Sitting of 16 March 1925

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  INDIA.

    HOSPITALS FOR BRITISH TROOPS.
    Sir PHILIP RICHARDSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any Report has been received from India as to giving effect to the recommendations of the British Station Hospital Committee of 1918; and when he expects to take action to improve the standard of comfort and accommodation in hospitals for British troops in India?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I am sending the hon. Member a detailed statement supplied by the Government of India. Progress is being made as fast as financial conditions permit.

    MAJOR E. C. R. KEMPSON (RETIREMENT).
    Major HORE-BELISHAasked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the case of Major E. C. It. Kempson and the circumstances in which he was compelled to retire from the Indian Army in December, 1922; whether he is aware that all Major Kempson's attempts to get an inquiry into his case have been met by the statement that he retired voluntarily; and whether, seeing that Major Kempson maintains, on the contrary, that his retirement was compulsory, he will consider the possibility of holding an inquiry into the facts, in order that Major Kemp-son may have an opportunity of stating his case, particularly in view of the sense of grievance under which this officer labours and the financial loss he has sustained?
    Earl WINTERTON: My attention has been drawn to the case of Major Kemp
    1826
    son. I find that the matter has been very thoroughly investigated, and my Noble Friend shares the opinion of his predecessor that there are no grounds for any further inquiry.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to look into this case, if further facts are submitted?
    Earl WINTERTON: I have gone very fully into the case myself. I am convinced that this officer has no grievance of any sort, and that the statement with which he has supplied the hon. and gallant Member, as contained in the question, is without foundation.

    SUPERIOR CIVIL SERVICES (PENSIONS COMMUTATION).
    Sir FRANK NELSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to accept the recommendation of the Lee Commission that in the case of officers of the superior Civil Services the commutable proportion of their pensions should in future be one-half instead of, as at present, one-third only?
    Earl WINTERTON: The increase in question has now been approved by my Noble Friend. The necessary steps arc twins taken to give effect to this decision.
    Sir F. NELSON: Does this increase apply only to officers who have retired since 1st April, 1924?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; it will apply to all officers of the service in question, irrespective of the date of their retirement.

    WAZIRISTAN (CONDITIONS).
    Sir HENRY BUCKINGHAMasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to hardships with respect to pay, food and quarters under which British and Indian officers and men are serving in Waziristan; and whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the chance of improvement in these conditions?
    Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to make a statement very shortly.

    CIVIL SERVICE RECRUITING LECTURES.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Lord Meston and other lecturers are delivering lectures in Dublin, Aberdeen, and other university centres with the object of obtaining recruits for the Indian Civil Service; whether these lectures are organised on behalf of the Indian Government or the Secretary of State for India; and, if so, if he will state the estimated cost of such lectures and on what Estimate the expense is met?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Lee Com mission recommended that "efforts should be made to stimulate recruitment by well-considered propaganda," In pursuance of this recommendation, my Noble Friend has invited certain gentlemen with distinguished Indian records to visit universities on his behalf, and has

    STATEMENT of number of men, women and children employed below ground in certain Provinces in India in 1923. (Average daily number.)

    Province.

    Adult Males.

    Numbers employed below ground.

    Adult Females.

    Children under 12 years of age.*

    Total.

    Bengal

    …

    …

    18,075

    9,941

    51

    28,067

    Bihar and Orissa

    …

    …

    42,548

    28,266

    354

    71,168

    Central Provinces

    …

    …

    3,778

    1,760

    270

    5,808

    NOTE.—(1) Thee figures include miners and others.

    (2) The question refers to Bengal, Central India and Southern India. There are no coal mines of any importance further south than the Central Provinces. Bihar and Orissa is hardly "Central India," but the figures for this Province are included, as it contains the principal coal mines of India and is situated between Bengal and the Central Provinces.

    *The employment of persons under the age of 13 years has now been prohibited, with effect from 1st July, 1924.

    Mr. PALINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any children under the age of 13 years arc employed underground in the coal mines of Bengal, Central India, and Southern India; and, if so, how many?
    Earl WINTERTON: The employment of children under 13 in mines has been prohibited, with effect from the 1st July, 1924?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that children are still kept in the mines, if not working there, with their mothers?
    arranged for informal discussions between university authorities and officials. The expenditure involved, which is confined to the refund of actual out-of-pocket expenses, is trifling in character, and is charged on the general revenues of India.

    COAL MINES (UNDERGROUND WORKERS).
    Mr. PALINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total number of persons employed in underground work in the coal mines of Bengal, Central India, and Southern India; and how many of these are women?
    Earl WINTERTON: As the reply to this question is in the form of a statistical table, I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the table:
    Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. The answer which I gave is in answer to a question as to whether children under the age of 13 are employed underground, and my answer is that they are not.
    Mr. DALTON: But do they pass the time underground?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, the meaning of being employed underground is working underground.
    Mr. DALTON: But do they go and sleep underground with their mothers?
    Earl WINTERTON: I should imagine it is very unlikely, but if the hon. Member wants information on the point I will inquire.
    Mr. PALINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for India what are the number of hours worked per day by persons employed underground in the coal mines of Bengal, Central India and Southern India?
    Earl WINTERTON: The maximum number of hours is now fixed by law at 54 per week. The average number actually worked is considerably less.

    TRANSVAAL (ASIATICS).
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention bas been drawn to a Bill introduced into the Transvaal Assembly, and gazetted on 23rd February, which prohibits the issue or renewal of trading or business licences to any Asiatic within six miles of any Transvaal township or municipality wherein he is not a fixed property owner; and what action, if any, the Government of India propose to take in the matter?
    Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has seen 'the Bill, which is a Private Member's Bill. He has not received any communication from the Government of India on the subject.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the Government of India know about this Bill? Has it been communicated to them?
    Earl WINTERTON: I should imagine they would know about it. The Government of India, as I have mentioned in reply to a question on another matter last week, are in direct communication with the Union Government on these matters.

  KENYA.

    ALIENATION OF LAND.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what area of land has been alienated on lease, or purchased or exchanged, in the Colony of Kenya since the present Government took office and what further area of alienation is now under consideration?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As the answer is a long one, involving a number of details and figures, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The following alienations have been approved since 7th November. The titles, which are apparently all leasehold, have riot yet been completed.
    The exchange of land with Lord Delamere, already referred to in the House, 63,095 acres.
    A farm leased to a medical practitioner under the special arrangements for such leases which formed part of the soldier settlement scheme, 548 acres.
    A factory plot at Thika, 22 acres, and a mission grant in the Embu district, 10 acres. Total, 63,675 acres.
    Leases in prospect are as follows:
    Leases to be sold by auction in March, 50,000 acres. It is evident that some of the plots referred to in the question of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney on the 12th March have been withdrawn.
    Two outstanding cases of grants to syndicates of ex-soldier settlers under the 1919 scheme. The ease of which I have knowledge may involve 5,000 or 7,000 acres.
    Various proposals for exchanges involve 1,600 acres; four proposed grants of land adjoining fully developed estates amount together to 1,506 acres, and a few factory plots in Nairobi will be auctioned.
    In addition, negotiations have proceeded for some time for the grant of a leasehold area of 60,000 acres in the lowlands near Vol in exchange for rights over land, originally 100,000 acres, near the coast, which were allowed in 1906 but not yet granted owing to the uncertainty of native rights.
    Finally, I have received proposals for leasing some land in North Kenya which has already been surveyed into farms in enlarged lots for grazing purposes.

    EXCHANGE OF LAND.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that an area of approximately 30,000 acres of land adjoining the Lumbwa Reserve in Kenya Colony has been alienated to a

    1831
    Mr. Tucker; and whether this alienation has been carried out with the sanction of His Majesty's Government?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir. The hon. and gallant Member's information may, however, arise out of the arrangement by which my predecessor permitted the East African Estates, Limited, whose local representative is Colonel Tucker, to surrender 230,576 acres of land at the coast or in the Lowlands in return for 19,843 acres further west. Of this 5,193 acres is Crown land near the Lumbwa Reserve, from which it is separated by the Uganda Railway.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: With regard to the land that: is being given up in the highlands, are the rights of the native inhabitants of that land being safeguarded
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This exchange was approved last year. I understand that the land given in lieu of the land given up is not occupied by anybody.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is it possible for the Lumbwas to go and live in the coast belt?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no question of disturbing any Lumbwas. It is outside the Lumbwa reserve, from which it is separated by the Uganda railway.

    ARMED RAIDS.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will issue an official paper giving the number of armed raids into Kenya Colony during the last 10 years, with the casualties on both sides, the arms captured, and the estimated number of British subjects captured and carried out of the Colony?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will ask the Acting Governor of Kenya for a Return, which can be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT or issued as a separate Paper, according to the importance which the Return, when available, appears to possess. The hon. and learned Member will no doubt agree that raids by armed German forces during the War may be omitted.
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the arms captured from raiders into Kenya Colony bear the official stamp of a certain foreign Power; and whether he proposes to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to this feature of the raids?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Such a case was reported by the Governor in 1923. Four rifles of foreign manufacture were captured, dated respectively 1875, 1882, 1886 and 1892. The marks were those of three different countries. The matter was brought to the notice of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    NATIVE RESERVES.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can yet announce the decision come to in regard to the proposed eviction of about 600 natives, other than the Masai, from the Lol-Daika Hills in Kenya Colony?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir, but I will inquire of the Acting Governor.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD; Will the Acting Governor hold his hand in the eviction of these 600 natives?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: So far as we can understand from the Papers, no action has been taken, and I think I can say that nothing will he done until we have received full information.

    JUBALAND (DISTURBANCES).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information of recent fighting between section, of the Jubaland Somalis whether the disorders have occurred in any part of the territory about to be handed over to Italy under the recent Treaty; whether any of His Majesty's forces have been engaged; and what is the cause of the disturbances?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answer to the first two parts is in the affirmative, and to third in the negative. I have no information as to the cause of the disturbances. Reinforcements of King's African Rifles have been ordered to Kismayu as a precautionary measure.

    TANGANYIKA (COFFEE PRODUCTION).
    Sir R. HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the natives in Tanganyika Territory have been encouraged to grow coffee; what the results of this policy have been; and whether he can publish any Report dealing with it?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: More than half the quantity of coffee exported from Tanganyika Territory is native-grown coffee of the Robitsta type from the Eukoba district. This coffee has recently reached a record price for its grade, namely, 112s. per cwt. Its production is increasing. The native cultivation of Arabica coffee has been encouraged in the past few years on Mount Kilimanjaro, but as yet the export is small. This experiment is being watched with interest. Some information on the matter is contained in the Report of the Tanganyika Department of Agriculture for the 15 months ending 31st March, 1924, a copy of which I am placing in the Library. The Report of the East African Commission will deal further with this matter.

    SIR HUGH CLIFFORD AND LORD LEVERHULME.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the request of Sir Hugh Clifford, the Governor of Nigeria, to publish the correspondence which recently took place between Lord Leverhulme and himself has been refused; and whether, in view of the fact that the whole correspondence is available in this country, he will reconsider his decision?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: When Sir Hugh Clifford asked permission to publish his correspondence with Lord Leverhulme, my right hon. Friend informed him that he deprecated prolongation of the controversy by such a publication. No further vindication of his position appeared to the Secretary of State to be necessary. To that opinion my right hon. Friend adheres. The correspondence, which he has now seen published in full in "West Africa," was not communicated to him, and his only previous knowledge of its contents was contained in a brief summary in a telegram from the Governor.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has any explanation of the incident? How is it, for example, that it is right for the Governor to entertain a distinguished lord who visits the Port of Lagos, and it is wrong for the Governor to accept hospitality in return?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I really do not think it is a matter for me or the House to settle points of social procedure between a visitor and a local Governor.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the other hand, is not this a Crown Colony, and does not the Governor entertain out of an entertainment allowance voted by this House?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, certainly not. Not one penny is voted by this House.

    SOUTH AFRICA AND HOLLAND.
    Mr. ROY WILSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that preliminary arrangements have been entered into between the Union of South Africa and Holland for a commercial treaty on the basis of the most-favoured-nation treatment; and whether such a treaty involves granting to goods imported into South Africa from Holland the same preferences as are at present accorded to goods from Great Britain?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am not aware that any such arrangements as those referred to have been made. A Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty as such does of course, entitle foreign countries to claim the benefits of inter-Imperial preferences.

  PEACE TREATIES.

    GERMAN DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any communication from the South African Government asking for particulars as to the extent to which the German Government has fulfilled the disarmament requirements of the Treaty of Versailles?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir.

    DOMINIONS AND GERMANY'S PROPOSALS.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has communicated the text of the German proposals for European security to the Dominion Governments; and, if so, whether he has yet received the observations of any Dominion on the proposals?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question on somewhat similar lines asked by the hon. Member for the Consett Division (Mr. H. Dunnico) on the 4th March.

