seeing that the "Lusitania" has been sunk, is it not
      752
      a fact that the Cunard Company are at the present time running the "Aquitania" without a subsidy? Therefore the real cause for the subsidy has ceased to exist, for the simple reason that the Cunard Company have not the same competition that they had when the subsidy was given. Seeing that there is no case now for the subsidy, there is something in the point raised by the Noble Lord that although the amount has been reduced because of the loss of the "Lusitania," £90,000 is far in excess of any payment that ought to be made to this company. As the "Aquitania" can be run without a subsidy, it is a question whether this amount of £90,000 should be included in the Vote for another year. The Admiralty ought to look into that point.
      Major BURNIE: I deprecate this attack on the Cunard Company. The "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" were built about 1903/4, and the reason why the company were able to run them was that the Conservative Government of that day thought that the "blue riband of the Atlantic," as it is called, should be in British hands. In other words, they thought that it was desirable that the record for the fastest passage from this country to the United States should be held by British steamers. They made a firm and fast agreement with the Cunard Company to build these two ships. If the Cunard Company had been satisfied with a reasonable commercial speed the ships would have burned 500 or 600 tons of coal per diem, whereas they have burned between 1,000 and 1,100 tons of the best Welsh coal. The "Mauretania," which is the only one of the two ships left, has been converted to an oil-fuel steamer, and the oil consumption uses up the £90,000 paid in respect of the steamer.
      It is true that the "Aquitania" was built some years later by the Cunard Company very largely as a result of the experience gained in connection with the "Mauretania" and "Lusitania." This is one of the few occasions that I know of where a Government subsidy has given us any beneficial experience. The fact is that the "Aquitania," largely designed as a result of that experience, has been a paying steamer from the time the Cunard Company brought her out. If we took away the subsidy from the Cunard Company, the "Mauretania"

      753
      would cease to be a paying proposition. She is a faster ship than the "Aquitania" and has not quite the carrying capacity in regard to passengers as the "Aquitania." I might say that the Cunard Company also runs a steamer called the "Berengaria," formerly a German steamer. The hon. Member for the Sudbury Division (Mr. Loverseed) evidently has very little knowledge of shipping, because he says that the competition to-day is not as keen as it was when the German ships were running. I would point out to him that these Cunard ships are of no use for any other trade but the United States emigrant and passenger trade, and that the United States to-day admits only a certain quota of emigrants into the States and a certain number of passengers. Therefore, the Cunard and the White Star Lines have to come to an agreement to lay up some of their ships during the winter and to run ship and ship about from Southampton to the United States.
      Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "Mauretania" has been used as a yacht in the Mediterranean?
      Major BURNIE: She has been sent to the Mediterranean as a yacht because the Atlantic trade will not keep her fully employed. It does not pay to run her there all the time. I have no share, interest or concern in the Cunard Company or the White Star Company; neither of them are friends of mine, but I do deprecate attacks on the Cunard Company, which has one of the finest mercantile fleets in the world, which upholds the honour of the British flag—it did so during the War and does so during peace—and holds the blue riband of the Atlantic.
      Mr. LOVERSEED: I did not want to make an attack on the Cunard Company. I merely wanted to point out that the subsidy was far too large in these days, and that if one ship can be run without the subsidy, the other could, at any rate, be run cither without a subsidy or the subsidy could be greatly reduced.
      Mr. WALLHEAD: The hon. Member for Bootle (Major Burnie) has, inadvertently, led the Committee to believe that the Cunard Company find no saving between oil fuel and coal. They may not
      754
      find any saving as between oil and coal, but do not they save on wages? Is it not a fact that the wage bill is lower for oil than for coal, and that the saving comes there?
      Mr. AMERY: I hope the Committee will forgive my saying a few words on this question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has promised to give us a fuller statement, but I should like to deal with a remark made by the hon. Member for Bootle (Major Burnie). He rather left the impression that the assistance given by the Government was only for the sake of getting this country the credit for the blue riband of the Atlantic. There was an Admiralty point of view, if I remember, and quite rightly so, and it was this, that while the blue riband of the Atlantic was being held by several fast German liners the whole of our shipping might be very seriously endangered in time of war by the conversion of these fast steamers into light cruisers, and that that would give them an advantage over any ships of the kind which we possessed. It was to induce the Cunard Company to do something which was not in their ordinary commercial interests that the Government bound themselves to give the Cunard Company the subvention. To-day, no doubt, ships can be built to run at that speed without subsidy. The whole scale of speed has increased, but at the time, these two ships would not have been built and that speed would not have been secured for this country without the subvention. A contract was made to that effect, and it was, of course, a binding contract. It involved the company in expenditure out of all proportion to the commercial needs of the time, and no doubt it still figures in the interest which the company has to pay on its capital. I only suggest these points for the consideration of the Committee, because the Parliamentary Secretary promised to give, either on the Report stage or later, or by answer to a question, a fuller statement of the situation.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £3,975,500, be grunted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Naval Armaments, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
      Sir B. FALLE: On a point of Order. Is it possible, when you read out these very large figures, to mention the Vote?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
      Viscount CURZON: There are one or two items in this Vote which I should like to have explained. The first one is on page 129, the Estimate relating to the Metropolitan Police, for wages, clothing and contingent expenses, amounting to £9,932. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what is now the state of affairs in regard to the employment of the Metropolitan police, presumably in dockyards and naval establishments? We were told a year ago that the Metropolitan police force in dockyards and naval establishments was going to be done away with and replaced by a force apparently from the marines and naval detachments. I would like to know from the hon. Gentleman why it figures in this Vote and also in the preceding Vote, and why it is not brought under the one Vote. Why do we find it in Vote 8 and in Vote 9? Why cannot we have all the items for Metropolitan police, dockyards and naval establishments in the one Vote? The next question I would like to ask is in regard to Sub-head E (page 130), where I find a general increase on the Vote in respect of rents. I find an item put down last year for rents of £7,000, and this year it has gone up to £14,000. I am sure this will suggest a line which might profitably be explored by some of the hon. Members who support the Government. With regard to Sub-head G (Projectiles and Ammunition), I notice that the Vote has fallen from £1,594,350 last year to £941,600. I would like to ask whether this indicates a decrease in gunnery exercises in the Fleet, because if it does, I think it is a question which the House should examine very critically. If you have a Navy on a reduced scale, as is inevitable under the Washington Conference, it is only proper that this House should see to it that reduced Navy makes up for its reduced numbers by increased efficiency, if possible, and I do not like to see a falling provision for projectiles and ammunition, as I am rather afraid that this may mean that gunnery exercises are taking place on a decreased scale.
      Another question arises out of these reduced gunnery exercises. War stocks of practice ammunition were large at the
      756
      conclusion of the War. Those stocks must have been used up by now, and I am afraid that the decreased amount shown this year may be for a decreased amount of gunnery exercises. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say a word on that when he comes to reply.
      The next question which I would like to allude to is Sub-head H. This includes a rather large number of headings for torpedoes, mines, paravanes, etc., and I see that the amount has rather more than doubled since last year. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he could explain the reasons for the increase. As I have, indicated, this Sub-head includes torpedoes. Does it mean that the torpedoes could have been a little more inaccurate than usual, and that a few more of them have dived into the mud and have not been recovered, or does it mean that we have lost a few more P. V's.? I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us a little information. We are interested, especially nowadays, in torpedo exercises, and we hope that they are getting a certain amount of precision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us on this matter. The next item I would like to ask about is Subhead I (Small Arms, Torpedo and Cordite Materials, etc.). I see there an item which I am sure will appeal to many hon. Members; it is for motor vehicles. Are we employing many motor vehicles under this head, and under how many heads are motor vehicles shown in the Estimates? One would like, if possible, to get some idea of the amount of motoring indulged in under the Admiralty. I see a little lower down an item under the same sub-head in respect of Holton Heath Cordite Factory. I would like to direct the attention of hon. Members from Lancashire to the fact that the Vote has gone up from £252,000 to £285,000. Again, an item for motor vehicles is included. Motor petrol seems to crop up under every sub-head and under almost every paragraph, and I hope the right hon. Member will be able to reassure us on this point. One would like to know as a Member of the Estimates Committee This is a subject which we examined with some interest, I think, the year before last, on the Estimates Committee, and it was contended by one hon. Member representing a Lancashire constituency—

      757
      one who had expert knowledge on the matter—that a good many of the processes carried out at Holton Heath could be carried out as well, if not better, in various factories and works in Lancashire. One would like to know really what the policy of the Admiralty with regard to Holton Heath is. They have a very large and extensive establishment there, probably being run on a very much reduced scale, and I would, therefore, suggest that the overhead charges are proportionately very high. It is a matter for the consideration of the Committee and of the Government as to what their policy is really going to be with regard to Holton Heath.
      The Committee should be very careful on this matter. We, as hon. Members, know that during the War we had some very bad accidents, indeed, in the way of explosions. Several ships were totally destroyed by colossal explosions. I witnessed one, and I never want to see a more ghastly sight again in all my life, and the cause of the explosion was never really satisfactorily explained. This explosion, the "Vanguard," was generally put down to deterioration of cordite. There was another story, that a man had been seen in a magazine, who had been employed in the "Vanguard." I think that, in all probability, the explosion arose out of deterioration of cordite. I can say that there was no more depressing or deteriorating influence to the moral of the men of the entire Fleet than that explosion. It was, really, a serious thing, till the effects wore off a little. It is all important, therefore, to see that impurities do not get into the cordite during the various processes through which it goes in the course of manufacture, and I think that, whatever is done by the House in this respect, they should not force economy on the Government—economy which might lead to impure cordite being supplied to the Navy. I gather that deterioration of cordite generally arises from the impurities in the course of manufacture.
      I repeat, that one would like to know what the policy of the Admiralty is with regard to Holton Heath? Expenses are going up. Does this mean more work, or what does it mean? On the next page (132) there is an item in respect of staff, which is a fairly large one, but not very
      758
      large considering the large area covered by the factory, and I would like to know about this.
      The only other item which I would like to draw attention to is on page 133, Subhead M. I see a contribution from the Government of India on account of His Majesty's ships in Indian waters. This raises a very important subject. It raises the whole question of Indian defence. The defence of Indian waters has always been the subject of contention, one might almost say, between the Government of this country and the Government of India. We have got in Indian waters a force known as the Royal Indian Marine. It includes some of the finest officers and sailors, but this force has been, shall we say, under a cloud. I do not know what the policy of the Government is. I did not know what the policy of the last Government or the Government before was with regard to the Royal Indian Marine, nor do I know the exact policy of these Governments or of the present Government with regard to the apportionment of labour expenditure as between this country and India, but I would point out that the Royal Indian Marine is organised not exactly as a department of the Navy, as it should be.
      If it were to be properly arranged it should be under the Commander-in-Chief on the East India Station, but it is not. It is under an officer under the direct command of the General Officer Commanding the Indian Troops. I believe that in peace time it is a purely civilian service, but in war time it at once discharges military duties automatically. Under present conditions it is practically nobody's child. The Navy are not interested in it because it is not directly under the Admiralty, and the Army are not very much interested in it. Could the Admiralty not come to an arrangement with the Government of India in respect of the Royal Indian Marine and Indian defence generally? I am sure that the sum of £100,000 a year is not a proper contribution from India towards the great burden of the naval defence of the Indian Empire. We hear a great deal of the demand for Swaraj, Home Rule, for India, but we do not hear very much from the Swaraj party as to what they would do in respect of the defence of India if the British forces were removed from India and from Indian waters to-morrow. This country