    GERMAN SHIPPING (TRANSFER TO ALLIES).
    Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much, if any, of the 200,000 tons of new shipping which, under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to hand over to the Allies in the subsequent five years, has been received by us or by any of the Allies?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The requirement of the Treaty, to which the hon. Member refers, was an option, to become effective in so far as the Reparation Commission might order. It has now lapsed. In fact, orders were given for only three ships on account of France and one ship on account of Italy, and these orders were subsequently cancelled, at the request of the interested Governments.

    FOREIGN AFFAIRS (COMMUNICATIONS WITH DOMINIONS).
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the normal length of time it would take by the quickest available means to obtain the views of all the Dominions on an urgent question of foreign politics, assuming that each of the Dominion Premiers was able to reply immediately on receipt of his communication?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On the assumptions made by the hon. Member, the time would be limited to that needed for any necessary coding and decoding and for transmission of the message and the replies; and that, in turn, would depend on the length of each message.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the normal length of time taken to transmit messages to the most remote of the Dominions?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It varies a great deal in accordance with the pressure of work along the particular line, and it really would be impossible to give even average figures for the various Dominions established throughout both hemispheres.

    IRISH FREE STATE (COAST LIGHTS).
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to conclude a convention between the British Government and the Irish Free State Government, in accordance with Clause 2 of the Annex to the Treaty, and especially with regard to the maintenance by the Irish Free State Government of lighthouses, buoys, beacons, and navigational marks or aids; whether, in the interests of our Mercantile Marine and the British Fleet, such convention will provide for adequate facilities for the British Government to inspect the condition of these lighthouses, buoys, beacons and navigational marks and aids from time to time, and to insist on their efficient maintenance; and whether he will state by whom the cost of such maintenance has been defrayed from the date of the treaty up to the present time?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: His Majesty's Government have for some time been in correspondence with the Government of the Irish Free State in this matter, and meanwhile the administration of lights in Irish Free State waters remains on the same footing as prior to the establishment of the Irish Free State. In reply to the last part of the question, the cost of maintenance continues to be defrayed from the General Lighthouse Fund and all dues collected in Free State ports continue to be paid into that fund.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Can the Under-Secretary give any indication when these negotiations are likely to be concluded, as it is now a long time since the Treaty was signed?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I observe that a similar question was put in the Dail at

    1837
    a recent meeting in Ireland and I have no means of ascertaining when the negotiations will be concluded.

    JAPAN (CUSTOMS DUTIES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information regarding the Customs Duties which will now be applied to British goods by the Japanese Government?
    Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The "Conventional" duties fixed by the Japanese Treaty of 1911 have presumably already been superseded by the "Statutory" rates as from the 10th instant, but it is understood that a new Tariff Bill is in contemplation.

    PORTUGAL (EXPORT CREDITS).
    Sir FREDRIC WISEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if the amount of credit granted to Portugal under the Export Credits for £3,000,000 has been extended from 1927; and if the technical difficulties of repayment have been got over?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The question of a possible extension of the Portuguese credit has been raised, but no decision has yet been taken. As regards the second part of the question, all sums due to the Export Credits Department have been paid punctually, but I am informed that there has been some delay over the: payments due to British exporters in connection with the same transactions. I understand, however, that these payments have now been duly discharged.
    Sir F. WISE: Can the hon. Member state whether any further security will be given in regard to that £3,000,000 if the extension takes place?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I cannot say that for the moment, because we have not yet considered the question of the extension at any length.
    Sir F. WISE: It is very important that full security should be given.
    Mr. SAMUEL: Most certainly. That point will be taken into consideration.

    BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.
    Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will define exactly his power of control over the management of the British Empire Exhibition?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The powers of the Board of Trade in connection with the British Empire Exhibition are laid down in the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920, to which I would refer the hon. Member.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say to what extent he has control, in view of the fact that the Board of Trade has to approve of the appointment of the general manager? Is it for a long or a short period?
    Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. and gallant Member will find it all set out in full detail in the Act of 1920, and I will send him a copy of it.
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Would it not be almost impossible for any Government Department to manage an exhibition of this kind?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I think it would.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SHIRE ENTIRES (GRANTS).
    Captain ARTHUR EVANSasked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the need, particularly in Wales, of grants, as formerly made, to agricultural districts or societies for shire entires in order to prevent deterioration of this class of stock which is now in danger of reverting to ill-bred type; and will he authorise such grants as and when applied for?
    Captain HACKING (for Mr. EDWARD WOOD): My right hon. Friend is well aware of the desirability of encouraging heavy horse societies in Wales and elsewhere, and direct grants will be made this season to a number of such societies in Wales. Arrangements have also been made for the restoration this year of the grants for assisted nominations which were discontinued after 1921. These grants should prove of special value to small farmers in Wales.

    WORKERS (UNEMPLOYMENT. INSURANCE).
    Captain BOWYERasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received any recent intimation from the Agricultural Workers' Unions that they desire to come into the Unemployment Insurance Act; and, if not, whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the attitude of the unions on this question?
    Captain HACKING: Representations on this subject have been made to my right hon. Friend from various quarters, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland, it is proposed to appoint a Departmental Committee with the following terms of reference:
    "To consider and report whether it is desirable that workers in agriculture should be compulsorily insured against the risk of unemployment, and, if so, on what terms and conditions and in what manner the Insurance of agricultural workers can be most effectively provided either by the inclusion of agriculture within the scope of existing legislation or by means of new legislation."

    NITRATE OF SODA.
    Mr. J. BECKETTasked the Minister of Agriculture what firms in this country are manufacturing sulphate of ammonia from Chili saltpetre and their total product; and what firms import Chili saltpetre into this country?
    Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend is informed that sulphate of ammonia is not manufactured from Chili saltpetre, and any process of the kind would be commercially impracticable. Chili saltpetre, better known as nitrate of soda, is largely imported for agricultural and other purposes, but my right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to give the names of the firms by whom it is handled.

    BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.
    Mr. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, following upon the visit of his scientific advisers to North America, he proposes to adopt in this country such administrative measures for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis as have proved successful in the United States and Canada?
    Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend has at present under consideration means for the elimination of bovine tuberculosis, and he is proposing to
    1840
    introduce shortly a measure on the lines of the Tuberculosis Order of 1914 which is a necessary first step in any procedure of the kind.
    Mr. HURD: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer that part of my question relating to the recent visit of his scientific advisers to North America?
    Captain HACKING: I am afraid that I cannot answer that part of the question.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to agriculture?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to make a. statement on his agricultural policy?
    Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend regrets that he can add nothing to the answer given on the 2nd March to the hon. Member for the Western Isles, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Members.

    COUNTY COMMITTEES.
    Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of county agricultural committees at present functioning and the number of Labour members acting on each committee?
    Captain HACKING: As a result a the recent county council elections, the county agricultural committees are now undergoing reconstitution. The number of such committees is 62, and, according to my right hon. Friend's latest information, the total number of representatives of Labour serving upon them is 208, thus giving an average of three for each committee.

    FLOODS (SURREY).
    Sir P. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the serious floods in the Hersham, Esher and Molesey districts of Surrey, and elsewhere, he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory upon all mills to draw up all floodgates to their full extent as soon as a heavy rainfall renders flooding imminent?
    Captain HACKING: My right hon. Friend fully recognises the importance of

    1841
    dealing with floods caused by mills, but the matter is so complicated that he can give no promise to introduce legislation on the lines sugested by my hon. Friend.

    EXPORT OF HORSES.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the committee appointed to consider the export of horses for butchery purposes will hold any of its sittings in public?
    Captain HACKING: No, Sir; the committee have themselves considered the point, and have decided to hold their meetings in private.

    FISH (CONSUMPTION).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the consumption of fish per head of population has fallen considerably during the past 10 to 15 years; and whether he proposes to take any steps to encourage a greater consumption of this form of food?
    Captain HACKING: The actual decline of the consumption of fish per head of the population which has been recently reported by my Department is not very marked, especially when regard is had to the increase of the population. The point emphasised by the recent Report is rather the absence of any tendency towards a greater and more general use of fish as a staple article of food My right hon. Friend is now considering the various directions in which it may be possible to foster the fishing industry, and will bear in mind the importance of developing the home market.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has anything been done to encourage research in the direction of the scientific preservation of fish'?
    Captain HACKING: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: Will the Minister of Agriculture take into consideration the cost of fish and the question of profiteering?
    Captain HACKING: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take everything into consideration.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the Minister consider the advisability of taking over the control of the fish markets, thus eliminating the scorpions there who are forcing up the price of fish?

    DISABLEMENT PENSION (W. R. BRAND).
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that William Robert Brand, 11/M/215,247, of Tottenham, who is permanently lame by gun-shot wound in the right heel, and is suffering from fibrosis of the lung through gas, and partial disablement of the right hand, is receiving a pension of 14s. per week; is he aware that Brand cannot obtain employment and is unable to get lodgings for this amount; that he is not eligible for unemployment benefit: that he has been refused admission to the workhouse on the ground that he is not destitute; that he is at present sleeping in a hay-barn; and whether he will take this case into immediate consideration, with a view to increasing the amount of Brand's pension?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): The life pension awarded in the case referred to corresponds to the degree of disablement by war service as determined by the Ministry and confirmed on appeal by the Assessment Appeal Tribunal. The Royal Pension Warrants provide for compensation in respect of disablement due to war service only, and they do not admit of being applied to make up for the inability of a pensioner to obtain either unemployment relief or Poor Law relief.

    POST OFFICE (INVESTIGATION BRANCH).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General the number of test letters circulated by the investigation branch during the past year?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): No record is kept of the number of such letters.

    SHIPBUILDING (COSTS).
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that shipbuilding costs in this country have risen within a, fraction of treble those of the year 1913, whilst the wages of operatives have increased only about 25 per cent. and materials about 80 per cent.; and will he inquire into this rise in costs?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The President of the Board of Trade is aware that the costs of shipbuilding, as of manufacture generally, have increased since 1913, but he is not at present prepared to make any statement as to the precise amount of that increase, nor as to the extent to which the various factors of cost have contributed in it. He is advised, however, that the average increase in hourly and piecework rates of wages is considerably greater than that suggested in the question. The matter is one which is, of course, engaging our anxious thought. In view of the fact, however, that it is being investigated by the Balfour Committee on Trade and Industry, it is not proposed to make a separate inquiry. In this connection reference should he made to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Mary-hill and Stockton-on-Tees on the 11th March.

    MRS. STAN HARDING.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will receive a deputation to place before him evidence in support of the official Soviet statement that the accusation against Mrs. Stan Harding, on which the latter was condemned, was made by a self-confessed agent of the United States military intelligence, and has been repeated by that agent over her own signature in leading American newspapers?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): No, Sir. I have already received a deputation for the purpose mentioned, and I am fully aware of the evidence referred to. It has been explained by three successive Govern-
    1844
    ments that the facts of the case do not warrant representations on the subject to the Government of the United States.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: Has Mrs. Stan Harding been offered, or has she received, any compensation
    Mr. McNEILL: She has already received £3,000 compensation for the injuries she suffered in Russia, but not, so far as I know, for her present alleged grievance.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that the late American Ambassador said that it would be desirable that official representations should be made to the American Government and not unofficial representations to him as Ambassador?
    Mr. McNEILL: I think it is possible that he may have objected to the latter, but I do not think he recommended the former.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is the Under-Secretary aware that statements are being repeated at the present time in the American newspapers reflecting upon the character of Mrs. Harding, who is a perfectly innocent victim of these attacks?
    Mr. McNEIL: No, Sir; I am not a student of the American Press.

  LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

    MOROCCO.
    Mr. LEES SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ruffians have made any approach to the British Legation at Tangier for intervention by the League of Nations in the war with Spain?
    Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative.

    SAAR VALLEY.
    Mr. L. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as the result of the discussions-at Geneva, any changes were agreed in the methods of administration hitherto followed in the Saar?
    Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am not yet in a position to reply to this question, as I have not yet received a full official report of the proceedings at Geneva.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Was not the agreement to re-elect M. Rault as President of the Saar Commission come to before Geneva?
    Mr. McNEILL: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there were negotiations on the subject, but the actual decision, I suppose, was taken at Geneva.

    COUNCIL MEETING, GENEVA.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether he has any information to give the House with regard to the debate upon the Geneva Protocol by the Council of the League?
    Mr. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether, and, if so, when, it is intended to lay a Parliamentary Paper giving a full account of the proceedings of the League of Nations Council at Geneva and of the negotiations between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the other Governments?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not in a position to reply to these questions until I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on his return.

    ALL-IN INSURANCE.
    Mr. MacKENZIELIVINGSTONE asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement regarding the result of the Government's inquiries into a scheme of extended insurance?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As I have already stated, inquiries are proceeding, but I am not in a position to make any statement.

    HOUSE OF LORDS (REFORM).
    Mr. MORRISasked the Prime Minister if it is intended to introduce a Measure of House of Lords reform in accordance with the declared policy of the Unionist party?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present.

    BANK RATE.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the West
    1846
    Ham Board of Guardians have borrowed from the Ministry £350,000 during the current half-year; that they have had to make arrangements with their bankers for an overdraft of £300,000; that, if the present Bank rate is maintained, the guardians will be called upon to pay to their hankers an extra £2,000 because of the rate being increased from 4 to 5 per cent.; that the guardians will have to make arrangements with the Ministry to borrow for the half-year ending December £300,000; whether they will be called upon to pay the extra 1 per cent.; and if he intends taking action in the matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts stated in the earlier part of the question. The rate of interest payable on loans already advanced by his Department has not been fixed by reference to the Bank rate, and will not be affected by the present increase in that rate. The rate of interest of any further loan which it may be necessary to advance to the guardians will be determined in the light of the circumstances existing at the time when the advance is made.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department considered the very damaging effect that this increase will have upon all local authorities in regard to future borrowing?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, the hon. Member must not assume that.
    Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it will cost the country millions?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, I am not.
    Mr. THORNE: Then you ought to be.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman's Department now prepared to consider the waiving of interest which has accrued to date on these loans?
    Sir K. WOOD: I must ask for notice of that question.
    Mr. THORNEalso asked the Minister of Health what effect the new Bank rate will have upon the rent that will have to be paid for the new Louses now being built?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend does not apprehend that the recent in-

    1847
    crease in the Bank rate will have any effect On the rent of new working-class houses, as there is no reason to believe that either the cost of building or the cost of the long-period loans raised by local authorities in connection with their housing schemes will be adversely affected
    Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed in the paper the oteer day a statement made by a man who knows—[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"]—it. was Major Barnes, formerly a Member of this House—declaring that the extra cost of the Bank rate would increase the rent of a non-parlour house by ls. 6d. a week, and the rent of a parlour house by 1s. 9d.
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; the suggestion is entirely unfounded.
    Mr. THORNE: All right—wait and see
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that builders, merchants, and everybody engaged in the building, trade, frequently require overdrafts from their banks? Will they not, in consequence, have to pay an increased sum to their hanks, and will not that require to be put on to the cost of these houses?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir. We have given Very careful consideration to this matter, especially having regard to the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in the Debate last week, and there is no reason to believe that there will he any increase in the rent of working-class houses on account of the matters mentioned in the question.
    Mr. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman not declared—well, you have declared—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has answered his own question.

    MILK AND DAIRIES ACT, 1915.
    Mr. BARNESasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of his decision to allow the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915, to become operative from 1st September next, he will state if those provisions of the Act which will be administered by
    1848
    order of the Minister will all be enforced from that date; and, if so, whether he will publish drafts of the Orders at an early date and arrange for consultation with the interests concerned before sub miffing the draft Orders to Parliament?
    Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is unable at present to say on what dare the Orders to be made in pursuance of the Milk and Dairies Act, 1915, will come into operation, but, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, until the new Orders are made the existing Orders will continue in force. It is certainly the intention If my right hon. Friend to consult the interests concerned before any new Orders are laid before Parliament.
    Mr. BARNES: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the inconvenience that will be caused to firms up and down the country unless he states very early any new obligations that are likely to arise from the coming of this Act into force?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir; we will bear that in mind; and, as I have said, we will consult the interests concerned before any Order is made.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is there really much further need for consulting the interests concerned? We have been consulting the interests concerned for nine years, since 1915. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

    MERCHANDISE MARKS.
    Mr. LIVINGSTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Merchandise Marks Bill?
    Mr. SAMUEL: It is not at present possible to add anything to the answer given by the President of the Board o': Trade to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 12th February, a copy of which is being sent to the hon. Member.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask what is being done about eggs in the meantime?

  EDUCATION.

    FULL-TIME PUPILS.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Education

    1849
    the estimated number of children between 14 and 16 years of age in England and Wales who are receiving full-time education, and the estimated number who are not?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): From information supplied to me by the Registrar-General it appears that, according to the figures of the Census held in June, 1921, out of a total population of 1,446,573 between the ages of 14 and 16, 348,805 were receiving full-time instruction at schools and institutions in England and Wales; presumably the remainder (1,097,768) were not receiving full-time instruction. These figures include, of course, a large number of private and other schools and institutions not falling within the purview of the Board. It is important to bear in mind that of the 348,805 children referred to above, rather less than half were in public elementary schools, and of these children a considerable proportion would not stay beyond the statutory period of school attendance.
    Mr. LAMB: Does the Noble Lord contemplate in the near future a transference of the medical services from the education authorities to the public health authorities?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is an entirely new question.

    CRIPPLES.
    Mr. CADOGANasked the President of the Board of Education whether the scheme drawn up in the year 1919 by the Central Committee for the Care of Cripples, and which has since been

    STRENGTH of the British Forces in Egypt and the Sudan on 1st March, 1924, and 1st March, 1925.

    Army.

    1st March, 1924.

    1st March, 1925.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    All Ranks.

    Officers.

    Other Ranks.

    All Ranks.

    584

    11,814

    12,398

    665

    13,450

    14115

    Royal Air Force.

    285

    1,846

    2,131

    293

    1,785

    2,078

    Total Army and Royal Air Force

    869

    13,660

    14,529

    958

    15,235

    16,193

    adopted by the Board of Education, is now going to be put into operation, either as part of the school medical service or in any other manner?
    Lord E. PERCY: As the hon. and gallant Member will see from the terms of Circular 1349 (of which I am sending him a copy), the Board emphatically desire that every local authority should adopt an adequate orthopaedic scheme. There are already a number of such schemes in operation, for instance, in Oxfordshire and Shropshire. The Board have not actually adopted, nor required local authorities to adopt any particular scheme, but the general principles of treatment laid down by the Central Committee for the Care of Cripples have been and will continue to be of much assistance to the Board and to local education authorities in dealing with this question.

    EGYPT AND SUDAN (BRITISH FORCES).
    Sir F. WISEasked the Secretary of State for War the strength of our forces in Egypt; and the strength for the same period in 1924?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether there is an increase or a decrease?
    Captain KING: A slight increase; but the hon. Member shall have the figures.
    The figures are as follows:

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS (MEDICAL REFEREES).
    Mr. B. SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Acts who is also on the staff of a voluntary hospital is not permitted to give a report on a case under his care at that hospital and, if so, whether, seeing that this might involve injustice to the patient examined, as no other doctor can know as much of the case, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing the instruction or Regulation?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): There is no specific Home Office instruction or regulation which prevents the doctor in such a case giving the workman or the employer a report on the condition r f the workman, but if a referee is employed in any case by or on behalf of either party, he is precluded by the Statute from acting subsequently as referee in that case. It is also generally undesirable that referees should act for either party in compensation cases, especially cases which are the subject of dispute. My right hon. Friend will, however, consider the matter further in the light of the hon. Member's representation, and if he has any particular cases in mind, the Home Secretary would be glad to be furnished with the details.

    RUSKIN PARK, CAMBERWELL.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is in a position to state the present position regarding the reinstatement of Ruskin Park, Camberwell?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The claim in respect of the reinstatement of Ruskin Park is being dealt with by the War Office in conjunction with other claims of the London County Council, and it is hoped that a submission will be made to the War Compensation Court within the next week.

    ROYAL PARKS (GIFTS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what gifts of flora and fauna have been made by private donors to the Royal parks during the past 12 months: and whether his Department is prepared at all times to consider gifts of a similar nature?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The following gifts have been received during the past 12 months:—1,000 Japanese Iris from the Orpington Nursery Company; 50 Golden Orfe from Mr. A. L. Allen; 12 Deer from Sir H. Dering; Wildfowl from Lord Ilchester, Lord Somerleyton, Mr. J. McKelvie, Captain Pretyman and Lord Rothschild. Various exchanges are also made from time to time with the London County Council. The Department is always prepared to consider gifts of flora and fauna which are suitable for the Royal parks.

    DUKE OF YORK'S STATUE.
    Captain ARTHUR HOPEasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the proposal of removing the Duke of York's statue and steps and making a road from Carlton House Terrace to the Mall, as this would relieve a great amount of the present congestion of the traffic in Trafalgar Square and the bottom of St. James's Street?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No such proposal is before the Department. It will, of course, receive careful consideration if put forward by the authorities responsible for regulating traffic in the Metropolis.
    Captain HOPE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would go a long way towards obviating the congestion in Trafalgar Square if this road could be made?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is really a matter for the Ministry of Transport.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it not be possible to move the steps without the statue?

    ST. STEPHEN'S HALL.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will consider fixing rails on the steps leading from the Central Hall to St. Stephen's Hall, in view of the accidents which have occurred owing to the absence of rails.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The First Commissioner will consider this proposal, but I am informed that on some days during the summer as many as 24,000 visitors pass down these steps, and that there have only been four accidents in the past three years.
    Mr. FENBY: Was any of the accidents fatal
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

    JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (APPOINTMENT).
    Mr. GEORGE HARVEYasked the Attorney-General if he can see his way to make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor that for the appointment of Justices of the Peace a name suggested to him by a local council may be brought forward with some prospect of favourable consideration?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): Persons are selected for appointment as Justices of the Peace by local advisory committees appointed in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace, 1910. All names which are suggested to the Lord Chancellor by local councils or from other sources are put before the advisory committee for consideration.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Should not those who are elected by the general body of electors have preference over those who are only accepted as a matter of patronage?
    Sir D. HOGG: So far as I know, no one is, or can be, elected to be a Justice of the Peace.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: That is not my question. Should not those who are
    1854
    elected as public representatives on public authorities have a preference when Justices of the Peace are appointed?
    Sir D. HOGG: No. I should have thought the best course was that laid down by the Royal Commission, namely, that all names should go before the Advisory Committee, and the most suitable ones put by the committee to the Lord Chancellor.
    Sir F. NELSONasked the Attorney-General whether, in relation to the appointment of justices of the peace, the various advisory committees are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county or by the Lord Chancellor; whether these committees are asked to supply the names of those considered suitable when vacancies occur or merely advise on the suitability of the names submitted to them by the Lord Lieutenant; if the latter is competent to recommend names to the Lord Chancellor for appointment as justices of the peace without reference to his Advisory Committee; and if there is any practice, convention, or rule whereby either the Lord Chancellor, the various Lord Lieutenants, and the advisory committees are precluded from receiving suggestions as to suitable appointments from residents of the district?
    The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Justices' Advisory Committees in the counties are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Lieutenant regarding the appointments to be made to the Committee, but the decision is with the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Lieutenant is, in most cases, Chairman of the Committee. The committees select the persons whom they consider suitable for appointment, when appointments are needed. All names which are suggested to the Lord Chancellor, from whatever source, are sent to the Lord Lieutenant for consideration by the Committee, but the Committee are also at liberty to consider names suggested either by the Lord Lieutenant or by members of the Committee. The Lord Chancellor has power to appoint justices of the peace without consulting the Committee, whether upon the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant or any other person, but it is not his practice to do so. There is no practice, convention, or rule whereby Lord Lieutenants and advisory

    1855
    committees are precluded from receiving suggestions as to suitable appointments from residents of the district.
    Mr. W. THORNE: How are the advisory committees selected?
    Sir D. HOGG: They are selected by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Lieutenant, as I stated.
    Mr. HALL CAINE: Have women been appointed on every advisory committee?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

    LITIGANTS (PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS).
    Mr. FENBY (for Captain T. J. O'CONNOR)asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the practice prevailing in a section of the Press of photographing persons concerned in prominent lawsuits, and in view of the misery caused to many such persons and of the bad effect on public morals of this practice, he will introduce legislation to prohibit the taking or publishing of photographs of persons engaged in litigation, unless the consent of such litigants be first obtained, for a period of one month before, during, and one month after such litigation?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Clause 39 of the Criminal Justice Bill dealing with this matter.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: How is the Press photographer always able to tell whether or not his victim is engaged in litigation?