      759
      has always made itself responsible for the defence of Indian waters, and quite rightly, but the whole question of the relative apportionment of the burden of Imperial defence should be gone into, and the Government should endeavour to evolve a policy whereby the exact sum for which every Dominion would be responsible should be well known and should be laid down for the information, not only of that Dominion, but of this country, so that we might all know what we are respectively to pay in respect of our Imperial obligations. I submit also that the present Board of Admiralty should come to some definite decision with regard to the Royal Indian Marine, the present—
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must understand that this is an Appropriation-in-Aid, and that we cannot discuss the policy of the services in respect of which the saving is made. We are only discussing the amount of the appropriation.
      Viscount CURZON: My difficulty is that we do not know whether the Royal Indian Marine represents a portion of this Appropriation-in-Aid or whether this Appropriation-in-Aid is something in addition to the Royal Indian Marine. We might have a declaration from the Government in regard to their policy in general in Indian waters and some sort of intimation as to whether any portion of the £100,000 is represented by the Royal Indian Marine or whether it is entirely additional to it. If this Appropriation-in-Aid is all that India pays towards the naval obligations which we undertake, what proportion does it represent of the total expenditure upon the East India Squadron? I do not think that many hon. Members appreciate the enormous magnitude of the burden which this country alone has to bear in respect of the naval defence of East India waters, and £100,000 does not fairly represent the value of the services rendered by the Royal Navy in respect of India.
      Mr. TURNER: I wish to oppose this Appropriation-in-Aid on the principle that any money which is to be used to produce armaments for killing purposes is contrary to the religion of the ordinary type of man. I may be a solitary voice crying in the wilderness, but I want
      760
      forcibly to protest against any expenditure on killing arrangements. I think that it is foreign to any peace policy and also detrimental to the well-being of the people of the world. I have not a word to say against the courage and work of the individual sailor or officer or any person connected with the Marine, naval or otherwise. Their courage and devotion are beyond all question, but I think that they are being used for improper purposes—the preparation for war. It is alleged to be a preparation for defence, but it is a preparation for war, and if we prepare for war we get it. Therefore, though I may be by myself in opposing my own Government, I must vote against the Appropriation-in-Aid.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The hon. Member who has just spoken says that he is opposed to torpedoes, and so on, because they are contrary to religion, and that he is opposed to any machine that could be used for killing, but I suppose that he realises that he is able to lead a peaceful civilised life simply because he has the protection of the police, and that the protection of the police is based upon the power of the State, and that the power of the State is based upon the power of the Army and the Navy. Therefore I think that if he were to follow his suggestion to a logical conclusion, he would find that the whole of civilisation as we know it to-day would go to ruin.
      Mr. TURNER: No.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I do not want to enter into a discussion upon pacifist principles at present. We are supposed to be discussing appropriations for various types of war machines and ordinance and ammunition. In that connection I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. In regard to the sub-head of Vote 9, which deals with torpedoes, mines, depth charges, etc., I see that the amount for experimental purposes is only £42,000. At one time during the late War we were losing 1,000,000 tons of shipping a month, the value of which, with cargo, was, I suppose, about £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 sterling. The greater part of that tonnage was destroyed by enemy mines and submarines. It seems rather extraordinary that, with that lesson in front of us, we should be spending on experiments with antidotes to such enemy action only

      761
      £42,000. I know that that is not the total amount spent on the experimental service, but the total amount, I understand, is only about £250,000. That is only one-half of one per cent. of the total of the Navy Estimates. Is there any commercial firm competing in a rapidly changing business which would spend only one-half of one per cent. on its plans and laboratory and development staff? To ask that question is to show the absurdity of it. The amount voted to experimental purposes is altogether inadequate.
      We learned a very bitter lesson during the War. I know from some personal recollections that at the Admiralty, when War broke out, there was practically no experimental staff for dealing with these devices. Will the Parliamentary Secretary say whether or not he regards the amount of £42,000 as sufficient? I wish to know whether the experiments in regard to the super-sonic gear, the leader gear and hydroplanes are being proceeded with. All these are antisubmarine devices, and are somewhat costly, in so far as experimental work is concerned. I know that when I was in the service we were hampered considerably because we could not get money for these experimental purposes. The result was that, when war came, hundreds of millions sterling were wasted because we had no devices for dealing with enemy submarine action Are any experiments going on in regard to carrying aeroplanes and submarines? As far as I know, none is being proceeded with. Other nations are going ahead. Is it a fact that no such experiments are being carried out, because the arrangements between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry have not been very satisfactory during the last 18 months or two years?
      In regard to co-ordination between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, what arrangements are being made for the Naval Plans Division to work with the Air Ministry Design Department? Which Department is responsible for the bombs or depth charges which are dropped from aeroplanes? Is it an Air Ministry question or an Admiralty question or a Naval Ordnance question, and under whose responsibility is it? Let me turn again to the question of torpedoes carried by aircraft. What arrangements are being made for developing a new type of
      762
      torpedo for these machines. What arrangements are we making for devising a 42-inch torpedo instead of a 21-inch? With such a weapon we would be able to defeat the bulged enemy ship in the same way as we now defeat the unbulged ship. Are we designing aeroplanes to carry a 42-inch instead of a 21-inch torpedo? Are designs and new devices of this kind being held up because there is no co-ordination between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry? Under paragraph (f) of Vote 9, I see that over £500,000 is put down for breech-loading guns and so forth. If it is not giving confidential information away, may I ask whether we are developing in this country a long-range gun? We know that our friends and Allies, the French, have developed a gun with which they can shell London from the cost of France Are we developing a gun which can reply to that?
      Passing to the cordite factory, Holton Heath, there is one minor question I wish to ask. I see there is a sum of £1,500 put down for "ten lady examiners (climatic huts)." What are they for? The same amount was paid last year. To satisfy my curiosity I would like to be told what is a lady examiner, climatic hut. With regard to the question of co-ordination between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty on the technical side, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what procedure is now followed. It is of the utmost importance that it should be on the most efficient lines. We have a very rapidly changing naval technique and a rapidly changing air technique, and so far as I can see, under our present organisation we have no co-ordinating body and no co-ordinated policy. Unless we do have a co-ordinated body, and a co-ordinated policy, it seems to me we shall be throwing away the taxpayers' money in exactly the same way as we are throwing away the taxpayers' money on Chatham at present. The other point on which I should like a reply from my hon. Friend is as to whether or not he can arrange for more money to be spent upon invention and research. The actual apparatus which our forces are able to use should be the most up-to-date possible. I hope I have not asked the hon. Member too many questions, and that he may be able to give me an answer to some of them.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On this Vote 9, which, I think, is probably the most important Vote of the whole of the Navy Estimates, as it deals with the question of equipment, I am very surprised the party opposite are so sparsely represented, in view of their boasted interest in the Royal Navy. May I ask my hon. Friend when he replies, if he will follow the usual custom of the great office he represents, and give us some details of the new shipbuilding programme authorised by this House, and contracts for which are given out?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is on the wrong Vote. He must confine himself to Naval Armaments.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the Vote includes the gun mountings and the guns. I think I can confine myself to them.
      Mr. AMMON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman permit me to say that while he was out I gave that in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite?
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Which illustrates the necessity of keeping to the Vote under discussion.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Vote 9 does include Naval Armaments, at any rate, and I will be in order in discussing the guns. I think I am right in saying it is proposed to arm the new vessels with 8-inch guns. No secrets will be betrayed, because once the contracts are out it does not take very much energy or skill on the part of the various naval attaches of foreign Powers to this country to get as much detail as they require. I understand the new cruisers are going to be armed with 8-inch guns. This I consider to be an unneeded extravagance, because the corresponding gun in His Majesty's Service is the 7·5-inch gun, and the latest 7·5-inch gun does not differ really very much from the 8-inch gun in point of power, but there would be a great economy if we continued for some time with the 7·5-inch gun. We have ammunition outfits for it, we have the spare parts, and we have spare guns, and there is not so much difference between the 7·5 and the 8-inch as would justify the extra expenditure.
      Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us the difference of weight between the projectile fired by the 7·5, which is 200 lbs., and the weight of the 8-inch projectile?
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have not the weight of the latest guns, but perhaps there is 50 lbs., or even 80 lbs., difference.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The 8-inch is 250 lbs.
      10.0 P.M.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There is 50 lbs. between the two, and there is very little difference for practical purposes. It is much more important to hit the other ship with a 200 lb. shell than miss her with a 250 lb. shell. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about range?"] There is no difference in the range either. With the latest type of gun you can range as far as you can see, except with an aeroplane, and I think aeroplane-spotting in cruiser action is not a very useful proposition. I think there has been unnecessary extravagance. It is only the megalomania of certain gunnery enthusiasts, who have had much too much to say on naval policy. It is not as if other nations had this gun afloat in the latest ships. I asked a question of my hon. Friend on the 16th of last month, and he then informed me that no British or foreign light cruisers afloat have 8-inch guns. Two completed British light cruisers and two completing have 7·5-inch guns. No foreign light cruisers have guns of this calibre. We lead the way already in the 7·5, and we are starting unnecessary light cruiser competition in armament by embarking on the 8-inch gun. According to the latest return, as far as I can read it, no vessels have actually been commenced except in the case of two vessels of the United States, to carry 8-inch guns. Of the two Japanese vessels building, no details are given, but I should be surprised if they are actually commenced, and if they are to carry 8-inch guns. [An HON. MEMBER: "Italy."] I am considering the principal Naval Powers, and the latest vessels built for them, and because one extra country with a comparatively small Navy has laid down a cruiser with all 8-inch guns, that is not a reason why we should embark on a complete change in our cruiser main armaments.