    WHOLESALE LICENCES, LERWICK.
    Mr. JOHNSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he is aware that the wholesale licence held by Laurence Anderson, Grantfield, Lerwick, has been forfeited owing to his having been convicted of shebeening on 23rd December, 1924; is he aware that Mary Anderson, his wife, applied for a wholesale licence for the same premises at Grantfield, Lerwick, before his shebeening case was decided by the Court; and
    1856
    will he state whether Mary Anderson has been granted a, wholesale licence or whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to grant a licence, seeing that Laurence Anderson is still manager of these premises and that Mary Anderson does not manage the business;
    (2) Whether he is aware that a wholesale licence has been granted by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to Frank J. Sandison, North Roadside, Lerwick, for premises situated there; that this person was convicted of trafficking on 13th January, 1922; that a wholesale licence has been held by Frank J. Sandison's brother for the above premises at North Roadside, Lerwick, and that the licence was surrendered after a raid by the police which resulted in a conviction for shebeening; and whether, seeing that this granting of wholesale licences is prejudicial to efficient police administration, he will inquire into the matter;
    (3) whether he is aware that the wholesale licence held by William Robertson, of 86, Commercial Street, Lerwick, was forfeited, owing to his having been convicted for trafficking last year; that his son, William Robertson, junior, applied for a wholesale licence last year and was refused: that the said William Robertson, junior, has again applied for a wholesale licence for the same premises at 86, Commercial Street, Lerwick and will he say whether a wholesale licence has been granted him or whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to grant that licence, seeing the premises are under the same management as before the conviction?
    Mr. GUINNESS: All the facts relevant to the legal question of the transfer or issue of wholesale dealers' licences in the three cases have been carefully examined and I am advised that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise Lave no power to refuse to allow a licence to Mary Anderson or to Francis J. Sandison for the respective premises in question, or to refuse to issue licences to William D. Robertson for the premises at 86, Commercial Street, Lerwick.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that each of these three licences was granted despite the protest of the Chief Constable?
    Mr. GUINNESS: There is no power to withhold the licence and no communication on the part of the magistrate is necessary, or indeed can take effect.
    Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the fact that the Government declare they had no power to refuse a licence to convicted shebeeners, will they give a guarantee that legislation will be promoted forthwith to give them such power?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I understand the people who received these licences are not convicted shebeeners. If the hon. Member can give me information that these liceneees have been convicted of any offence, of course action will be taken.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR-CAR LICENCES.
    Mr. MONTAGUE(for Colonel DAY) asked the Minister of Transport the number of private motor cars that applied for yearly licences for the year 1925; the number of cars that applied for licences for the three months commencing 1st January, 1925; the number of cars that applied for licences for the six months commencing 1st January, 1925; and the gross amount paid by motorists applying for licences for private cars for the above periods?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 12th March to the hon. Member for the Lanark Division, of which I am sending him a copy.

    CANAL BRIDGES.
    Mr. L. SMITH(for Mr. POTTS) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to secure The strengthening of canal bridges upon main roads and highways, necessitated by the present transport traffic; is he aware that certain canal bridges are closed to heavy road traffic as dangerous; and, seeing that canal companies are only obliged to keep bridges up to their original standard for carrying vehicles having a registered weight of 5 tons or less, will he, failing improvement, introduce legislation embodying powers to compel canal companies to reconstruct bridges equal to up-to-date requirements?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I am aware of the serious inconvenience caused by the
    1858
    restrictions to traffic due to the weakness of many bridges over canals, and assistance is being rendered from the Road Fund towards the reconstruction and strengthening of a number of these bridges on important roads. I am afraid that legislation on the lines indicated in the last part of the question is impossible.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to circularise municipal authorities as to the strength of the bridges as against the artistic design, having regard to the Circular already issued?
    Colonel ASHLEY: I will consider that.

    MR. HARRY POLLITT (DETENTION AT EDGEIILL).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY—
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before my hon. and gallant Friend puts his private notice question, may I ask whether you, Sir, intend to follow the usual practice where you have two questions by Private Notice on the same subject of allowing the second question to be asked, provided the ground is not substantially identical and provided the Minister to whom the question is addressed is prepared to answer?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite ready to call the question of the right hon. and gallant Member, in addition to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull, before the answer is given.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY(by Private Notice) asked the home Secretary if he is aware that Mr. Harry Pollitt, General Secretary of the National Minority Movement, left Euston for Liverpool last Saturday by the 5.55 train and was dragged out of the carriage at Edgehill by a party of men, who forcibly removed him from the station and took him away by motor car, detainine him until yesterday afternoon—
    HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!" and laughter.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Constitutional action. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the station officials refused to come to Mr. Pollitt's assistance although appealed to; has he inquired

    1859
    into this allegation, and whethe he is taking steps to have the authors of this outrage prosecuted?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I also ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the kidnapping of Mr. Harry Pollitt at Liverpool, apparently by British Fascisti, and whethes he is aware that this organisation enjoys the support of many ex-officers in receipt of half-pay or pension, as well as of the aristocracy generally—
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: No, no
    Colonel WEDGWOOD:—and what steps he proposes to take to prevent developments of this form of class war?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On n point of Order. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you were to allow my right hon. and gallant Friend to put his question subsequently, and not immediately following mine. I submit to you, very respectfully, that my question is a question of fact, and that my right hon. Friend's question covers different ground altogether.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I must confess that I have not seen the question of the right hon. and gallant Member, or I should have found it necessary to edit it. I was informed that he wished to put a similar question to the one put by the hon. and gallant Member. No doubt the Home Office will deal with the facts, and not with the allegations.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend has no information in regard to this incident, but he has instituted inquiries, and will communicate with the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I thank my hon. Friend for the answer. Will he particularly pay attention to the allegation that the station authorities refused to interfere, although eight men were dragging a person out of their premises
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Inquiries are being instituted into the whole of the circumstances.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the hon. Member expect to have information on the matter by to-morrow, when I hope to repeat my question?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I hope that we shall have information by to-morrow.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: "Can the hon. Member say what is the National Minority Movement?"
    Mr. HAYES: Will the hon. Member circulate a "Wanted" notice for people who have been posing as police officers and thus deceiving the railway officials, instead of members of the "B.F." movement?
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Perhaps the hon. Member had better put down any further questions to my right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the Prime Minister tell us how far he proposes to go to-night in the even of his receiving a suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule?
The PRIME MINISTER: We hope to get the Committee stage of the two chief Votes to-night, and I hope very much, by consent, the House will be willing to give us the Money Resolution relating to the Croydon Aerodrome Bill, of which they were good enough to allow us to get the Second Reading the other day. If there is any desire for discussion, of course, we will not press it. It is in connection with a Bill which has been referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister say when he intends to give the House an opportunity of discussing the Government's policy regarding the Protocol, as announced by the Foreign Secretary at Geneva last week?
The PRIME MINISTER: I suggest that the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill would provide a suitable opportunity for this discussion.
Mr. MacDONALD: When will that be?
The PRIME MINISTER: To-morrow week.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 223; Noes, 80.

Division No. 40.]

AYES.

[3.35 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

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

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

Fermoy, Lord

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

Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

Fielden, E. B.

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

Fleming, D. P.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Forrest, W.

Murchison, C. K.

Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Atholl, Duchess of

Fraser, Captain Ian

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

Atkinson, C.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Nuttall, Ellis

Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

Ganzoni, Sir John

Oakley, T.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Gates, Percy

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

Bainlel, Lord

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

Pease, William Edwin

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Goff, Sir Park

Pennefather, Sir John

Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

Grace, John

Penny, Frederick George

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Grant, J. A.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

Grotrian, H. Brent

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Berry, Sir George

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Betterton, Henry B.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Pilcher, G.

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

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Pilditch, Sir Philip

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

Hawke, John Anthony

Price, Major C. W. M.

Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Ramsden, E.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

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

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clivn

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Remnant, Sir James

Briggs, J. Harold

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

Briscoe, Richard George

Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Brittain, Sir Harry

Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

Ropner, Major L.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

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

Salmon, Major I.

Brown-Lindsay, Major H.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)

Holland, Sir Arthur

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Buckingham, Sir H.

Homan, C. W. J.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Burman, J. B.

Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

Savery, S. S.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

Caine, Gordon Hall

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Campbell, E. T.

Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

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

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

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

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dlne, C.)

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)

Smithers, Waldron

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Hume, Sir G. H.

Somerville, A, A, (Windsor)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Huntingfieid, Lord

Spender Clay, Colonel H.

Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

Hurd, Percy A.

Sprot, Sir Alexander

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Illffe, Sir Edward M.

Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

Clarry, Reginald George

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

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Clayton, G. C.

Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Jephcott, A. R.

Stuart, Han. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Cohen, Major J. Brunel

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Cooper, A. Duff

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

Tasker, Major R. Inigo)

Cope, Major William

Kindersley, Major Guy M.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Couper, J. B.

King, Captain Henry Douglas

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

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Crook, C. W.

Knox, Sir Alfred

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

Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

Lamb, J. Q.

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Warrender, Sir Victor

Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Loder, J. de V.

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Daiziel, Sir Davison

Looker, Herbert William

White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

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

Lumley, L. R.

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

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

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

Dawson, Sir Philip

Macdonald, Capt, P. D. (I. of W.)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Dixey, A. C.

McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

Wise, Sir Fredric

Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

Macintyre, Ian

Weimer, Viscount

Drewe, C.

McLean, Major A.

Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

Eden, Captain Anthony

Macmillan Captain H.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

Edmondson, Major A. J.

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Macquisten, F. A.

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

Ellis, R. G.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

England, Colonel A.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

Margesson, Captain D.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

Colonel Gibbs and Captain Douglas

Everard, W. Lindsay

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Hacking.

Falle, Sir Bertram G.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

NOES.

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

Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Biiston)

Batey, Joseph

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

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Beckett, John (Gateshead)

Ammon, Charles George

Barnes, A.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Barr, J.

Buchanan, G.

1862

1863

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

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

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Charleton, H. C.

Lansbury, George

Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

Cluse, W. S.

Lawson, John James

Stamford, T. W.

Crawfurd, H. E.

Lee, F.

Stephen, Campbell

Dalton, Hugh

Livingstone, A. M.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

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

Dennison, R.

Mackinder, W.

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)

Dunnico, H.

March, S.

Thurtle, E.

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Montague, Frederick

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Fenby, T. D.

Morris, R. H.

Wallhead, Richard C.

Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

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

Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

Gillett, George M.

Naylor, T. E.

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coins)

Paling, W.

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Welsh, J. C.

Groves, T.

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

Whiteley, W.

Grundy, T. W.

Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

Wignall, James

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Rose, Frank H.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

Hayes, John Henry

Runclman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Windsor, Walter

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Scrymgeour, E.

Wright, W.

Hirst, G. H.

Scurr, John

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Sinclair, Mater Sir A. (Caithness)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. T.

Kelly, W. T.

Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

Kennedy.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Valuation (Metropolis) Bill): Sir Henry Buckingham: and had appointed in substitution: Lieut.-Colonel Gault.

  STANDING COMMITTEE C.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir John Ganzoni.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS) BILL,
  "to amend the Education Act, 1921," presented by Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCE; supported by Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Briant, Sir Robert Newman, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, and Mr. Ammon: to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1925–26.
    Order for Committee read.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    On the last occasion that I had the honour of presenting the Estimates for the Army to this House, the Army was undergoing a process of transition, reduction and reconstruction. The period of transition from war to peace has passed, the reductions resulting from the recommendations of the Geddes Committee have been effected, and, in the nature of things, I have not to-day any large reductions in expenditure to announce. The savings that we can look for in the future are those which can be obtained by careful administration and economy. I cannot hope, nor do I wish, to discount criticism in advance, but it must be patent to all that the Army Estimates, like those of all the Service Departments, are particularly liable to criticism. Like most forms of insurance, they are a compromise between the risks to be guarded against and the premium which financial considerations are expected to permit.
    The critics range from those who advocate a policy of complete disarmament as a gesture—I think that is the fashionable phrase—and those who seek to be covered against every possible contingency, however remote and at whatever cost to the taxpayer. The duty of the Government of the day is to hold the balance between these two conflicting views, and, while having regard, on the one hand, to the vast Imperial interests committed to their charge, on the other hand, to pay due regard to the interests of the taxpayer and the many other competing claims upon his purse. Like all those who try to hold such balances fairly, a Minister finds that he is likely to receive more kicks than halfpence.

    VARIATIONS FROM LAST YEAR'S ESTIMATES.
    The Estimates for next year show comparatively little variation from those presented a year ago. It may be thought
    1882
    that, for this reason they are uninteresting. On the other hand, I venture to suggest that this is precisely the reason why they are worth considering. We have now got rid of most of our War aftermath. The reductions in establishments have been made. We are, therefore, getting into the position of being able to compare like with like when we compare one year's Estimates with those of the preceding years. We have made provision in Vote A for 160,600 men, as compared with 161,600 in last year's Estimate. That is a net decrease of 1,000, or, if we omit the decrease of 100 in Indian troops in Iraq, the net decrease in our Army amounts to 900 men. The estimated cash to be voted is £44,500,000, compared with last year's vote of cash of £45,000,000, showing a reduction of £500,000. But the real maintenance cost of the Army is not cash alone. There is also the value of stocks drawn from stores without replacement. For next year the estimate is £48,216,000 as compared with: 049,240,000 for the present year, which is a reduction of £1,000,000.
    Hon. Members will notice that we are still able to draw from current stocks without replacing them, that is to say, we have still got war stores on hand, and next year we draw upon them to the value of nearly £2,750,000. As these supplies disappear in future years the cash for this Service must inevitably increase. The decrease in the cash required for next year may be accounted for by the reduction in the War terminal charges, which have fallen from £1,075,000 to something just under £400,000. We have been able to meet the increases caused by higher prices, higher wages and gradual depletion of stocks to a considerable extent by administrative economy. For example, £150,000 has been saved on Head III by savings in the Ordnance depots.

    INCREASED PRICES.
    We have suffered, however, from the increase in prices. I might illustrate the effect of this increase by pointing out that, the cost of an infantry battalion at home has gone up by £1,300, and the cost of a regiment of cavalry at home. has gone up by £1,170. This increase is due to the higher cost of provisions, forage and clothing.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Since the War?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes. Let me make it clear. In the Estimate for this next year I have to allow for the increased cost of food, clothing and forage, which brings the additions to the cost of an infantry battalion or of a regiment of cavalry to what I have stated. The ration is estimated at 3d. more per day, and the current ration allowance, based on retail prices, is 1d. per day more than it was a year ago. The annual cost of clothing of an infantry soldier is estimated for next year at £9 15s. 11d., as compared with £9 4s. 8d. a year ago. For a recruit in his first year the estimate is £12 15s. 3d., as compared with £11 19s. 6d. a year ago. Turning to the actual heads of the Estimates, the most noticeable variation, compared with last year, is an increase of nearly £700,000 under Head I. This is mainly accounted for by the fact that we have now, under the Dawes Scheme, to pay Germany for certain services formerly rendered free, the bulk of which are chargeable to this Head. There is, however, a corresponding increase in the Appropriation-in-Aid for the Army Vote from the Dawes annuity. This is allowed for under Head VT, so that the variation is really one of bookkeeping.

    DISTRIBUTION OF TROOPS.
    Hon. Members may like to know the distribution of the troops on the regular establishments. We have abroad, including India, 63 battalions of infantry, 10 cavalry regiments, seven batteries of horse artillery, and 85 batteries of field artillery, pack, medium, and heavy; and we have at home 73 battalions of infantry, including 10 Guards battalions, 12 cavalry regiments, including two of Household cavalry, seven batteries of horse artillery, and 116 batteries of field artillery, pack, medium, heavy, and antiaircraft. We have maintained the Cardwell system of balance between battalions at home and abroad, but only by including in the troops said to be at home those which are in fact upon the Rhine.

    RECRUITING AND RESERVES.
    I now propose to deal with the two vitally important questions of recruiting and reserves. The strength of the Army on 31st March is expected to be within about 3,000 of the establishment. The extent to which strengths approximate to establishments depends primarily on the
    1884
    steady intake of recruits up to the required number and of the required type. The adequacy of reserves depends similarly on a steady run-off of time-expired men of the various categories in the proportions required at such a pace as to replenish wastage in the reserves. It is calculated that during the current financial year we shall obtain about 30,000 recruits, as against 34,000 required to replace the normal loss and to provide 7,500 men to be prematurely transferred to the Army Reserve. As a result of the shortage we shall be able to transfer only about 6,000 to the Army Reserve. In the Memorandum which I have circulated I have dealt at some length with the importance of the policy of premature transfers, and I need not now elaborate it. But I am disquieted over the number of would be recruits who have been rejected on physical and medical grounds. During the last recruiting year no fewer than 49,245 men were. rejected. That is to say, that out of every eight who presented themselves for enlistment five had to be rejected on medical or physical grounds. Five rejections out of eight would-be recruits is an astounding proportion.
    Besides ill-health, the next most important obstacle to recruiting is the unemployment benefit, which, I am afraid, induces many who are unemployed to prefer the unemployment benefit and no work to the full support and liberal pay of a soldier with a soldier's work and duties. There is also a disinclination on the part of some parents to allow their sons to join the Army, perhaps because it may mean a sacrifice to the parent of whatever part of the unemployment benefit the son had handed over to the parent while living at home. I am trying to meet this point. Hon. Members who have read the Memorandum will have noticed that arrangements are being made whereby a soldier can remit. allotments to his parents automatically through his accounts, and I have no doubt that many will take advantage of the facility which we are giving them and will save themselves the trouble of buying postal orders and making remittances themselves. I hope the parents will realise that it is better for their boy to make a contribution to the home expenditure in this way than to do so out of the unemployment benefit.

    VOCATIONAL TRINING
    4.0 P.M.
    We are doing everything in our power to ensure that as many soldiers as possible are fitted for return to civil life, so as to remove the reproach that the Army is a blind-alley occupation. From the moment that a recruit joins, steps are taken to see that his general education shall not be neglected. Each recruit is expected to obtain a third-class certificate before he leaves a depot, and a steady advance towards this ideal is being made. On joining his unit a soldier must continue his general education until he has obtained a second-class certificate, which is the standard considered necessary for an efficient soldier. Although education beyond the second class certificate is not compulsory, all soldiers are encouraged and afforded facilities to continue either their general education, or vocational training throughout their service with the colours. During the last six months of a soldier's service with the colours specific vocational training is given, either at the Army vocational training centres at Hounslow and Catterick or in the Command Training Centres. The courses at Hounslow and Catterick last six months, and those in the Command Centres are for a somewhat shorter time. These courses are regarded as a privilege for those who have shown themselves thoroughly efficient and well-conducted throughout their service, and only men in possession of a second-class certificate are eligible. In addition to agriculture and general farming, including dairy, pig and poultry farming, many trades are taught. About 1,000 men a year arc trained at Catterick and Hounslow, in addition to about another 1,000 who pass through the Command Training Centres. I am glad to say that over 80 per cent. of the men who are trained at Catterick and Hounslow have so far found employment on leaving the Army, and I do not think that 80 per cent. is bad it is highly encouraging.
    An Army group under the Empire Settlement Act has been formed, consisting of 2.0 soldiers with their wives and families. They have just completed a special training course at Catterick, and holdings near Bridgetown, Western Australia, have been allotted to them. They gained at Catterick the class of knowledge which is likely to be useful to
    1886
    them in Western Australia, and I hope that this may be only a beginning of what may become an important chance for ex-soldiers taking up a settler's life in the Dominions. There are many other outlets for the time—expired soldier. The preference in employment, given by the Post Office and by other Government Departments, means a good many vacancies in the course of the year, and I hope all employers of labour throughout the country will realise what a good class of men we have now in the Army, and that in assisting me to find employment for these men who have served their country they are securing for themselves well educated and active workmen likely to do them excellent service.
    Recruiting not only requires men in sufficient numbers, but it also demands men of the right categories and in the proportion required. Our most urgent nerd in the Army is for skilled tradesmen in the ranks to meet the ever extending mechanicalisation of the Army. I am glad to say that the Boys' Technical School at Chepstow is proving a great success. Competition for vacancies is keen, and the high standard is being maintained. The number of boys is being increased by 110 a term, and it is anticipated that the strength of 880 boys will be reached by 1st January next.
    Mr. STEPHEN WALSH: How many arc there now?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: About 660 or 700.
    Mr. WALSH: 550 were provided for in the Estimate.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes. We have provided for 880 this year, and by January next the number will be reached. I will now turn to the question of reserves generally. There will be an increase of 8,000 during the year ending 1st April next and a similar increase of 5,000 at the end of the ensuing year, bringing the total reserve up to 99,000. These increases are the result of the premature conversions to which I have already referred and to the re-enlistment of men about to leave Section D of the Reserves. I have made provision for reopening recruiting of Section A of the Army Reserve to the extent of 3,000 men. This step, while not increasing the total number of men in the Reserve, will enable

    1887
    me to bring up to war establishment a small force to meet minor requirements overseas without the disturbance incidental to calling up the General Reserve.

    SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE.
    I want to say a word or two about the Supplementary Reserve which was started by my predecessor last year. The Supplementary Reserve was started in order to attract skilled tradesmen who are becoming more and more necessary to the Army. The demand is greater than the supply coming in normally through the ordinary channels. Recruiting was commenced in October last, and it promised well. Hut there has been a most unfortunate obstacle, due to the completely erroneous impression that this Reserve was being recruited for the purpose of strike breaking. It may be well if I state quite definitely the present position. The Army Reserve may be called up under two different Sections of the Reserve Forces Act. It can be called up under Section 5 in aid of the civil power, or it can be called up under Section 12 by Proclamation in cases of imminent national danger or of grave emergency. My predecessor in office decided to give a definite and precise undertaking not to call up the Supplementary Reserve under the former Power, and that undertaking is embodied in the Army Order by which the Supplementary Reserve is created. Soon after I took office, both Mr. Reyna, of the Transport Workers' Union, and Mr. Cramp, of the National Union of Railwaymen, saw me. They complained that they had not been consulted, and they expressed the fear that their men would be called up for strike-breaking purposes. I renewed to them the undertaking which my predecessor had given, and I offered to go still further to remove any misapprehension. I told them that I would give each man who enlisted a paper containing an undertaking that he would not be called up under Section 5 of the Act in aid of the civil power.
    Mr. B. SMITH: Each man claiming it?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I offered to give it to each man who enlisted, and not each man claiming it. As I have said, there is also the provision
    1888
    under Section 12 for the Reserve being called up by Proclamation on permanent service in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency, and it is under this provision alone that the Supplementary Reserve will be called up. But when the Reserve has been called up, reservists are soldiers and are in the same position as men of the Regular Forces, and can be used for all purposes for which the Regular Army may be used. I cannot too emphatically repeat that the object of the Supplementary Reserve is to complete the Regular Army on mobilisation with technical tradesmen, since our peace establishments combined with our existing Army Reserve do not suffice for the increased numbers of tradesmen required, and, in order to avoid what might be fatal delay on mobilisation, we want a cut-and-dried scheme developed in peace time.
    I regret to say that two of the big unions, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Workers' Union, to which many of the railwaymen and motor drivers belong, are not satisfied with the undertakings given by my predecessor and confirmed by myself, and have declined to help us in getting the number of men we require. We shall, of course, go on without their help, if necessary, and I have little doubt that we shall get the men, but I would far rather have the backing of the unions, so that the men who are willing to join the Supplementary Reserve may do so without any fear that their patriotic action will be misrepresented and resented by their fellow trade unionists. As I understand the position, the unions claim, in effect, that the men in the Supplementary Reserve should never be used, even in a national emergency, to do their duties as motor drivers or telegraphists or in railway work here at home. I do not think that these unions would object to their being used abroad, but I cannot divide the Army into two categories, some of whom can and some of whom cannot be used in a national emergency at home. My predecessor agreed that the Supplementary Reserve should not be called up for service in aid of the civil power, and I have endorsed his action, but neither he nor I can agree to limit—
    Mr. B. SMITH: Surely a Proclamation on a great national emergency would override that.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: if the hon. Gentleman would consult the Act he would see that Section 5, about which the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking which I endorsed, does not require a Proclamation at all; it is only Section 12 that requires the Proclamation. What he undertook—and what I would undertake—was that we will not call them up under Section 5.
    Mr. SMITH: Without the Proclamation.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There is no question of a Proclamation under Section 5. If the hon. Member will read the Act, he will see that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I can agree to limit the liability of soldiers once they have been embodied in the Army. He never intended, and I never intended, to give any such undertaking. If I have correctly stated the intention of the two trade unions, our differences are, I am afraid, fundamental. If we were to give way to the demand of these two unions and exempt reserve specialists from service in this country, I should be met with the demand that what I had done for the specialists in the Reserve, should also apply to those in the Army. The trade unions could advance the same argument, and, if this exemption be granted to the specialists members of certain trade unions, how can it be refused to members of other trade unions? No doubt the Communists do claim that in no circumstances should the Army or the Reserve he used in support of the civil power, but hitherto trade union leaders have never argued that the State is not entitled, where the police force proves insufficient, to claim the assistance of the armed forces of the Crown. I have gone as far as I can to meet any reasonable fears, but I cannot deprive the Government of the day, whether it be a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, of its right, in a grave national emergency, to call up the Army Reserves. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) will try to co-operate with me and find a way out. of the present difficulty. I hope he will speak later in the Debate—I have given him notice that I intended to raise this question—and offer me that co-operation.