      765
      The second proposition is with regard to the protection of our vessels against torpedoes. We at present put great faith in the internal bulge, and really a race has commenced between the torpedo and the bulge, just as we had a race between guns and armour. When a gun was introduced that could pierce all the iron armour afloat, steel armour was introduced with a specially hardened surface, and that beat the gun again. But, finally, after years of competition, the latest gun will fire projectiles that with a direct blow will smash through any armour that can be put into any practical vessel afloat. I think it is a fair conclusion that the bulge will be beaten by the torpedo. The obvious next development is, of course, the delayed-action torpedo, which can penetrate the outer skin, and the main explosion will then take place, driving the inner skin in fragments into the vitals of the vessel.
      Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the lesson of the Battle of Jutland was exactly the contrary of what he is now saying? One lesson was that the armour had completely beaten the gun.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Not so, it was to the contrary. The armour has not beaten the gun. The Battle of Jutland showed that where straight hitting took place, the armour was penetrated. With regard to this question of a bulge, the next move will be to put internal armour inside the bulge, and that will be met by a torpedo with a greater bursting charge, and possibly the revival of an invention made some time before the War, whereby a torpedo was converted into a cannon, which after puncturing the outer skin, fired a shell with a considerable charge behind it into the vitals of the vessel. I have come to the conclusion that it is technically possible for the torpedo to defeat the bulge, either by increasing the size of the torpedo, or by devices such as I have attempted to describe. I would like to know whether this matter is being experimented with by our very able and enlarged naval staff. I hope that the Admiralty are not relying on their present system of protection against torpedo. It is on that hypothesis they have been led to say in recent years that the big ship has come to stay, and that the great super-Dreadnought
      766
      and hyper-super-Dreadnought will be the main instrument of naval power. I think that is extremely probable if we look ten or fifteen years ahead, and I am very must distressed to find my hon. Friend, in the Debate on the cruisers, saying that as soon as the Washington Conference came to an end, we would have to embark on a complete programme of great Dreadnoughts, and that therefore we ought to build the cruisers we require now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Might!"] Yes, the hon. Member said "might" have to embark. He would not commit himself too definitely, I know.
      These are experiments that ought to be carried out, and they will be expensive. They should be carried out on sections of ships built for the purpose, with special torpedoes manufactured as I have described. The money will be very well spent. I am sorry, for some reasons, that the Admiralty have accelerated their present building programme before these experiments have taken place. I know they have not been tried out at present. They will have to be done, however. It provides a good reason for delaying our programme until the last minute, so that the very latest improvements can be put into the ships. We can always catch up the other Powers. I am dealing with the armaments, and not with the shipbuilding, although armaments affect shipbuilding to a tremendous extent. The only other point I want to put to my hon. Friend follows on what I have already said. I am all for the reduction of the redundant staffs in the Admiralty, but I do hope there will be no further cutting down of the purely naval staff. At the present moment, in spite of the tremendous increase in numbers that still exist in the Admiralty as compared with pre-War conditions, the actual staff available for the planning and experimental divisions is all too small. That is a false economy, and may cost the country very dearly indeed. I will not go into details, for obvious reasons, but I say these things in the hope of conveying to my hon. Friend what naval officers are saying to-day outside this House. It is an opinion which comes from the Fleet, and I know he will make the best use of it that he can.
      Mr. T. HENDERSON: I desire to raise a point in connection with an item on page 130. It refers to an increase of rent

      767
      from £7,000 to £14,000, of which there is no explanation. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain it. It seems to me a very small sum is provided for the cost of medical attention. I am afraid it is true we have very poor class of medical attendance in the Navy. If the service is good, it is certainly very cheap. Although the cost has been raised by £100, I do not think it is sufficient. My experience is to the effect that the seamen do not get very good medical attendance. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to get the Admiralty to make the seamen wear their boots when walking about the decks. I do not like to see the men walking about the decks in their bare feet, because they get corns and rheumatism, and they are liable to take very severe cold. I have always opposed this practice.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: If an order is given for the sailors to wear boots in the morning, they usually fall in and protest against it. They prefer not to wear boots.
      Mr. HENDERSON: That is not my experience.
      The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not see that boots come under the heading of Naval Armaments.
      Mr. HENDERSON: I am referring to it in connection with medical attendance. My object is the welfare of the seamen. All my life I have been working in naval vessels, submarines, etc., and I know what men have got to suffer not only from their officers, but from the very hard conditions under which they live. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give some attention to the points I have raised.
      Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: It seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is a living proof that, by adding to his weight—the external bulge—he has also added to his intellectual range. The hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) raised two very important points in connection with co-ordination and research. There is at least one estimate, and there are possibly more estimates for research workers; but there is a cognate subject which is hardly, perhaps, to be included under the term of research, about which I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman
      768
      a question. When the War was over, there Was present (very acutely) in the minds of everybody the necessity for taking a census of the various necessary materials, without which we might find ourselves suddenly lacking an essential ingredient either of an explosive, or of some other material used in armaments I ask him whether and, if so, where, provision is made for a scientific technical expert who can represent the views of the Admiralty upon this point to the Committee of Imperial Defence, with whom naturally lies the making of that census of materials. Of course, it would not be proper to raise here the necessity for having such a person on the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I do not know whether such a person does exist or not, but I wish to know what is the mechanism for the Admiralty presenting its own census of the necessary material for armaments and explosives so that various representations of that kind made from the various departments can be co-ordinated by some central body. It is not a small matter. We may be left without some essential thing or, what is more likely is, we may find two or three departments at the same time counting on the same source of supply and not discovering the effect until the war broke out.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I hope the Committee will allow me a few-moments to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) regarding 8-inch guns and before doing so, I wish to say a word with reference to the question raised by an hon. Member opposite about boots. I am reminded that just before the battle of Tel-el-Kebir when the soldiers and sailors were marching across the desert and getting rather sore on their foot the sailors took off their boots and walked past the soldiers showing the result of not wearing boots. As to the 8-inch guns I think the point is that the Washington Conference laid down that the maximum gun on a light cruiser should be an 8-inch gun.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is the minimum.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Necessarily it became the minimum. It always does and that is merely commonsense, but the difference between the 7·5 gun and

      769
      the 8-inch gun is rather more than the hon. and gallant Member led the Committee to believe. The maximum range of the 8-inch gun is about 32,000 yards and of the 7·5 gun 27,000 yards.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: You cannot sight further than 27,000 yards.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: Oh, you can. With regard to maximum range it is not only that, but as the hon. and gallant Member knows quite well, the real criterion of a gun is the extent of the 50 per cent. probability zone and the 50 per cent. probability zone of an 8-inch gun is considerably better than that of a 7·5 gun.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that light cruisers should open action at 27,000 yards. I think it is quite out of reason.
      Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I think the hon. and gallant Member is merely trying to throw dust in the eyes of the Committee by putting the matter entirely upon range. He knows as well as I do that the actual range is merely a criterion as to what the 50 per cent. probability zone and the vertical target will be on any given range. Therefore if you can compare two guns on ranges, your two criterions, the 50 per cent. probability zone and the vertical target, will accurately represent the relative value and further, not only does accuracy of fire depend upon these two factors, but also as penetration depends merely upon the ballistic co-efficient and that co-efficient varies with the diameter of the shell and also its weight. The hon. and gallant Members knows that to suggest to the Committee that our cruisers should be armed with 7·5 guns instead of 8-inch guns is merely a debating point which he is putting up to inconvenience the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty when just an hour previously he was throwing bouquets at and almost kissing the hon. Gentleman.
      With regard to the other point which he raised, namely, the question of bulges, I would draw attention to this point, which is very important, and that is, that the Washington Conference has limited the maximum displacement at which a ship can be built. That has automatically and inevitably tipped the
      770
      scale in the balance to the advantage of the gun and the torpedo, because it has limited the amount of protection and the weight of armour that can be put upon any given ship, and it Las done that by limiting displacement to a stated maximum, so that, other things being equal, it is quite inevitable that the gun and the torpedo will defeat the armour and the bulge if this artificial limit of 35,000 tons, which the Washington Conference has imposed on the Navies of the world, is followed. Therefore, I should like to back up the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull in regard to experiments on bulges and new torpedoes. I think the 21-inch torpedo is out of date. We want at least a 42-inch torpedo, and, personally, I should like to see something a good deal larger than that. I hope, when the Parliamentary Secretary answers the many questions which have been thrown at him from all quarters, he will at least answer those questions in regard to research and co-ordination as between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry.
      Mr. MAXTON: I wish to detain the Committee for only two minutes with a question. On page 127, Vote 9, Section III, I find two items, which were on last year's Estimates, namely, Bacteriologist and Assistant Bacteriologist. I do not know just exactly what the functions of a bacteriologist are in Admiralty affairs.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: They are experimenting with shells to carry germs.
      Mr. MAXTON: I am informed that they are trying to discover the possibility of a germ shell that will spread disease. That makes it even more alarming than I had imagined, because I notice the letter (b) is attached to the bacteriologist and his assistant, and the foot-note tells us that (b) indicates that these officers have been transferred to Vote 6, Sub-head N. But a reference to Vote 6, Sub-head N, fails to disclose at that place the existence of this bacteriologist and his assistant, and therefore it would appear that we have these two very dangerous, and possibly infectious, people wandering about somewhere in the No Man's Land between Vote 9, Section III, and Vote 6, Subhead N. It will need some very satisfactory

      771
      explanation of this mystery to justify me in supporting this particular Vote, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty will be able to give me the necessary information and allay the undoubted alarm that I feel, and that is possibly shared by other Members in all parts of the House. I am not raising this in any spirit of carping criticism or in any controversial spirit, but merely for the purpose of eliciting truth.
      Mr. AMMON: Nothing has touched me more during these Debates—and I have already made reference to the kindly manner in which I have been treated—than the competition to show their affection for me between the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney). I am bound to say that it has touched me very deeply, par ticularly having regard to the insatiable thirst for knowledge shown by Members of the Committee and started by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), who took a roving commission right through the Estimates, and I will endeavour to deal with the various points that have been raised as well as I can. The Noble Lord drew attention on page 129 to a figure of £9,932 spent in connection with the Metropolitan police. In that particular instance the Noble Lord made a slight mistake, for he quoted the figure for last year instead of this year. The actual expenditure budgeted for the current year is £800, a considerable reduction. The larger figure was the figure for the settlement of the pay of the men who no longer are in the service of the Admiralty. It is a pleasure to note that the Noble Lord is interested in the Metropolitan police. Then, again, on page 130, attention was drawn under Subhead G (projectiles and ammunition), particularly in regard to the reduced expenditure—
      Viscount CURZON: I ask also concerning rents.
      Mr. AMMON: The amount in regard to the rents is largely due to the payment of money that has been necessary in connection with the buildings, etc., that were taken by the Admiralty during the War and the increase is due to cases where
      772
      action was taken in regard to the amount paid for the use of the premises. Coming to Sub-head G I think the noble Lord is under the impression that there is not enough gun practice in the Navy in these days. I can assure him that there has been no reduction of ammunition in connection with gunnery exercises. What has happened is that the Admiralty have estimated more conservatively this year than last year, seeing that the War liabilities are much less. We have been able to show a saving of £700,000. Passing from that to the next item, the noble Lord was particularly anxious to know what information there was concerning the statement of a Lancashire Member with regard to the cotton used for making cordite. This whole subject is now under prolonged research and scientific investigation in order to secure the safest and most suitable material.
      Viscount CURZON: What is the policy with regard to Holton Heath? Are you going to keep it as a Government establishment?
      Mr. AMMON: Experiments are now being carried out at Holton Heath with regard to cordite and other matters. The next point raised by the Noble Lord was with reference to the miscellaneous stores for torpedoes, mines, etc. He will find that in regard to this item the increase is largely due to the item for experimental purposes and provision for the liquidation of war orders. In relation to small arms, torpedoes, etc., the decrease is because we have made less provision for new construction. That brings me to the point the Noble Lord raised with regard to the Indian Marine. He will see on pages 8 and 9 of the Estimates a statement as to India's contribution towards naval expenditure. The contribution is £100,000 out of a cost of some £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. I think the Committee should know that the Indian Government are at present considering a scheme of reorganisation of the Royal Indian Marine on a combatant basis, and until the Indian Government have decided whether or not to adopt these proposals which were drawn up by the late Director of the Royal Indian Marine, no progress regarding naval co-operation can be made.
      I think that covers the whole of the points which were raised by the Noble Lord, and I now turn to his hon. and