    SUPPLY OF OFFICERS.
    The position as regards the supply of officers is improving. During the current financial year we shall have taken 34 officers from the Universities; six from the Territorial Army, and 30 from the ranks, via Sandhurst, in addition to the 395 who come through either the. Royal Military College at Sandhurst or the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich. We ought not to find any difficulty in getting the right class of officer. For a young man, the Army is a profession which holds many advantages which are apt to be overlooked. To parents [would point out that the Army, besides being the noblest of all professions, is still infinitely the cheapest profession which a boy can enter. Candidates for any of the liberal professions, such as the law, medicine, the Civil Service, etc., must he supported by their parents for five or oven seven years, whereas a young officer in the Army, after 18 months at Sandhurst or Woolwich, is earning his living and is able to keep himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They are not all so extravagant as my hon. Friends. The young officer is able to enjoy a healthy and interesting life, with opportunities for seeing the world, not to be met with in another profession, and if he works hard, there need be no limit to his ambitions.

    TERRITORIAL ARMY.
    I want to say a few words about the Territorial Army. I have already stated publicly that in the event of an emergency, calling for military effort on a national scale, it has been decided that the Territorial Army shall be the accepted medium of the expansion of the military forces of the country. The units of the Territorial Army will then be brought up to war strength, and each division will throw off another division. It is intended, and l say this deliberately so as to remove any lingering doubts, that the Territorial Army shall be the second line Army, and the men in it shall not be used as drafts for the Regular Army. I had the pleasure of making a formal announcement to this effect to the Council of County Associations last month, and I will not add to it now, except. to say that a. scheme for implementing this policy is now being worked out in detail by a committee at the War Office. As hon. Members will see from my Memorandum, the strength of the Territorial Army is

    1891
    some 22 per cent. under peace establishment in the case of officers, and 24 per cent. under peace establishment in the case of other ranks. Thus we want 1,683 officers, and 42,669 other ranks to complete. As the peace establishment, in turn, is markedly lower than the war establishment, I cannot say that I regard the position as altogether satisfactory, more especially as within the next seven months a large number of men terminate their four-year engagements, and although I trust a good proportion will re-engage, I cannot doubt that a special effort must be made in the course of the current year to stimulate recruiting for the Territorial Army. I am engaged in considering now what measures can best be taken to this end.
    There is no doubt that one of the moss: potent factors in influencing recruiting for the Territorial Army, for good or bad, is the attitude of employers. I fully recognise the difficulties attendant upon the release of valuable employés for training, but I would impress upon employers the necessity for making a special effort in the interests of national defence to give their men leave during the next camping season, and I would remind them that if those they employ are willing to sacrifice much of their scanty leisure in fitting themselves to defend their country, they in their turn should be ready to make a corresponding sacrifice, and I can assure employers that the Army Council will do its best to meet them and to make their part as easy as possible.

    TRAINING AND MANCEUVRES.
    I have dealt with the question of numbers generally. I come now to an aspect which has a marked bearing on the adequacy of those numbers. I refer to the question of training and equipment. Our establishments as I have explained have been reduced to a minimum, and this minimum can only be accepted as sufficient on the assumption that in so far as training, equipment, and material generally are concerned, the Army is m the highest degree efficient and wed found. The training of the Army is progressing, and I have every reason to believe that a sound doctrine is being inculcated under ægis of the general staff. Although the elementary principles of warfare still remain largely unchanged,
    1892
    the great advance which has taken place in mechanical armament, movement, and equipment of modern armies, has inevitably affected the application of those principles. Last year inter-divisional operations had to be abandoned owing to foot-and-mouth disease, and divisions had to arrange for the training in their own areas, but in spite of this interference the annual report on training shows that the results of the past collective training season have shown a real and gratifying advance.
    It is proposed this year to revive manœuvres for the first time since the War, and £95,000 has been taken in the Estimates for this purpose. For the purpose of these manœuvres, an area of 60 miles by 40 miles, with the centre at Andover, has been scheduled under the Military Manœuvres Act. Three cavalry brigades, four infantry divisions, and certain units of Army artillery will take part in these manœuvres, and also a Territorial infantry brigade and two tank battalions, while the Air Ministry will assist by providing a large aerial force. The most interesting features of these manœuvres will be the use of tanks and armoured cars in co-operation with both cavalry and infantry, the employment of mechanical transport for artillery units, and the extended use of wireless communication, with experiments in methods of interrupting these communications. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the hope that landowners, over whose land these manœuvres will take place, will, as they have done in the past, give all the assistance in their power to promote their success.

    ARMAMENT AND EQUIPMENT.
    As regards armament and equipment, steady and energetic progress is being made, and the more important features have been detailed in the memorandum circulated to hon. Members. As will he realised, all real advance in the design of armament and equipment involves research, and cur research and experimental work, in all directions, is not only conducted by highly trained military staffs, with civilian assistance, but, we have the advantage of being able to consult in most spheres of research the ables scientific brains in the civilian world. If hon. Members look at the

    1893
    numerous names of Fellows of the Royal Society, who give us the benefit of their genius and wisdom, they will be satisfied that we have at our disposal the best advice obtainable. Research work is, however, expensive, but I assure the House that the sum of close on half a million, which we are spending on research activities, is not wasted money.

    ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
    I come to my last point. Are our general administrative expenses and overhead charges too heavy in proportion to what we are spending on effective fighting services? The numbers of all ranks taken on Vote "A," for the Military Administrative Corps, that is the Royal Army Service Corps, the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Dental Corps, the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, the Royal Army Pay Corps, the Corps of Military Accountants, and the Army Educational Corps, show an increase of 144 men. After taking into account a small increase in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, in view of the transfer of the tank repair work to that corps, and the fixing of establishments hitherto provisional, it may be said that there is no material change in numbers. The ratio to the combatant corps is about 13 per cent. This may appear high, but There are important considerations to be taken into account. The numbers of most of these corps are conditioned directly by what is required to enable the necessary expansion in war to be made. It is no use having troops if you cannot feed them, move them, heal them, repair their weapons, and keep them fed with ammunition, armament and equipment, and do all these things in such a way as not to hamper their military operation. A continual watch is being kept upon the cost. of these administrative services, and on the purely military ancillary services. I cannot foresee any probability of any material reduction in the near future.

    COST ACCOUNTING.
    As to the non-combatant personnel I am not so sure. I see one hon. Member has given notice of a Motion to abolish the Corps of Military Accountants. This corps and the system of cost accounting, for which it was formed, have been the
    1894
    subject of detailed inquiry by a Committee presided over by General Sir Herbert Lawrence, and two, further Committees were set up by my predecessor to consider some aspects of the question not covered by the Lawrence Committee. One of these additional committees has reported, and the other has not, so I cannot announce to-day any decision on the complicated questions raised, but I will give the House some idea of what is entailed. The Corps of Military Accountants was formed for the purpose of carrying out a system of cost accounting for every unit in the Army, and it was intended that the Estimates and accounts presented to Parliament should he based on that system, and that the old method of accounting for the Votes, under the different Vote heads, should be abolished.
    Anyone who looks at the Army Estimates, which have just been presented, will, I am sure, find the utmost difficulty in understanding them. I do not mean that this is the fault of the officials who draw them up; it is rather that the system is extraordinarily complicated, and it should be possible to present them in a simpler form, and yet in sufficient detail to enable the cost of individual units and individual services to be estimated. The Lawrence Committee also recommended that the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountants should be amalgamated, and a considerable saving effected. This recommendation is, however, bound up with others in the Report upon which decisions have not yet been taken. I am naturally anxious to secure any administrative economies that may he possible, and the complicated questions raised by the apparently simple proposal of the hon. Member will be diligently pursued until a decision can be arrived at by the Army Council.
    I have necessarily had to make a large draft upon the patience of the House in calling their attention to the more important features which arise on these Estimates. I feel, however, that I may have omitted to notice some aspects of the Vote, upon which hon. Members would desire further information, and, if that he so, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will speak later and will endeavour to give any further information required. I cannot end without paying a tribute, a, tribute often,

    1895
    but never too often, repeated, to the magnificent spirit and loyalty and devotion to duty which animate all ranks of the British Army.
    Mr. WALSH: I am quite sure the whole House has listened with real interest to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who now has charge of the very high Department which I had the misfortune recently to vacate. With almost the whole of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I find myself in agreement. Little, indeed, has been said or outlined by him to give offence of any kind. I would, however, like to ask the attention of the House for a few moments in regard to the point about the Supplementary Reserve. When, in submitting the Memorandum of last. year, on the 28th February, I outlined this proposal, it was not by any means a new proposal. The matter had been under consideration by my predecessors, and quite rightly. I think it is an integral part of the Service and that my predecessors had been doing extremely good work in considering the establishment of such a Reserve. Therefore, I disclaim any credit for originality in such an establishment, but I would ask attention to this fact, that when the Memorandum was issued on 28th February, not a single word of disapproval between that date and the 13th March, when I submitted the Estimates, came from any part of the House. I have here a copy of page 6 of my Memorandum of last year, and it goes most fully into the whole matter, shows the necessity for it, and shows its probable composition, and from that day until the beginning of this year not a single word is heard, from anybody living, of objection to the establishment of such a Reserve.
    Now, in establishing that Reserve, I want to say at once that the officers in the War Office, on the civil as well as on the military side, were in agreement with myself and my colleagues, the Under Secretary of State, a member of the Army Council along with myself, and the Financial Secretary, upon this point, that. this Reserve must in no sense be used as a strike breaker, that it must be kept severely to the duty of forming a constituent part of the regular Army, that it must not be called in to assist the civil power in the case of civil disturbance and
    1896
    that it must be kept quite free from any such condition or from suspicion of being used under such circumstances and, indeed, every word that I said in the House and every word contained in the Memorandum points out that this Reserve is to be used really for expeditionary purposes. In the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the 13th March, 1924, almost twelve months ago, it is clearly the expeditionary force, and the whole of the context is built up on those lines. I am sorry—more sorry than I can easily express—that there should have been this woeful misunderstanding as to the object and purpose for which this Supplementary Reserve was established. I know perfectly well that my colleagues on the Army Council in the War Office were desirous, I think ever. more desirous than I, that it should be kept quite clear of any possibility or thought of possibility of it being a Reserve that could be used in the case of civil disturbance. I understand my right. hon. Friend to say that the process of recruiting commenced about October. Well, our trouble commenced about October. I think on about the 8th October we were in trouble ourselves, and the misfortunes inseparable from political life made one unable to keep himself closely in touch with what was going on in the War Office, but I am quite sure that no trouble arose in the interval, until, I think, about the beginning of January or the end of December. What happened
    "The best laid schemes o' mice and men Gang aft agley"—
    and, I suppose, against stupidity even the gods contend in vain. The one thing that ought to have been fought against, the one thing above everything else, was allowed to happen, and I do not know how, but some blundering recruiting sergeants go right in amongst a body of men, on their working ground, and try to press, really—because it can have no other appearance—into the service of the Supplementary Reserve men whose entrance should be dependent upon perfect goodwill and freedom from suspicion on everybody's part. That is where it happened, and that it how it happened. If an Army is to exist—and at the present moment one cannot see how it can very well be dispensed with—it should exist upon efficient lines. You might as well abolish it altogether if you are not going to have

    1897
    it efficient, and the most pacific member of my party will agree that, if it is to exist at all, it must be an efficient Army. If you are, as your finances compel you, to have a small Army, the only justification for a small Army is that its efficiency shall be as high as possible. Finances compel you, taxation compels you, to keep down the expense and to keep down the numbers. Well then, in the name of common sense, at least see to it that, small as your Army is, it shall be as efficient as you can possibly make it. It cannot be efficient, in the face of the vastly changed conditions existing in the world to-day, unless you have this kind of Reserve, and there is not a man on these benches but must admit the logic of that contention.
    At the same time, it does depend upon goodwill. We have done away with conscription for the time being, and it does depend upon the removal of suspicion, it does depend upon recruiting conditions which shall not engender suspicion in the minds of the men that this particular Reserve that they or their fellows are. being asked to enter is to be used against them at a time of difficulty. At the time when these recruiting sergeants went on the ground, as I suggest—I am not quite sure as to the exact date—what happened? A great trade union had given notice of its desire to raise its wages and improve its working conditions. My own trade union had been for a long time saying something on very similar lines. Of all the times when there ought. to have. been care taken, when everything ought to have been done, to avoid suspicion and to prevent suspicion arising, this was the time. Yet this was the very occasion, the most inopportune of all, upon which recruiting sergeants go, and immediately find themselves in contact, in almost bodily conflict, with a body of working railwaymen; and immediately the fiery cross is sent round the whole country. Trade unionism is a live wire, and everybody gets to know. The papers are all full of it, and I am being called out of my bed at all times in the night—a most unfortunate circumstance—as to what I have to say upon this and upon that, 20 or 30 of the papers in the country ringing one up. Well, what can one say, except that the circumstances ought not to have happened, and the recruiting for the Supplementary Reserve, or the lack of it, to
    1898
    which my right hon. Friend alluded in his Memorandum, has simply been due to the crass stupidity of people who ought to have known better, but who, like many others, did not?
    One thing really, after all, ought to be placed quite above suspicion. I saw the attestation form, which, I think, is signed October of last year. Well, that attestation form is not quite as clear in its terms—I make no complaint—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It carries out the Army Order.
    Mr. WALSH: It does. It does not in any sense contravene the Army Order—my right hon. Friend is perfectly right—but I think it could have been a little clearer. I make no complaint, because one knows the wonderful elasticity of the English language, and how difficult it is to put in, in simple sentences, that which you really do desire, so that it shall be as plain to the recipient as it is to yourself. One thoroughly understands that, but it would have been well if it could have been made—and I think it can be made—a little more plain, and, above all, the people ought to be given to understand, without any possibility of doubt, that, if they do enter this Reserve, if during their civil life they are prepared to give the assistance that is desired on the lines laid down, they will not be called upon to aid the civil power in the event of disturbance. One knows that when the Army is organised for permanent service, it is a very different thing. When you are organised for permanent service, you cannot disband the Army, you cannot have one class having one particular set of duties, and if the Army is to be mobilised at all for permanent service, there must be a time between the date of mobilisation and the date of departure from the country in which you really are part and parcel of the regular forces of the country. During that time, that necessary time, of course, a man cannot say: "I was a soldier yesterday, but I am not one to-day." That would he ridiculous and driving the whole thing to a reductio ad absurdum.
    I do not, however, think that the trade unions are taking up that line. I believe that if the leaders, every one of whom I know, and every one of whom is a sensible man, could have it quite clear in their minds that these men will not at any