      773
      gallant Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney) who showed an equally insatiable desire for knowledge. He is deeply interested with reference to the relationship between the Air Force and the Admiralty, and he has asked for information in regard to the Department responsible for certain types of aerial bombs and other essentials for naval warfare. He displayed also a very natural and inquiring mind as to the examiners in the climatic huts, and I will try to satisfy him on both points. With regard to the aerial bombs, the Air Ministry are responsible for them, but, of course, the Admiralty are consulted. The aerial torpedoes are essentially naval weapons, and are under the control of the Admiralty. As to the ladies to whom reference has been made, that is a development of the work, in regard to which the Noble Lord was inquiring, that is being carried on at the Holton Heath station. These ladies are employed in the huts where experiments are being carried on in connection with the testing of cordite. Various experiments are now going on with the object of getting an improved cordite, which will have better explosive properties and will keep much longer than is possible at the present time.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Why are women employed? Why not ex-service men?
      Mr. AMMON: These ladies are employed in the huts watching the temperature, taking the condition of the cordite, and so on. I think it is the case that they stand the climatic conditions better than men, and they have the temperament.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not that they are cheaper?
      Mr. AMMON: I feel quite sure that that is not the reason. I now want to refer to a point which was raised by the Noble Lord, and on which I am sorry to say I inadvertently gave him a wrong reply.
      Viscountess ASTOR: What about the bonus in the case of these ladies?
      Mr. AMMON: I think the reason why these ladies are not shown in connection with the bonus is that their rates have been fixed independently of bonus. The increase for rents referred to in the Noble Lord's question was due to awards in the
      774
      Compensation Court in respect of claims arising from the occupation of property during the War, and not to the reason which I previously stated. Our position, therefore, is rather better than I previously indicated. Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) displayed a large amount of technical knowledge, in regard to which he entered into friendly competition with the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Commander Burney), and he saw that I was not misled by the hon. and gallant Member, although I am sure he would not mislead me in any circumstances. My hon. and gallant Friend was desirous of knowing the size of guns and protective qualities of the new cruisers, and I think he asked me to contradict him if he was wrong. He must not, however, take it that, if I say nothing, I assent to his statements. All that I can say, and all that I am prepared to say, is that the experts who are dealing with these matters have had under consideration everything connected with the range of guns and armament, both in this and in other countries, and that all these matters are being given due weight and consideration. I am not agreeing with or denying my hon. and gallant Friend's statements, but am simply saying that the experts in this connection have had these matters in mind; and, more than that, it is in the public interest that I should not say anything more.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think it is usual to give some details of the ships' armament. The number of guns, at any rate, and the speed have always been given in the past, before the War. Indeed, I understand that some details have been already given.
      Mr. AMMON: My hon. and gallant Friend is not quite correct. The armament and details have, it is true, been given in the past, but that has been after the ships have been completed or well on the way. It is true that my hon. and gallant Friend can point to one case lately in which there was a slight departure, if I may say so, but that is the only case, and I submit that it should not be made a precedent in this connection. My hon. and gallant Friend made reference to the protective qualities of the ships, and suggested that the bulge was the only protection against torpedo attack. It is true

      775
      that reliance is being largely placed on the bulge of ships. But the experimental staff and the experts are not stopping there and accepting anything as a fact. They are continuing experiments. They have not been above learning from other Powers, they have learned many lessons from the last War, and they are devising ways and means of carrying out experiments in all directions to add to the safety of the ships and their effectiveness. I was rather misrepresented unintentionally when the hon. Member said I intimated that as soon as the Washington Pact had lapsed we should begin to build capital ships again. If I said so, that was not my intention. Certainly I said we might do so, but that would be dependent on what happened in the interval and whether the different countries had come to a more reasonable frame of mind. Anyway for the time being both this country and the other countries which are signatories to the Washington Pact are carrying out what is implied therein in the letter and the spirit. The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. T. Henderson) raised one or two points of interest. His suggestion that we should compel the men to wear boots would probably lead to something like mutiny. I am afraid I should not be prepared to accept that suggestion. There has been no complaint, and, as far as we know, the men prefer to go barefoot on certain occasions.
      Mr. KIRKWOOD: Do Admirals go with bare feet?
      Mr. AMMON: They may do. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the amount of money expended in regard to medical treatment, and I gather that he estimated the value of the treatment by the amount of money shown under this item. There is more than one way in which that can be accepted, and one of the best ways is that it shows the wonderful health of the personnel of our Navy. The more important thing from his point of view is that the whole expenditure for medical treatment is not shown in Vote 9. Most of it comes under Surgeons of the Fleet, who are not covered in this Vote.
      Then I come to one or two points raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler), who naturally showed a deep interest in research and
      776
      scientific development and the following up of studies in connection with improving our armaments and protective possibilities. I can give him the assurance he wants. With regard to all the important elements which are vital to war purposes, a special Committee, consisting of all the Departments, is investigating the subject, and the First Lord and the First Sea Lord will represent any important matters before the Committee of Imperial Defence on behalf of the Admiralty.
      Sir G. BUTLER: Is there some technical expert on the Admiralty Committee?
      Mr. AMMON: There are experts in connection with the points the hon. Gentleman raised in all Departments of the Admiralty who are constantly at work exploring and investigating. That has been consistently carried out, and they will be in touch with the Committee and will keep them informed as to possible developments. I turn to the very serious and alarming points raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). One could see the effect that his speech had upon the Committee. I am very anxious to give him rest of mind on this matter, and I hope that the answer will enable him to sleep quite peacefully tonight. The bacteriologists who have been transferred to Vote 6 conduct research into the effect of various sorts of bacteria on the fibrous substances used in connection with the manufacture of cordite. There is nothing alarming about it. We are not contemplating raining down disease germs on other nations or inventing shells which can be exploded, carrying disease among other people. [An HON. MEMBER: "You might!"] Not yet. We have not developed to that stage yet. These people are simply investigating the effect of bacteria on the fibrous substances used in connection with the manufacture of cordite.
      I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised in discussion, but if there is any point I have overlooked I can only assure hon. and right hon. Members that I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow with very great care and, if I have failed to answer any point of substance, I will take care that a reply is sent, one way or another, when the point has been investigated. I thank the Committee very much for the sympathy

      777
      and consideration which they have shown to me in the passing of these Votes.
      Major BURNIE: Do I understand that it is proposed to reorganise the Royal Indian Marines as a combatant corps?
      Mr. AMMON: No, not quite that. What I did say was that the Indian Government are at present considering a scheme in that connection, and that until we get the Report from the Indian Government with regard to the matter we are unable to make any alteration as to naval co-operation.
      Major BURNIE: I have always understood that the Royal Indian Marines, apart from transport duties, act in India in a similar capacity to the Board of Trade surveyors in this country. Their work is purely civil and connected with the merchant shipping in India, and it seems to me a very bad principle to introduce an armed corps to inspect the merchant shipping in India.
      Mr. AMMON: I gather that the line of development is to raise the Royal Indian Marine on different lines from those which have hitherto obtained, and to do other work. That is the point which is now being considered by the Indian Government, whose Report we are awaiting.
      Mr. HARDIE: I listened to all the experts in regard to these matters last year, and again to-night. I have been puzzled at the differences of view existing between the experts. As a landsman, I have been listening to experts dealing with things of the sea. One point has been raised to-night which perhaps some Member of the Government Bench can explain, since the experts cannot answer it, and that is the question as to the value of an 8-inch over a 7·5 gun. Will he say whether the visibility as stated by the hon. Member for Hull is correct, or could he say that the visibility as stated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge is correct? This is a matter that should not be left to opinion, even to the opinion of those claiming to be naval experts. Surely we know from our mathematicians whether we get the visibility exactly, and surely we know through the handling of the gun. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman in charge will simply put these experts in their places by telling us what he gets from the
      778
      scientific men who are engaged in order to determine these things.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £4,258,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."

      MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENTS AND SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £462,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Medical Services, including the cost of Medical Establishments at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
      Mr. AMERY: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can give the Committee any information as to the health of the Navy at this present moment; how it compares with the health of the men in the past year.
      Viscount CURZON: May I reinforce what the right hon. Gentleman has just-said with particular reference to light cruisers? I think it is well-known that accommodation on our light cruisers and our non-light cruisers has not been at all good, and the health has not been good. I refer particularly to the "D" class, in which I believe the accommodation on the lower deck has not been at all good, and the health of the ship's company has suffered. I hope that the new light cruiser accommodation will be improved on the "D" class.
      Mr. AMMON: I am glad to be able to say that the report, as far as the health of the Navy is concerned, shows that it was more than maintained, and in fact, is rather on the upward curve this year, although I have not at the moment by me any comparative figures which one can quote with regard to other years. The Medical Director-General's report has not actually been issued, but the figures will compare very favourably with any other nation. I gather that the Noble Lord—and perhaps he, will correct me if I try to listen to two people at once—put to me the point that he hoped there would be an improvement in the new cruisers, so far as accommodation is concerned,

      779
      as compared with the "D" class. It may give him satisfaction to know that in the plans which have been drawn up all the latest designs for improved accommodation for the crew and equipment are being adopted. Earlier in the evening I was asked as to the present position of the contracts for the light cruisers. I can give the Committee the assurance that all the tenders for the machinery and for the hulls of the contract-built ships have been placed and that in distributing the work due regard has been given to what may be called the "black spot" areas and the work has been distributed so as to go as far as possible to those districts where there is the maximum of unemployment. The same principle will be acted on in allocating the orders for the armour, guns, gun-mountings, plates, etc., which will be ordered shortly.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £181,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Civilians employed on Fleet Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."

      EDUCATIONAL SERVICES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £341,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Educational Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925."
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have had very little discussion upon this important question. There is not time now to go into it at any length, but I want to raise on a future occasion the question of the fees paid by the cadets in the naval training colleges. I do hope that the Government will take the matter in hand. It is not right that in this matter we should be so much behind, the American and Japanese Navies. Japan is one of the oldest monarchies in the world, and though they recruit their officers from the noble classes in Japan yet the State pays all the fees. I do hope that we may adopt a similar democratic plan in this country.
      Mr. AMMON Mr. AMMON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
      Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I further want to raise the question of the age of entry of cadets. During the War we found that the public school boys who came to us at a later age were in many respects more efficient as officers than the cadets who came at a much earlier age. The later age gives a better chance to the boys from secondary schools and grammar schools of the country.
      It being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next (12th May).
      Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

    EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

    MARRIAGES VALIDITY (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL [Lords].
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Will someone explain this Bill?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): This Bill is purely a formal matter and does not involve any question of principle.
    Commander EYRES-MONSELL: No explanation of the Bill has been given and I object to its being taken after Eleven o'Clock.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.
    Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

    MARRIAGE (PROHIBITED DEGREES OF RELATIONSHIP) BILL.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]
      Adjourned accordingly at Four Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (REGISTER OF VOTERS).
  NORTHERN IRELAND (REGISTER OF VOTERS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  MINOR GRADES (PAY).
  MINOR GRADES (PAY).
  TEMPORARY GRADE III CLERKS.
  TEMPORARY GRADE III CLERKS.
  DECEASED CONSULAR OFFICER (SONS' EDUCATION).
  DECEASED CONSULAR OFFICER (SONS' EDUCATION).
EX-SERVICE MEN.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
  CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT.
  WAR OFFICE.
  WAR OFFICE.
  STATE PENSIONS.
  STATE PENSIONS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF AND INSURANCE BENEFITS.
  POOR LAW RELIEF AND INSURANCE BENEFITS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
BUDGET.
  DIRECT TAXATION.
  DIRECT TAXATION.
  BEER, SPIRITS, AND TOBACCO DUTIES.
  BEER, SPIRITS, AND TOBACCO DUTIES.
  IRISH NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  IRISH NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY.
  ALIENS (RUSSIANS).
  ALIENS (RUSSIANS).
  HOLLOWAY PRISON (GIRLS).
  HOLLOWAY PRISON (GIRLS).
  WOMEN PROBATIONERS.
  WOMEN PROBATIONERS.
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SHARE FISHERMEN).
  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SHARE FISHERMEN).
  PITCH LAKE CONCESSION, TRINIDAD.
  PITCH LAKE CONCESSION, TRINIDAD.
  OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  PRUDENTIAL APPROVED SOCIETY (BENEFITS).
  PRUDENTIAL APPROVED SOCIETY (BENEFITS).
  HOUSING (BUILDING MATERIALS).
  HOUSING (BUILDING MATERIALS).
EDUCATION.
  ART SCHOOLS (NATIONAL COMPETITION).
  ART SCHOOLS (NATIONAL COMPETITION).
  TEACHBKS' PEXSIONS (MISS E. A. WILLIAMS).
  TEACHBKS' PEXSIONS (MISS E. A. WILLIAMS).
  EGYPT.
  EGYPT.
POST OFFICE.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, GOLDER'S GREEN.
  TELEPHONE SERVICE, GOLDER'S GREEN.
  MAILS, CHINA AND FAR EAST.
  MAILS, CHINA AND FAR EAST.
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE (EXPENSES).
  SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE (EXPENSES).
  OBSERVATION CASES.
  OBSERVATION CASES.
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  PARENTS' PENSIONS.
  DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE (W. S. ATKINS).
  DISCHARGE BY PURCHASE (W. S. ATKINS).
ROYAL NAVY.
  COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, HOME PORTS.
  COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, HOME PORTS.
  PROGRESSIVE PAY.
  PROGRESSIVE PAY.
  WRITER RATINGS (PROMOTION).
  WRITER RATINGS (PROMOTION).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "TIGER" (INJURED SEAMAN'S CLAIM).
  HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "TIGER" (INJURED SEAMAN'S CLAIM).
  ACTING STOREHOUSEMEN AND LABORATORY MEN.
  ACTING STOREHOUSEMEN AND LABORATORY MEN.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (TERRITORIAL ARMY).
  MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (TERRITORIAL ARMY).
  GENERAL ROUTINE ORDERS.
  GENERAL ROUTINE ORDERS.
  IRAQ (BRITISH TROOPS).
  IRAQ (BRITISH TROOPS).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  OFFICERS KILLED (DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).
  OFFICERS KILLED (DEPENDANTS' PENSIONS).
  ACCIDENTS.
  ACCIDENTS.
  FELIXSTOWE FLYING EXPERIMENT.
  FELIXSTOWE FLYING EXPERIMENT.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTHAMPTON WATER BILL.
Read 2a.
STROUD WATER BILL.
Read 2a
WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (TELEGRAPH) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (COST OF MEDICAL BENEFIT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I cannot help expressing my pleasure at being able to introduce a Ministry of Health Bill that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, cannot claim to have started. However, in spite of this fact, I still hope for his benediction. This Bill, amongst other things, is the result of the settlement of the dispute with the doctors with regard to the capitation fee. The Government is faced with this situation: that as the law stands now 9s. 6d. is the sum that is allowed per insured person under the Act, whereas the actual cost of medical benefit per insured person has been as much as 4s. above that amount, and at the present moment is 2s. 4¼d. above it. Hitherto this deficiency has been met by Grants from the Exchequer. All parties concerned in this matter have, however, been agreed that this system of Grants from the Exchequer is not satisfactory. The merit of this Bill is that it has succeeded in contriving a method by which this Act will be financed for three years out of its own funds.
336
The actual deficiency to be made up is, approximately, slightly over £1,750,000 and there are three sources from which the Government intends to draw its money. The first is the friendly societies. The friendly societies regarded this deficiency with considerable alarm at first, for they rather naturally feared that their funds, which were in large measure designed for other purposes, might be raided in order to make up this deficiency. They have, however, consented to make a small contribution for certain expenses of administration, and this contribution amounts to £118,000. The largest source from which the Government intend to draw the money they need is the Central Fund. This Central Fund, I think your Lordships will probably be agreed, is in the main made up from rather a curious source. There appear to be a very considerable number of people who come under this insurance, scheme and who actually purchase the stamps but do not make use of them and do not claim benefit. There is, therefore, a very large number of these sums which have accumulated and have been credited to the Central Fund. The Minister is advised that this source of revenue is so regular, it can be so depended upon, that he is perfectly safe in drawing on it. The contribution from the Central Fund will be, approximately, £1,250,000. The contribution of the friendly societies and what is got from the Central Fund make up 1s. 8¼d. of the deficiency and we have therefore to look for a further sixpence. This will be obtained from the investment account.
It is quite clear that it would be impossible to carry on a business of this kind without a considerable margin in hand. This margin has not been allowed to lie idle, but has been invested in Government securities. The statutory interest on this invested money was laid down at 4½ per cent., but owing to the recent condition of the money market it has been possible to obtain slightly more than 4½ per cent. The Minister, therefore, has been advised that he would be acting with complete safety if he were to make use of this, shall we say, windfall, to make up the remaining sixpence that is needed. This Bill is intended to operate for three years, the years 1924, 1925 and 1926. It has been accorded agreement by all the parties concerned, and it is because of this agreement, that it has been able to pass through

337
another place without either opposition or amendment. I therefore beg to move the Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, it is true that I did not have the privilege of introducing this Bill last Session, but at any rate during the lifetime of the late Government the controversy which the noble Earl has so successfully brought to an end with this Bill commenced and I must congratulate him on his success. The Bill is a necessary Bill and cannot be postponed, because the doctors are performing their work and the money must be found. I therefore hope that it will obtain a Second Beading at your Lordships' hands.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD OLIVIER): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is to mitigate the very severe rule that now prevails with regard to the tenure of office of a Governor, or Governor-General, in India by which he is compelled to remain for seven years continuously in India, and can receive no leave either on account of his own health or in order to consult with the Secretary of State in England if it should be necessary or desirable for him to do so. The principle of the Bill was accepted by the noble Viscount, my predecessor in the India Office, who, not very long ago, raised the whole question in this House and put before your Lordships very fully and eloquently the reasons why he was convinced that such a Bill was desirable. And in regard to the principle of the Bill he was supported by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition and by one or more other members of this House familiar with Indian affairs. Consequently, as to the, principle of the Bill, I think I shall have no difficulty in assuming that your Lordships are prepared to agree to it.
With regard to the contents of the Bill I have to make certain observations. The Bill, as drafted, may he subject to certain
338
verbal Amendments which I shall propose in Committee. The only points I need notice in regard to those Amendments are these. In Clause 1, subsection (3), it is proposed that
"Where the Governor-General, or the Commander-in-Chief, or a governor or a member of an executive council obtains leave of absence in pursuance of this section, he shall retain his office during his absence, but if his absence exceeds the period for which leave is granted his office shall become vacant."
The question was raised on the First Reading of the Bill as to whether any limitation should be placed on the length of time for which a Governor should be granted leave and also whether he should be allowed leave more than once during his term of office. We are disposed to limit the period of a leave of absence which may be granted to a Governor to six months and to limit his leave altogether to one period of leave. We propose to do that by means of Rules under the Act as provided for in the earlier part of Clause 1:
"Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed by Rules."
In the substituted Section 87 (1), there was a slight omission in the drafting of the Bill, because it does not provide for the appointment of a Governor to act in place of any Governor who may have been appointed to act as Governor-General and we propose, therefore, to insert, after the word "Governor," the words.
"or when a Governor is appointed in pursuance of this section in place of the Governor-General,"
so that the same condition may apply to the Governor acting for the Governor-General as applies if he is going on leave himself or as applies to the Governor-General when he if going on leave.
With regard to the filling of all these vacancies while the officers are on leave we propose to insert in the instructions to the Governor-General that if the Governor-General or any Governor desires to go on leave the Governor-General is to submit to the Secretary of State a recommendation for filling the vacancy. The Secretary of State will consider the recommendation and will in most eases, obviously, act upon it. The Governor-General was consulted on the subject, and we propose to provide for that by instructions to the Governor-General. We did not think it necessary to put them in the Bill.

339
Another Clause to which I might call attention is Clause 3 which provides that the Commander-in-Chief of His Majesty's Forces in India is appointed by His Majesty by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. At the present time there is no statutory provision for the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief, but, as we propose to make this Bill apply to the granting of leave to the Commander-in-Chief, it seems reasonable to make statutory the method of appointing the permanent incumbent of the office of Commander-in-Chief. It is the actual method, and we simply place in the Bill what has hitherto been omitted—namely, the statement that the Commander-in-Chief in India is appointed by His Majesty under the Royal Sign Manual. Clause 4 simply enables this Act to be incorporated with the Government of India Act in general when that Act is reprinted. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Olivier.)
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I am very glad that His Majesty's Government have at last taken this matter in hand. More than twenty years ago I called the attention of the House to the anachronism of the then four high Indian officials—there are more now—being debarred by Act of Parliament from taking leave even when it was very necessary upon a medical certificate. To show how ridiculous it was I pointed out that Lord Milner, who was then High Commissioner in South Africa—an appointment certainly as important as that of the Governor of a Presidency in India—was at that very moment in England, and that the Governor-General of Canada could at that time take leave, while these four unfortunate persons were prevented from doing so.
On March 31, 1895, the Presidential Commanders-in-Chief were debarred from taking leave. On the very next day they were doing precisely the same work, but because they were no longer entitled Commanders-in-Chief, but were known as General Officers Commanding the Western or the Southern Army, as the case might be, they could go on leave. A life which was very valuable at that time—that of Sir William Lockhart—might have been saved had it been possible to give him
340
leave; but it was not possible. My noble friend Lord Elgin was very ill indeed and was sent out to the Bay of Bengal for quite a considerable time in order to give him a change. He was not vacating his post, because he was not going west of Cape Town which, I believe, was the limit to which a Viceroy might go under the Act.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My noble friend will pardon me, but the Viceroy could go anywhere he liked except to Europe.
LORD HARRIS: Could he go west of the Cape of Good Hope?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLES TON: Yes.
LORD HARRIS: I am obliged to the noble Marquess, but that was my impression twenty years ago. The Governor of Bombay could in those days spend six months on the Somali coast and enjoy a very nice holiday with plenty of shooting The Governor of Madras could spend what time he pleased in the Lacadive Islands without offending against the Act. The Government of the day, however, were indisposed to deal with the matter, although in 1887 a special Act was passed in order to enable the illustrious Duke of Connaught to return home to attend Her Majesty's Jubilee, and a Bill was brought in about 1891 by the then Marquess of Salisbury and passed through several stages in your Lordships' House but did not get any further. I think your Lordships will agree that it is an anachronism in these times, when the facilities for travel are so very much better than they were twenty years ago, that these unfortunate officials should not be allowed to take leave. I do not imagine that there are many of them who will want to take leave. I should think it is likely that they will be disposed to do so only when their health is such that there is danger of its being seriously affected otherwise. I can see no possible disadvantage in putting these officials upon the same basis as the other high officials who are at the head of affairs in His Majesty's Dominions. Therefore I heartily support the Bill.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I think this Bill is one of sufficient importance to justify serious