    1899
    time be called upon to aid the civil power, and will only be called upon when the military power is in authority—when war is declared the War Office and the Admiralty reign supreme, and the civil power takes a back seat—but that, so long as a state of war is not absolutely proclaimed, and the civil power is in authority, these men will not be called upon to aid the civil power in the event. of industrial disputes—if that be agreed upon, and if that can be made clear, as it can be, and as I am quite sure both sides desire, and the members of the Army Council desire, this difficulty will be removed.
    I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend speak as to the progress made at Chepstow. I think there is greater hope on those lines than there is even in the formation of a Supplementary Reserve. I believe last year we provided for about 550 at the Chepstow Technical Training School. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he thought there were between 600 and 700, and that in a short time the number might be up to 800.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We are relying on an average of 740, making 880 at the end of the year.
    Mr. WALSH: I think that is quite good having regard to the very short time during which the school has been established. I think it reflects credit upon those who are administering the school. In that direction there is probably greater hope than there is from the Supplementary Reserve itself. I would sooner take them young, as the saying is, and as the Army is now doing, because you can then rely that when their Army service is completed, they will not be going into a blind alley. You will know that these young men, when their Army service is completed, will be able to fill a useful position in the world. I am very pleased, indeed, to hear how well that establishment is going on, and I hope it may do even better.
    My right hon. Friend spoke of the administration charges. I know how difficult it is, but I wonder whether it would be possible for his Department to pay more attention to the non-effective service than seems to have been paid during recent years. I know it is very difficult indeed. Since the tremendous
    1900
    increase in pensions in 1919, there has been a very large increase in the non-effective Vote which, I think, is now almost £8,000,000, which, I believe, represents between 22 and 23 per cent. of the total Vote for the effective service, and the estimated Vote for the effective service, of course, includes quite a substantial increase in wages and in salaries to large numbers of men It is, really, a very serious matter, the amount that is now being charged year by year for the non-effective service. The non-effective service really means the pensions of those whose old pensions are gradually dying away, and the new pensions coming along, the scales of which were increased very substanially in 1919. Broadly speaking, those are the two classes of cases that make up between 22 and 23 per cent. of the effective Vote. In the four years before the War it represented about 16 per cent, of the effective Vote, that is. the non-effective service, the pensionable service, half-pay and retired pay, represented about 16 per cent. of the Vote for the effective service. To-day it is representing 23 per cent., or very nearly so, and it would have represented 24 per cent. had it not been for the fact that the effective service for the coming year, and for the year ending on the 31st March next, has been largely raised on account of very large increases of wages and salaries given by the Department.
    I know how extremely difficult it is to keep the amount for this service within bounds, but I do think that it would be a very good thing indeed, and that it would amply repay the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues at Whitehall if they were to give it attention. I am not at all charging them with inattention: I know perfectly well, from my very close and extreme friendly confabs with the people inside the office, how keenly they desire to keep the expenditure within reasonable limits, and I know how very difficult is their task in dealing with the large amount of £8,000,000 necessary for the non-effective service. And, yet, if the Department is really to come before the nation as an economical Department, it will have to tackle sooner or later—and I hope sooner—this particular service, which is showing a constantly increasing percentage, as compared with the Vote for the effective service. How they will propose

    1901
    to do it, one cannot say, but I am sure it will have to be done. When the public see figures such as are being presented to-clay for the coming year, £44,500,000, they say, "What a huge figure! What a tremendous waste! How enormous must be the waste of this Department! "There are very few papers that care to show that this very large amount of 20 or 22 per cent. of the total expenditure is really paid to people at the end of a period of service in half-pay, retired pay, and so on. There are very few papers who care-to put, or who do put, the real facts before the public. It is not the fact that this Department is spending huge sums upon materials, and so on. I do not want to make any invidious comparisons between Departments, but anyone who looks at the record of the last four years car see that the Department has come down from. £02,000,000 or £63,000,000, or practically one-third, and would have come down even more but for this great increase in the Vote for the non-effective service. I am sure most people who go into it on those lines will admit that the Department has a good deal to say for itself.
    I do most sincerely hope that the difference as to the Supplementary Reserve can be straightened out, that it will be made quite clear to those who are willing to join, or who do join, that they are free from all obligations to help the civil power in the event of industrial disturbance, and that it is only when the Reserve is called up on permanent service, that is to say, when a state of war is definitely proclaimed, that they can be called upon to perform the duties of a soldier. If that can be made quite clear, as it ought to he, then this unfortunate misapprehension will be in a fair way of being removed.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I should like, first of all, to congratulate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the clear, lucid and comprehensive review he gave of the year's work in the Department of which he is the head. One is struck by the fact that seven years after the Great War, we are spending no less than £100,000,000 on defence purposes. My right hon. Friend in his statement to-day, and in the White Paper which he issued, makes it very plain that his Department is producing an Estimate
    1902
    5.0 P.M.
    this year less than the Estimate of last year, but I think he suggested—and I will make the suggestion clearer—that, in reality, the Estimate is in actual fact greater than that of last year. He depends for the £500,000 less than the Estimate of last year upon terminal charges and surplus war materials. The terminal charges, as I understand, are charges, like War compensation, which have been greatly decreasing in their volume as the period elapses since the Great War. I understand also—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the other charges upon which he is still depending are the. amounts of war material, such as blankets, tents and various other things which were left over to the Disposal Board since the Great 'War and are now in use. These quantities, of course, are gradually decreasing, and it may be that next year: he Secretary of State for War will not be able to come forward with so satisfactory at. Estimate from that point of view. It is but fair to point out, on the other hand, that my right hon. Friend in his Estimate begins with an exceedingly heavy burden—a burden which may well be divided into three parts. First of all, he has been faced, as we shall be faced for many years to come, with the burden of increased pay. I think I am speaking for all my Friends on these benches, and for every Member of this House, when I say that there is nobody in the House who is anxious to decrease that part of the burden. I took a prominent part in the movement for increasing the pay of the soldier in the old days. I thought it was a monstrous thing that any soldier should be asked, for 1s. 1d. a day, to face danger and death. I, for one, think that the pay of the soldier is a thing which ought not to be decreased, and that when decreases have to take place—as they must—for we cannot have huge Estimates of this kind going on for ever—he should not be asked to share in that decrease. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) pointed out that the second part of that burden is the enormous amount of, I think, £8,000,000 which goes in pensions and other awards for past services, and is an amount which was never approached in the old days before the War. If there were, then, less than one million it would have been considered a large sum. Here

    1903
    you have the second share of the non-effective Vote which can only be decreased when death decreases it. There is, lastly, the third. My right hon. Friend pointed out that there is more than 50 per cent. increase on this particular item. I do not think that this third share can be decreased either, nor can any Secretary of State make any decrease in it. It is the amount of retiring pay, which must be paid. But after having allowed for these inevitable amounts, the astonishing fact remains that seven years after the War we are in this position. If you compare the gross expenditure per head in the Army in 1914 with the gross expenditure in the Army to-day, 1923–24, you will find that the cost in 1914 was 15s. 5d. per head and the cost to-day no less than £2 18s. 11d. per head. It is a startling figure. We on these benches are entitled to press the Government for every economy consistent with efficiency.
    Though the cost per head of the Army at the present time is so colossal, the armed military strength is less than it was in 1914. We believe that the proper view of the Army is that it should be maintained on the general principle that it is a national insurance for our own needs, and our own needs only. within the Empire. We are determined to see that the defences of this country are maintained. We are anxious that every possible penny should be spent upon the Air Service. We all listened to the appeal that was made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air. He made it perfectly plain to the House that the Service was being starved. He made it plain to the House that he got an inadequate sum from this House to maintain a satisfactory comparative standard in his important service. We have been hearing since the House met a demand on the part of everybody, in every quarter, for the fulfilment of the promises, pledges, and commitments which were made during the course of the Election in relation to social improvement. We are as anxious as anyone that social improvement should take place. But we are convinced of this; that no adequate supplies for social improvement can be voted, and no adequate amount can be given to the Air Force or to the Navy, unless and until in the other defence arm some reductions
    1904
    are made in what we regard as altogether excessive expenditure in certain directions.
    I am one of those who have always advocated a Ministry of Defence or co ordination of the Services. I believe that in that direction lies econmy. I believe in that direction lies fairness. On the Paper to-day there is a Motion to discuss the position of ex-ranker officers. I understand, though we are precluded from moving it, we can discuss that aspect of the case to-day. If, however, there had been a Ministry of Defence the ex-ranker officers of the Army would have been treated with the same fairness and sympathy as the ex-ranker officers of the Navy. But the astonishing fact remains that that fairness has not existed, and so far as I under stand my right hon. Friend opposite, he does not intend that it should exist make bold to say, however, that if Ministry of Defence had been in existence these men would have been treated fairly, squarely and sympathetically. That, however, by the way. One of the main reasons why I have advocated a Ministry of Defence in the past arose from the experience and knowledge I gained during the War at the War Office. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince has pointed out, the extravagance of which we complain is not on the upkeep of the actual fighting unit at all, but on the men and material which is supposed to be necessary to keep efficient that fighting unit.
    Take, for example, the three Services in the Great War. They were all competing with each other in transport, in supply, in commissariat, in doctors, even in chaplains. That was the experience we had during the Great War. Why all these subsidiary services should not be controlled by one head I fail to understand; but the fact was that each Service competed with the other for men and for materials for their own particular Service. The result was that not only was there overlapping and "squander-mania," but keen competition as between one Service and the other to the detriment of the suffering taxpayer. That is only one instance. The case against a Ministry of Defence has always been that there would be no agreement between the three Services. I do not believe it. What is required is a Minister of Defence with

    1905
    three deputy Ministers under him. If such a Ministry existed there would be no jealousy and no competition between the three Services. Contracts and everything else would be for the lot, and would be one business and one industry. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should immediately tackle this subject from his own Department, particularly in relation to the subsidiary services, if he wishes to be able to give the House next year a, greatly decreased Estimate. He may take it from me that the economy which can be effected, and can be effected safely, will come from that direction.
    Let me say a word or two about the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince. He referred to the. Supplementary Reserve, which is Labour's own child.
    Mr. LAWS0N: Labour's foster-child!
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Labour's foster-child, then. I was interested in the speech of the Secretary of State and the reply to it by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince. I cannot, however, understand how we can have any Reserve or anything in the nature of a distinct body of men, duly attested, divided into two categories—in the one category being placed the men who are to have a privilege and in the other category the men who are always to have a duty. I know sufficient of the civilian life and of the military life of the country to know that this is a subject which ought to be approached with good will and with good temper. I am hopeful that with the good offices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Secretary for War (Mr. Walsh) that some agreement will be reached. But it does seem to me that the State cannot possibly sanction any agreement which means that you are going to enlist or attest at the same time men who are to be placed, some in a hotter position than the others, on the same attestation.
    I do not for a single moment believe that this House, which, after all, is the ultimate authority in the matter, would ever allow a body of men who will be attested or enlisted for a certain duty to be used for another. I think there is far greater terror and fear on the part of the trade unions than there need be in
    1906
    thinking that a body of men who are artisans and mechanics, and not soldiers in the normal sense at all, would be used by the State, whatever Government is in power, ruthlessly and recklessly to break down a strike of their own fellow workers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question?"] An hon. Gentleman above the Gangway says "Question?" I reply, that it is not the War Office which has the ultimate control of the destiny of these men but the House of Commons. I know the House of Commons sufficiently well to appreciate this fact that it would never tolerate from any party in the House that any body of men attested for one purpose should be used for another.
    It was with a good deal of interest that I followed the fugitive reference which my right hon. Friend made to the "mechanicalisation" of the Army—a word that I like as much as I do "self-determination." But if the word is hideous, the principle is very good and very sound. Mechanicalisation ought to be encouraged, because it means, in plain language, that you are attempting to save man-power at the expense of firepower. At the same time, in the interests of economy and of efficiency, a word of warning ought to be given now. You have the same problem here as you have in the Air Force—the clamour for hundreds of aeroplanes to be built at once on a standardised design. There is nothing more fatal than that, for when science and mechanics are advancing you expect and ought to get new improvements rapidly. It is the same with the scheme of mechanicalisation of the Army. My right hon. Friend ought to be on his guard to see that there is no hasty and unnecessary expense in this matter, but that the improvements which are being made are the best improvements for the moment. He ought to expend as much money as he possibly can upon research. We have the experience of the War. We introduced research when we were half way through the battle; if we had worked at research before the War we should have saved thousands if not millions of lives. I feel sure this House will not grudge the expenditure upon research which my right hon. Friend proposes. I am equally glad that he had a good story to tell about what is being done in another direction for saving man power, I refer to