341
attention being devoted to it by your Lordships' House and that an unfavourable impression would be produced if, owing to the reticence or modesty of any of our members who are qualified to speak upon it, your Lordships gave, as I have no doubt you will give, your assent to the Second "Reading without understanding the implications which that will involve and without considering very seriously the manner in which it is proposed to make the contemplated change. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, said that we had had something; in the nature of a Second Reading discussion upon the Question raised by my noble friend Lord Peel a few weeks ago. That is true; but for my own part I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Harris, in the observations which he has just made, treat the matter de novo and from the resources of his own experience state to us how essential he thought it was in the public interest that these modifications in the existing law should be made.
I do not know that it is necessary to go at any length into a recapitulation of the causes which justify this change in the law, but I think I could sum them up in a single sentence for those who have not had an opportunity of following our former discussion, if I say this. In the first place, it is, as Lord Harris has pointed out, a strange anomaly and, indeed, an anachronism, to use his own expression, that these high officials in India are the only high officials of Government in the Empire (and the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the. Governments of foreign States) who are denied the opportunity for any reasons, however urgent, of coming home during their tenure of office except at the price of having to resign the appointments which they hold.
In the second place, there is the absurdity, to which my noble friend Lord Harris referred, that under the existing law any one of these high officials—I am speaking more particularly of the Viceroy, or the Commander-in-Chief—may go as far afield as he likes (far further afield than the Cape of Good Hope, I can assure my noble friend) provided only that this excursion, for whatever object it be undertaken, is not intended to culminate in a visit to Europe. That is an absurd and indefensible provision. Then remember that this anomaly which I have described is all the more anomalous
342
because under the law you refuse to these high officials of the Government of India the opportunities which are enjoyed by all the lower grades in the same Service.
That is the extent of the anomaly. But now observe its operation, I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that this restriction has exercised in the past, and, if unmodified, will continue to exercise, in the future a most unfortunate limitation on the choice of the persons you send. It is within my knowledge that both in the case of the Viceroy of India, and in the case of Governors of Presidencies, men of the highest position and repute, well fitted for such an office, have been compelled to refuse it because of the rigour of the existing law which would deprive them, for a period of five years, of any opportunity of returning to this country. Again I think it might be said that it is hard upon the man himself. You place upon your Viceroy, or your Commander-in-Chief, or Governors, no mean burden. You send them away to a distant, and in some respects rather a trying climate, for a period of five years, and you say: "You are, for no reason whatever, however pressing, during that time to lie at liberty to return and have a vacation," except at the price which I have stated.
But stronger even than that is the case of what I describe as the public interest. I do emphatically lay it down that it is an absurdity that in this particular Service, alone of all the great Services of the State, no means exist, as the matter at present stands, for personal conference or consultation between the heads of the Government here, and the corresponding heads in India. When I was at the Foreign Office and was confronted with a serious situation of affairs in Europe, or beyond Europe, I sent for His Majesty's Ambassador, and he came at once to confer with me at home. Lord Harris very justly pointed out that in the case of the South African War, the Government, who were in a very anxious position here, sent for Lord Milner, the High Commissioner, to come all the way from South Africa. The same considerations apply to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Lord himself has been a Colonial Governor. I do not know whether lie was summoned home during his tenure of office, but it is not by any means an uncommon thing. There is

343
nothing to prevent my noble friend who is First Lord of the Admiralty now, if he saw the necessity, summoning the Commander-in-Chief from the China Station or any other station, however remote, to come and consult with him. The only persons in the wide ambit of the British Empire in regard to whom you lay it down that you will only communicate with them by telegram or letter are these high Indian officials.
I remember Lord Salisbury saying to me once—he had been Secretary of State for India and Prime Minister—that the course of history might have been changed if he had had the opportunity, or if the Government of which he was the head had had the opportunity, of bringing themselves into personal consultation with the head of the Government of India. If I may for a moment quote my own experience, it was chequered, and in some respects tragic. I can well conceive that the situation might have been materially altered had the opportunity been accorded to me which it is proposed by this change in the law to afford in the future. I think I need not labour that, because on that general aspect of the case I take it we are all agreed. I think we shall also all be agreed on this: that it is a privilege, if it be granted (and I do not deny that it is a privilege) that must not be abused, and that it is a privilege that must not be lightly or frivolously used in the future. The last thing that any of us want, and the main point against which we must safeguard in this Bill, is lest the privilege, once accorded, should gradually slip into being a general practice, and be regarded as a right to which every Viceroy, or every Governor for the matter of that, would think that he had a claim, and which he would proceed, in the ordinary course of events, to exercise.
The remarks which I shall pass upon the Bill are—assuming that we are agreed upon the principle—directed to ensuring that these risks shall not occur. I come, therefore, to the conditions and securities which it is desirable to obtain, and I observe that none of these are stated—with one exception, to which I will come in a moment—in the text of the Bill which is under our examination. On the contrary, the Government, while clearly contemplating that such conditions are required, propose to provide for them by Rules in accordance with
344
the terms of the Government of India Act. I shall state presently the reasons why I think that is a thoroughly undesirable method of procedure, and that instead of entrusting them to Rules, which may be little known, which may even be subject to alteration from time to time, it is much better that we should be above board and state plainly to the knowledge of the public both in England and in India what are the conditions under which we propose that this privilege shall be available.
The first conditions that it is our duty to discuss are those of time. The noble Lord just now gave us an indication that what the Government have in view is this. They propose to put in the Rules a limitation of the period of absence to six months. I think that is too much. The conditions have radically changed in proportion as your means of communication with India have themselves improved both in quality and in rapidity. You now get to India, or from India, in a little over a fortnight. Therefore, the double journey to and fro need not occupy more than four or five weeks at the most. Assuming, as I am going to do, that the objects for which the returning Governor, or Viceroy, or Commander-in-Chief is to be allowed to come are only those of urgent importance, I think that it would be ample to provide that the total absence from date of departure from India to date of return to India should be four months. Four months is one-third of a year, and amounts to seventeen and a half weeks. If you deduct from that the five weeks for the journey to and fro you will get some twelve to thirteen weeks—close upon three months—which the returned official would be able to spend in this country.
Allusion has been made by the noble Lord to the proposal which was made by the Government of India when I was its head in 1902. At that time we proposed a limitation of three months. I do not know what period my noble friend Lord Chelmsford put in his Despatch of 1921, because I have not seen it.
VISCOUNT CHELMSFORD: I do not think we mentioned any details: we only-adopted the principles.
THE MARQUESS CURZOX OF KEDLESTON: We recommended three months, although that was, perhaps, too short. I should be disposed myself to urge upon

345
your Lordships, if you put into the Bill a limiting period, that it should be four months.
The Secretary of State mentioned just now that this privilege of leave should be accorded to the official who receives it only once during his term of office. That it seems to me, is exceedingly wise, and in the event of a ease occurring in which a man might want, for the second time, for any of the reasons to which I will presently refer, to come home, I think, ii it occurs twice in his term of office, he ought to resign. Once would be quite enough to give him this privilege, and in the event of his being compelled to resign under circumstances of any hardship there is nothing whatever to prevent His Majesty's Government from re appointing him, as, indeed, they re-appointed me some twenty or so years ago.
I come next to the other restrictions which we ought carefully to lay down as securities against abuse. The noble Lord has provided some in the Bill, and very good they are. He lays down, for instance, that in the case of the Viceroy coming home the consent of the Secretary of State in Council is required; that in the case of the Commander-in-Chief or a Presidential Governor coming home, the consent of the Secretary of State in Council shall be required on application from the Governor-General in Council, and that in the case of members of the Executive Council the consent of the Governor-General in Council or of the Governor in Council or of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, shall be required. That seems to be to be entirely to the good.
But I now come to the main point of my remarks. Let us consider very carefully the conditions under which, and under which alone, leave ought to be given. I take it that they are three in number. There is, first, the condition of a man coming home, or being sent for to come home, for urgent affairs of State. There is, secondly, the condition under which he may require to come home on grounds of ill-health, and there is, thirdly, the condition under which urgent matters of private interest, may compel his return. Let me deal with each of these for a moment.
I have already indicated that, in the opinion of all those who have been con
346
nected with the Government of India it may be desirable to provide an opportunity in the public interest for such conferences as I have referred to. Let me give your Lordships the kind of cases in which, either in the case of the Viceroy or Commander-in-Chief, or both, such power of personal conversation might be of the highest importance. Let us imagine cases in which a was threatened on the frontiers of India, or in which serious trouble arose with Afghanistan. Let us, again, imagine cases arising out of the Army and military affairs, in which there might be proposals of a very serious character either for the diminution or the augmentation of the Indian Army; or cases in which the question of co-operation between the military forces of the Home Government and the Indian Government might be involved. On all such cases, and they are matters of urgent public importance, I can conceive it very likely indeed that the Government at-home might think it desirable to summon the Viceroy or Commander-in-Chief. And do not let us regard it only from the point of view of the Government at home; it might equally be in the interests of the Government of India.
With the ocean lying between, and with the difficulty we have all experienced of making our case understood by telegraph or on paper, many cases might occur over 7,000 miles of ocean of misunderstanding which a few hours' conversation might dispose of. You cannot do it under the present system. The whole history of India might have been different and many Governor-Generals in the past whose careers have ended in trouble and disaster might have been saved if they had had an opportunity for a few words with the Secretary of State and with the Government at home. I could easily establish my contention by references, but I refrain from doing so, because I do not think anybody will dispute the general validity of what I am venturing to urge.
Next take the case of health. My noble friend Lord Harris alluded to one case with which I happen to be personally familiar—Sir William Lockhart. When I went out to India he was Commander-in-Chief, a man who had risen to that position by his unaided abilities and merits: a man of great strength of character, universally popular and with an assured future of public usefulness

347
before him. He was stricken down by illness, and I was told by his physician that his life would have been saved had it been possible for him to return to England. He could not afford to do so. He had no security that he would be reappointed to his position, someone would have stepped into his shoes. That valuable life was lost to the State, his services were lost to the Empire, because of this cruel, unfeeling and, I think, unnecessary rule.
Take the case of private affairs. None of us likes to talk about these matters in public, but the whole history of the Viceroys and Governor-General of India is seamed with streaks of personal tragedy, sorrow and suffering. Men out there have lost their wives at home, have lost their children at home, and could not come back either to see or make arrangements for the loved one who died. It is not only cruel, it is almost monstrous, to say that in these circumstances a man should not be allowed the common privileges which humanity would concede to every one. Unless the law is changed he must resign his office in order to do so. One of the conditions under which this change in the law will have to be applied must therefore be that of domestic concern. In the Bills to which Lord Harris has referred, introduced in your Lordships' House and passed here—it was only in the other place that they were not taken up—in 1891 and 1892 (I was Under-Secretary at the time), a provision was introduced that the leave which was contemplated should be, granted either on public grounds or by reason of illness attested by a medical certificate. I do not approve of either of those words because they are too loose and too vague. "Public grounds" may cover almost anything, and as for a "medical certificate"-in India there is not one of us who cannot get a medical certificate any morning, evening or night, saying that we should be all the better for a change of air in this country. Therefore, I think we want to be a good deal less loose and more precise in our terms.
I shall be disposed at a later date to recommend for the consideration of your Lordships that the conditions under which leave may be given should be stated more precisely; perhaps somewhat as follows. I think you will find it wise, in order to prevent abuse, to make a
348
distinction, which in my view can be entirely justified when you are speaking of public interest, between the case of the Viceroy and Commander-in-Chief on the one hand and a Governor and other high officials on the other. I do not think any one contemplates it as desirable that these officials, eminent as they are, would require to be summoned home on grounds of public interest in order to consult with the Government at home. I think it would be desirable to lay down in the case of the Viceroy and Commander-in-Chief that should the situation arise leave should be given for urgent reasons of public interest, or of health, or of private affairs. My words, you will see, demand that the reasons in each case should be urgent, and I think that will save you from the kind of abuse which I have hinted at as possible. Those three conditions should, I think, apply to the case of the Viceroy and Commander-in-Chief, and the conditions as regards health and private affairs would properly apply to the remaining high officials who are concerned.
I come now to another question of minor importance but not insignificant, and that is the question of the salary paid while the official is away. In all the previous legislation upon this matter definite proposals have been made. For instance, in the Bills of 1891 and 1892, as originally introduced, power was given to the Secretary of State in Council to determine what part, if any, of the salary of the Viceroy, or Commander-in-Chief, or Governor, not exceeding one-half, should be paid to him, provided he returned to India. That provision was a little altered in Committee in your Lordships' House, and it finally emerged in this form:
"Any such officer shall receive for the period of his absence from India such part of his salary and, when his presence in England is required on public grounds, such expenses of his voyage from and to India, as the Secretary of State in Council shall direct."
We must consider this matter very carefully because, although it is quite true that the Secretary of State contemplates doing a number of things by Rules in the future, and although he may very likely say to me that he proposes to deal with this question by Rules, yet at the same time, if you look at the Bill in its present form, you will see a definite statement on

349
page 2 which implies, if it does not actually state, that the incumbent will receive, the full emoluments of the office which he is temporarily holding.
Is that quite just? In the first place, are you to deny to your Viceroy, or your Governor, or your Commander-in-Chief, when he comes home, any share or portion of his emolument? That does not happen in any other service in the world. If a Colonial Governor, or an Ambassador, comes home, he receives a certain portion of his salary while he is away. Supposing you send for the Viceroy, supposing he does not want to come, but you say: "You must come, because we want to discuss Afghan affairs with you," is it to be contemplated, in the first place, that the Viceroy should have to pay for his journey to and fro? I am sure it is not. In the second place, even if that be provided for by Rules, is it contemplated that he is to receive nothing during his compulsory residence in this country? I think that would be unfair, I am not suggesting for a moment that my noble friend Lord Olivier has that in mind, but I am suggesting that this House and the public ought to be clearly informed of the views of the Government, and to know exactly what is going to happen.
Let me give an illustration of the kind of way in which it would operate. Ordinarily speaking, a Viceroy, or a Governor, coming home would come at what I may call the slack season, in the hot weather. Let us suppose his period of absence is four months, as I suggest, or six months, as the Secretary of State suggests. Is it right that the temporary incumbent who succeeds him should take one-third, or one-half, as the case might be, of the total emolument of the officer in question for the year, when he would be receiving that pay at a time of year when in all probability the social obligations laid upon him would be very small indeed? I think that would be an injustice. What we proposed, I think, in 1902, when I was Viceroy, was this: we definitely proposed that the expenses incurred by the Viceroy, the Commander-in-Chief and the Governors in going to and fro should be paid by the State, and we also proposed that the acting officer who filled their places should, in accordance with the Rule that applies to Members of the
350
Council both of the Governor-General and of Madras and Bombay, draw half the pay of their substantive office and half the pay of the office in which they were acting. That was carefully thought out in the Departments of the Government at that time, and I think there were good reasons for it. I mention the matter now only because, when we come to the Committee stage, it is one of the points about which, no doubt, the noble Lord will be ready with an explanation, and upon which I think we ought to be very precise in order to prevent injustice being done cither one way or the other.
I now come to the concluding part of the Bill, which is really, in my view, of more importance than any other. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State, indicated in his speech, and, indeed, it is laid down in the Bill as drafted, that all of those matters, or at any rate the bulk of them, to which I have been referring shall be prescribed by Rules made under Section 94 of the Act. I very much object to that provision, and I do so for this reason. It was not found necessary in the Bills of 1891 and 1892. There we stated quite clearly and explicitly the conditions as regards time, as regards reasons, as regards salary, which we were prepared to introduce into the law. This practice of legislating by Rules is one which is not only capable of great abuse but has been greatly abused for many years past. During the war we carried it, for reasons with which everybody is familiar, to lengths which, even if they were undue, had at any rate a great deal of justification. But now that we have reverted to more normal times, I think the more we legislate by Rules the nature of which is unknown, which remain to be disclosed in the future, which are to be laid upon the Table of the House, where nobody sees them, and which, if they are laid upon the Table and seen, will provoke renewed discussion in your Lordships' House about a matter which ought not to be made the theme of constant debate here—the more we legislate in these conditions by Rules the worse, as a general principle, is the result.
Observe another feature. We are going to make a great change in the law. Some people will be very suspicious and say that we are trying to provide a good excuse for these people to slip away home whenever they desire, It is not true, but

351
that idea will prevail, and therefore it is surely incumbent upon us to make it perfectly clear, not by unknown Rules, which very likely we shall not see here for a long time, but in the body of the Act, exactly what we propose and what are the conditions that we intend to enforce. One other point as regards Rules. Supposing all these matters are to be settled by Rules, what is to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Olivier, from drawing up a set of Rules which respond to his feelings and to those of the India Office at the present time? Then, in the course of time, another Secretary of State will come in, and he will have a different idea and will draw up another body of Rules. It may be said that this method will be safeguarded by laying it down that the Rules shall lie upon the Table of the House, and either that they shall become operative if nobody raises an objection, or that they shall become operative only if the definite assent of both Houses of Parliament is given to them. But in that case you are exposed to the risk that the matter may slip through unobserved—because how few of us know what is laid upon the Table!—and, in the second place, if our confirmative assent is required, you may, with changes of Secretaries of State, have opportunities, as I hinted just now, of recurrent discussion on these matters which it is profoundly undesirable to make the theme of public debate either in this country or in India. I venture, therefore, respectfully to suggest that instead of proceeding by Rules we should insert in the body of the Bill the exact conditions which we desire to enforce.
I have been, I know, rather long about this matter, but I trust that the observations I have made may have led your Lordships' House to realise that this subject is of greater importance than might otherwise be imagined, that we ought not to proceed hastily, and that the more care we devote to it now the more chance there is of having legislation which will be accepted by public opinion and be successful in practice. In conclusion, I would only add that I have no means of knowing the attitude of the Secretary of State and his advisers towards the views that I have put forward. The last thing which I would desire would be any conflict, on a matter of this sort, between the two sides of the House, or between any elements
352
in the House. This change, if there is to be a change, should be carried out by common consent, and I offer my own co-operation in any degree that may be required, at any future stage, to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, with a view, before the Committee stage, of arriving at solutions which may be acceptable to both sides.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is already the second discussion this Session, and the third discussion in the last few years, in this House on this subject, and as I have had the misfortune to take part in all of them, I shall not venture to detain your Lordships at any great length. It is not necessary that I should follow the noble Marquess who has just sat down in all the matters of detail to which he quite rightly has called the attention of the House. Your Lordships' House has agreed generally to the principle of the Bill, and I am happy to think that on this occasion I find myself wholly in accord with what has been said by the noble Marquess. I confess that when I came to read the Bill I did it with feelings of considerable dismay, because on the last occasion when we discussed the subject we all agreed that the leave to be given to the various high officials should be subject to very careful safeguards, and I could not find in the whole of this Bill any sort or kind of safeguard. Therefore, I am glad to think that the noble Marquess has called your Lordships' attention to the matter, and has also insisted, as it seems to me rightly, that these safeguards should be made part and parcel of the measure itself.
It was Lord Banbury of Southam, I think, who called attention only yesterday to the anxiety of various Departments to substitute themselves for both Houses of Parliament—their readiness to legislate instead of allowing the two Houses of Parliament to legislate. This seems to me to be another example of the same tendency, proceeding from yet another Department. If I may say so, I think that with a Labour Government of a Socialist character in office, we should be very careful to see that the various Departments do not arrogate to themselves too much power. And I confess that another criticism which was made on the last occasion seems to have been thoroughly justified by events. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State, on

353
that occasion was anxious to take the Second Reading of this Bill on the very day after that on which he had taken the First Reading, at a moment when we should certainly not have had the time in which to devote to the measure that consideration which it deserves. The delay which has taken place at the request of the noble Marquess has been, fully justified by the speech to which we have just listened. It has shown how many important matters there are which need consideration.
The special circumstances always introduced into a measure of this kind have naturally a tendency to become more matters of routine. You may say that this leave is only to be given on special occasions, but unless you guard it very carefully indeed, and especially by Act of Parliament, human nature being what it is, it is almost certain to become a matter of ordinary routine for every Viceroy to take a period of leave without the existence of special circumstances. For that reason I am anxious to see in the Bill Amendments which will safeguard us in this respect.
There is one other matter to which I propose to refer. It is that I feel some little hesitation in giving to (he Viceroy the power to negative any request for leave addressed to him by the Commander-in-Chief. The noble Marquess, Lord Curzon, will, I am sure, appreciate the point of my remark if I imagine the possibility of a controversy arising between the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief, and the Viceroy coming home to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State. It would be in the power of the Viceroy to forbid the Commander-in-Chief to come home in order that he might place his version of the affair before the Secretary of State.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It is the Governor-General in Council.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: Yes, but of course we all recognise the fact that there are Viceroys, or Governors-General in Council, able to impose their will upon their Council, and I regard with some hesitation the power of veto given by the Bill to the Governor in Council to prevent the Commander-in-Chief from coming home and putting his side of the controversy before the Secretary of State.
354
There is one other question which I will venture to address to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, and it is in regard to the Executive Council. I understand that at the present moment the Members of the Executive Council have power to come home, and therefore I am not quite clear why in subsection (2) of Clause 1 reference is made to Members of the Executive Council, to whom the Governor in Council or Lieutenant-Governor in Council may grant leave of absence. Since these Members of the Executive Council can come home on leave it is not quite clear why it is necessary to introduce this particular provision. I venture to hope that the criticisms which have been made may appeal to the Secretary of State and that he may see his way, when we come to the Committee stage, to move Amendments which will meet the various objections that have been raised in the course of this Second Beading discussion.
LORD SOUTIIBOROUGH: My Lords, I desire to put an administrative point arising from this Bill before your Lordships, and it is in no way a criticism of the Bill itself. I observe that in the Bill the appointment of the Acting Governor is to be made by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware that if that course is adopted there will be, a difference in principle between the method of appointment as regards India, on the one hand, and as regard the Dominions and the Crown Colonies, on the other. It is possible that that must be so, but, it appears to me that before going into Committee on the Bill your Lordships ought to be aware of the fact.
The Dominion and Crown Colony practice is this: The dormant Commission, as it is called, which controls the appointment of the Acting Governor, contains in most cases the names of offices and not of persons; that is, in the dormant Commission, which is the creature of the Letters Patent, appointing the Governor, there is a provision which says that where the Governor takes leave and his place is filled during his temporary absence it shall be filled by the holder of an office-it may be the Chief Justice, or it may be the officer commanding the troops, or the Lieutenant-Governor, if there is such a person in the Dominion or Colony. The effect of that procedure is, that from the time when the Governor

355
takes office it has been decided in writing—namely, in the Letters Patent—who is really going to represent the Governor when he goes on leave. It is true that in some cases the Letters Patent contain, not the name of the office which is to produce the Lieutenant-Governor, but a name itself; some person is named in the Letters Patent. The disadvantage of that hours is that, as time goes on, the person named in the document may have retired, or he may be dead. But, in any event, the practice adopted as regards the Dominions and the Crown Colonies ensures that, from the start, everybody knows who is going to succeed the Governor when he goes on leave.
There will be no difficulty at all with regard to the Governor-General in India, because it will be settled as a matter of course. He will be succeeded, no doubt, by the senior Governor, or by the Commander-in-Chief. But in the Provinces I can see some difficulty in making an ad hoc appointment at the moment when the leave is given. It will be an invidious task in many cases. I can well understand that when the Governor of a Province has applied for leave there may be at the head of the Provincial Government a British official, a distinguished man, but a man whom, for various reasons, perhaps personal, the Secretary of State would not desire to put temporarily into the seat of Government. Of it may be that the head of the Government at the moment is a distinguished Indian—a gentleman prominent in every way, but holding opinions upon Indian affairs which, at such a time as this, would make him unacceptable on political grounds to the Secretary of State. I am afraid that if the appointments are made ad hoc, instead of being made in advance, at the time of the appointment of the Governors, it may give cause for a great deal of personal jealousy, and also for political criticism.
Perhaps I am laying too much stress upon experience of the Dominions and Crown Colonies, but I point out to your Lordships and to my noble friend the Secretary of State for India, who is very familiar with the procedure on the other side of the Empire, that this point ought to be considered—namely, whether the person who is to succeed in each Government as temporary Governor
356
should be settled at the time when the Governor is appointed, or whether it should be left to the time when leave is granted.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I am most indebted to the noble Marquess opposite and to my noble friend Lord South-borough for the observations they have made upon the Bill. One principal point has been raised throughout the whole of the discussion—namely, whether we should fill up this Bill with details, which we should establish by legislation, or whether we should leave those details to the Rules. Being an old Colonial servant, and also an old civil servant, I asked myself why matters which, in regard to the British Civil Service and in regard to the Colonial Service are not dealt with by Acts of Parliament, but are dealt with by rescripts of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, or by Royal instructions, or Letters Patent, should, in regard to the Government of India, be dealt with by a Bill at a time when we are rather tending to advance towards the recognition that the Government of India has a certain claim towards autonomy under the guidance of the Secretary of State. Why should we fill up the Bill with provisions of that sort—provisions with regard to the length of time for which leave should be granted, the allowances to be granted on leave, and so on, all of which matters under the Colonial Office are settled by the Secretary of State, or by the Treasury?
I quite admit that the habit of legislation by Order in Council, or by Rules, is a vice of all public Departments. They think that it is better that Parliament should give them large powers to do these things by Rules which may be laid quietly on the Table of the House. It is more convenient, because, if you want to alter your Rules, you can do so when good reason is shown for altering them, whereas it is inconvenient to be continually altering your Act of Parliament. With regard to some matters, for example, the restriction as to the number of times of absence, or the length of the period of absence, I am quite willing that those should be put into the Bill, if the noble Marquess presses it; but, really, is it necessary as a matter of principle that the question of salaries, and so on, should be put into a Bill of this sort?
THE MARQUESS CURZON OR KEDLESTON: You put it in yourself.
LORD OLIVIER: Yes, but you also wanted to have put in the provision for the salary of the officer going on leave.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: It has been in all the previous Bills. It was in the Bills of 1891 and 1892, and none of the suspicions of the noble Lord were raised at that time, or shared by anybody.
LORD OLIVIER: This is a survival from those Bills. One of the points to which Attention was called was that the grounds for which leave should be granted should be put into the Bill, and, with regard to those grounds, I am in agreement with the noble Marquess that the grounds should be either reasons of public interest, or ill health, or private affairs. Those are the conditions under which leave of absence is granted to Governors in Colonies; and I agree that all those three grounds should apply to a Governor-General, but only the two latter—urgent reasons of ill health or of private affairs—should apply to other officials. Those principles, I think, we may well agree to, and I should be willing to put that restriction into the Bill.. As regards the other questions, as to what should go into the Bill or should not, I should be very glad to accept the offer of the noble Marquess to confer on the points which he thinks it essential, with his great experience, should go into the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, asked why Executive Councillors are put into the Bill. As a matter of fact the conditions under which leave can be granted to Executive Councillors are, I understand, at the present time rather restricted. They can only be granted leave on special duty, that is, when they come home in the execution of their duty, or on sick leave. This would place the privilege of granting leave to Executive Councillors on the same lines as those which it is suggested should apply to the grant of leave to Governors and Lieutenant-Governors; that is to say, that they might be allowed to come home on the ground of urgent private affairs.
With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Southborough, that under the system of Colonial government the acting officer is provided for either by Letters Patent or by the dormant Commission,
358
that has not been adopted in this Bill because, after correspondence with the Viceroy, the Viceroy certainly preferred that the system of acting appointments should not be automatic, but that acting appointments should be made, as he specially desires, after consultation with the Governor-General. In order to enable an acting appointment to be made after consultation with the Governor-General so that his opinion might be taken as to the suitable way of filling a vacancy, we propose to put into the instructions that the Secretary of State shall approve the appointment after receiving a recommendation from the Governor-General. That is deliberately done in view of what is considered, in the circumstances, to be more suitable to India. As we know, in the Colonies sometimes the automatic operation of Letters Patent naming an office has been superseded by issuing special dormant Commissions in certain circumstances. The Governor-General is perfectly qualified to advise the Secretary of State and would not exercise the power arbitrarily or injudiciously, and that does give him the prestige and responsibility of making a recommendation, which he will do, and which the Secretary of State, almost invariably of course, would accept.
I have spoken generally, as the criticisms of the noble Marquess were general, as to the principle of putting these things into the Bill. I gather that he wishes to put as much into the Bill, and to put it as precisely, as possible. In accordance with his offer to confer with me upon the Amendments which I propose and which I gather he would like to propose, I should very much like to pursue that course, and at the present moment not to give notice of any specific date for the Committee Stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE FACILITIES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

POSTAL SERVICES TO THE CONTINENT.
LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, I beg to ask his Majesty's Government whether for

359
the public convenience and in the interests of greater general intercourse the Government will consider favourably the restoration of the pre-war Sunday late-fee despatch of letters, etc., to countries of the Continent of Europe.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, in reply to the Question which has been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pent-land, I have received information from the Post Office which will enable me, I hope, to satisfy him. Before the war letters posted with a special fee at the larger post offices in London—which were about forty in number—were despatched on Sunday night to the Continent. There are now no Sunday night steamer services to Holland or Belgium and it is, therefore, impracticable to forward letters to some of the countries which were formerly accessible by these mails.
There are at the General Post Office at the present time special boxes provided in which letters for France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and some other countries can be posted throughout the day on Sunday up to 6 p.m., on payment of a fee of 3d. in addition to the postage. Arrangements are also in existence at Victoria Station by which letters can be posted until twenty minutes past eight on Sunday evening. Correspondence posted under this arrangement is despatched via the night boat between Newhaven and Dieppe. Before the war the greater proportion of the letters despatched to the Continent on Sunday night were posted either at the General Post Office or at Victoria Station, and the forty post offices to which I have referred were not very largely used for the purpose. I am glad to be able to inform the noble Lord that the Postmaster-General is making arrangements so that similar facilities shall be given at certain of the more important London offices in future.
LORD PENTLAND: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his reply.

INDIAN CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I desire to ask His Majesty's Government to state the terms of reference of the Committee recently appointed in India to examine into the working of the Constitution.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I have not been informed of the precise terms of reference given to the Committee with
360
regard to which the noble Viscount inquires; but I have no doubt that they will direct the Committee to address themselves to the purposes clearly stated in Sir Malcolm Hailey's speeches in the Legislative Assembly on February 8 and February 18 last, from which I may quote the following words:—
"We propose to make a serious attempt to investigate justifiable complaints against the working of the Government of India Act in practice; to assess causes and to examine the remedies necessary."
I am informed by the Viceroy that the Committee, as so far constituted, consists of three members of the Governor-General's Executive Council, and three Secretaries to the Government of India, that at the present stage the Committee is engaged in examining the legal and constitutional questions involved—spade work which must of necessity be undertaken in the first instance in order to determine the potentialities of the situation. That is all the information I am able at the moment to give to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I do not know whether I may, with the leave of your Lordships, ask the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for India, whether he would have any objection to obtaining from the Government, of India the precise terms of reference under which the Committee is working.
LORD OLIVIER: I will certainly do as the noble Viscount wishes.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.
[From Minutes of May 7.]

SCARISBRICK ESTATE DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Judges' Report received: Bill presented, and read 1a.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday, May 15.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
SPENCER SETTLED CHATTELS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

SOUTHEND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
RHYMNEY AND ABER GAS BILL. [H.L.]
NEATH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
WEST THURROCK WHARF AND RAILWAYS BILL. [H.L]
The meeting of the Select Committee which stands appointed for Tuesday next, at two o'clock, put off till Wednesday next, at eleven o'clock.
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:
London County Council (Tramways and Improvements).
City of London (Various Powers).
Also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills-have been complied with:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Stratford-upon-Avon Extension) [H.L.]
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Watford Extension).
The same were Ordered to lie on the Table.

SCARISBRICK ESTATE DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House, That in pursuance of Standing
362
Order 163A relating to Private Bills, he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed Ernest Humbert as guardian or protector of the infant Vyvyan Edward Naylor Leyland named in the Bill to represent such infant before the Committee on the Bill.

STANDING ORDER No. XXI.
Select Committee to meet on Tuesday, May 20, at three o'clock.
SOUTHAMPTON WATER BILL.
  STROUD WATER BILL.
  Committed for Tuesday next.
LANCASHIRE ASYLUMS BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  RAWTENSTALL CORPORATION BILL.
  Committees to meet on Tuesday next.
BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (FEMALE ORPHAN ASYLUM, ETC.) CONFIRMATION BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday next.
THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL. [H.L.]
Committee of the Whole House (which stands appointed for Thursday next) put off to Tuesday, May 20.
PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.
To be read 2a on Tuesday, May 20.