    1907
    vocational training. In the history of the old Army, nothing was more sad than to see the old pensioners, who in those days had to live on sixpence a day and were unfit for any occupation except that of an ordinary unskilled labourer. Vocational training has added a new chance to Army life, and I am very glad my right hon. Friend is not only continuing it, but is giving us some additional hope that it will be strengthened and developed.
    I listened with great interest to two other points in my right hon. Friend's speech. I refer to what he had to say about the Territorial Force, and what he did not have to say about the Militia. I could not believe my eyes, nor could I believe my ears, when I read in the White Paper and heard to-day that the Territorial Force is now the accepted medium of the expansion of the military strength of the nation in the event of the emergency. In my view, that is exactly what it is not and what it cannot be. The Territorial Force is not a reserve of the Regular Army. It is a second line arm. Its units cannot be drafted into any other regiment. To talk about the Territorial Force occupying the same position as the Special Reserve or the Militia is not in accordance with actual experience or with fact. I was one of those who greatly regretted the abolition of the Special Reserve. It was a body of men which did incalculable service during the late War—services which were ill-requited. I believe it was responsible for no less than a quarter of all the millions of men we sent to the various fronts. It trained and sent out a steady flow of reinforcements, it relieved the Territorial Force of its appropriate duty of defending our coasts, and it provided a nucleus of trained soldiers for the new army. But where is it to-day? It was abolished two or three years ago, and the position now is that if once again we are forced to go to the dread arbitrament of war—which God forbid—and our divisions are sent to any foreign country, there is not a single Reserve division or Reserve battalion in the country to fill up the wastage which would inevitably take place. Surely that is radically wrong.
    This country is prepared to pay, as we on these benches are prepared to pay, for
    1908
    a, sufficient and an efficient Army, but when you are asking the fighting line to go forward and bear the brunt and the burden of the day, without a single battalion, not. to speak of a division, of reserves behind to supply their wastage, it is asking too much to expect the country to stand it. I have been reading a good deal about this subject lately, and I find that if we are to have reserves, as we undoubtedly must, we can have a cheap and effective reserve, as they have in Canada, in the Militia, or an equally efficient reserve such as they have in the National Guard of America. After I had looked at the Estimates and at the White Paper, I looked at the official Report for last year, under the heading of "Administration of the Army," and I found that both in this House and in another place the Government of the day were pressed to say what had become of the Militia that was promised, and why it was not reconstituted, and the answer which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) gave on 7th August last year to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport was that it was still in abeyance. What is the good of spending millions on an Army unless and until you have got what every army ought to have, an efficient reserve behind? That reserve ought not to he trained as the Territorial Force was trained in the old days. If we are going to have it, we ought to have it trained, for the minimum number of days each year, with the regular Army. During the whole of last year, I notice, one man only was added to the Militia. Last year the numbers were, I think, 1,758; this year the Militia numbers 1,759, the Militia referred to being composed, of course, of troops at Malta, Bermuda, and Aden.
    The Militia has always been regarded as the backbone of the Army. It is a historic body, it is a constitutional body. We are bound to consider the necessities of the fighting man, and it must be very trying for anyone like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to feel that his Army is without this necessary body. I would beg of him that, instead of spending money upon other things in his vast administration, he should at; once consider the dire necessity of reconstituting a body of this kind.
    No mention was made, or if so it was only a passing mention, of the work of the

    1909
    various committees that have been appointed. Over a year ago some of us pressed very strongly for a committee such as the Esher Committee after the South African war. We pressed for a committee of that kind, presided over by a man like Viscount Haldane. During a war of this magnitude many things arose which had to be tackled suddenly, many faults were found out, many experiences were gained, and there could be nothing better in the interests of the Army and of the country than to collate, to compare and to look after these various matters for our benefit on any future occasion. Nothing of the sort has been done. We still have the staff as large as ever it was. We have large excrescences, which cost an enormous amount of money, and we have an Army Council as big as it ever was, except that one secretary is off it. I am sorry for personal reasons that that secretary is off it.
    Then there is the Master General of the Ordnance. The present one is a most distinguished soldier, and nothing would please me more than to see him continuing to occupy a very high office in the Army, because he thoroughly deserves it, but the Mastership General of the Ordnance is really a defunct office. The work which was performed in the old days by the Master General of the. Ordnance was work which an ordinary private firm does to-day. fie looked after the provision of armaments and munitions; it was his duty to see that they were provided, it was his duty to see that they were made, it was his duty to see that they were designed; but he has none of these duties to-day, and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not consider the advisability of abolishing that office now, and I have no doubt that the same consideration ought to be given to many other offices.
    I hope I have not detained the House too long, but I am very much interested in this subject. I am not satisfied that the present Army is run upon efficient lines, I am not satisfied that it is run as economically as possible, and I am not satisfied that it is run as scientifically as possible; and particularly am I not satisfied because there is no reserve behind the fighting line; and as, in the course of the Debate, I have received no assurances on these points, I shall feel it my duty to move a reduction of 100 men.
    Sir ROBERT SANDERS: I think that my right hon. Friend may, on the whole, congratulate himself that the statement he has so ably made has not led to any very heavy criticism. I do not think my right hon. Friend who spoke last, although he gave us a little thunder at the, close, had any very great fault to find with the statement; and yet I must say I think there are some respects in which the statement is disquieting. We have not heard any criticism on the number of men asked for in the Estimates. As far as I can gather, in no part of the House is there any inclination to say that my right hon. Friend is asking for too much. It is generally realised that the Army to-day has just sufficient men to do its work, which is to police the Empire, and that it certainly could not do that work with any fewer men. Where, I think, we have some ground for disquietude is in the fact that recruiting is not all that it should be. The right hon. Gentleman has given reasons why recruits have not been coming into the Regular Army in such numbers as he could wish, and they are good reasons. But it is the fact that he has not got all the men we could wish for, and we have not now the reserve which would enable us to fill up our Army in time of war, except for a very short time. The same thing has happened with regard to the Territorials. It is a matter for great regret that recruiting for the Territorial Army has fallen this year below what it was last year, and that it is foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend that it is likely to fall still further I think everything possible ought to be done, especially now that the territorials are given a position of importance in our modern Army system. Everything possible should be done to make them as strong as possible, and we should not adopt any policy of pin-pricks as seems often to have been done in the case of the Territorials.
    I wish to bring up a matter complained of in my own part of the country, and it is something which I can only describe as one of those pin-pricks to the Territorials that do a great deal to take the heart out of that body. This is a case of four Yeomanry regiments, all of which were in France from very nearly the beginning of the War. The history of those regiments is very much the same, but I can only

    1911
    speak for certain of one of them of which I have particulars, and that is the North Somerset Yeomanry. That regiment went out very nearly at the beginning of the War, in October, 1914. It was attached, in November, 1914, to the 6th Cavalry Brigade in France, and it remained there until March, 1918, and then it was decided to turn it into a Machine Gun Battalion March, 1918, was the time when the Great German push was coming on, and, when that offensive took place, this regiment was remounted. They were given back their horses, and marched up to Amiens as a regiment.
    On the 6th of April, owing to the shortage of cavalry reinforcements, a complete squadron of this regiment was attached to each regiment of the 6th Cavalry Brigade, and they remained with them until the end of the War, one squadron attached to each of the three regiments in the cavalry brigade. They went through the advance at the end of the War, and the units of that brigade all had as their battle honours Amiens, the Hindenburg Line, St. Quintin Canal, and the pursuit to Mons. Those honours have been denied to these four regiments, of which one squadron was sent to each regiment of a brigade, and, although they were divided in this way in the brigade, yet it is a fact that their existence as a unit was recognised, because the 3rd Echelon was retained at Rouen. The regiment was still recognised as being in existence. All promotions of the officers and non-commissioned officers were kept up, and their casualties were reported there, and honours and awards were made to them, not as members of those various regiments, but as members of the North Somerset Yeomanry. Really, they maintained their identity all the time, and yet when the awards of battle honours were made these four Yeomanry regiments were left out.
    I believe the rule that is quoted for refusing them these honours is in the first place that a regiment must be in the order of battle. Undoubtedly, each squadron of these regiments was in the order of battle. Another requirement laid down is that the headquarters and 50 per cent. of the strength of the men must have been present at the battle. I do not know about the headquarters, but certainly over 50 per cent. of the men
    1912
    were present at each of these battles. Consequently, these regiments feel particularly sore, because they are informed that an exception was made to this rule in the case of the Household Cavalry in the Retreat from Mons, where each regiment sent one squadron to form a composite regiment, and yet all of them got battle honours for that period. Consequently, these regiments feel that it is a slight upon them. It is a matter that affects only four regiments, and it is not likely to occur again.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It affects hundreds of others.
    Sir R. SANDERS: I do not see how it can apply to hundreds of others, but my point is, if an exception was made in the case of Household Cavalry, it might also be made in the case of these four regiments. It is not a good thing to go on with these pin-pricks in. the case of Territorials when they bring forward a strong case like this, and I think the War Office might stretch a point in their favour, because we all recognise the patriotic services of the Territorials, and the manner in which a great many of them are giving up really important time, and their only holiday in the year, and they are doing it to help their country. When a case of this sort arises, I think a point might be stretched in their favour.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, and I should not have done so but for the very direct invitation of the Secretary of State for War that I should say a word on the particular question in dispute. I would like to say, first of all, that I am very sorry my right hon. Friend should have attributes. the falling off in recruiting to the readiness of young men to receive the dole. In a speech I only made yesterday, I pointed out the demoralising effects of the dole, and I do not hesitate to say that its effects are really bad, but the implication behind my right hon. Friend's statement is that hitherto the Army was recruited on the starvation of the people. I think that is the only logical deduction from his statement.
    Let us examine this in connection with the second point, namely, that five out of every eight young men offering to enlist during the past 12 months, were rejected. I think those were the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. The conclu-

    1913
    sion I draw is that here we have so serious a state of affairs in the case of these young men that five out of eight are rejected for physical reasons, and I think that is the best illustration of the economic position under which a very large number of these men are working. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that that is something that should call for his very serious consideration. It is an amazing statement, and must illustrate the terrible economic conditions of our people.
    I want to say that I think this question of the reserve has received far too much prominence and out of all proportion to the facts. Mr. right hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh) made a very frank straightforward statement to the House, and he said quite clearly that when he dealt with this question it was never intended and it was not considered by those responsible as being a matter in any way connected with an industrial dispute. I think that accurately summarises the situation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that going into a goods yard in the way that these men went, under the peculiar circumstances of the moment, was not only disastrous, but was calculated in the nature of things to engender suspicion. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Labour Government were in office at the time!"] At any rate, I know my right hon. Friend (Mr. Walsh.) was not responsible for these people going into the goods yard. We were not in office when they went into the goods yard, because that occurred last December.
    The better plan would have been to have communicated with the unions affected in order to discuss the whole matter, pro and con, and get the things straightened up before suspicion got abroad. I think the late Secretary of State for War was perfectly straight in all his dealings, and, although my executive found themselves unable to agree with his proposal, it is only fair for me to say that he has not concealed anything. He has acted perfectly straight, and put all the cards on the table, and no complaint can be made against him in that respect. I ask the Secretary of State for War and the House to remember the peculiar circumstances and the grounds of the men's suspicion. I have already indicated the mistake of going into the goods yard.
    1914
    My second point is that it is not true to say that these men were merely asked to do the same work as the ordinary regular soldier even in an emergency. There is a difference, and it is an important point, and you must in fairness keep it in mind. Supposing there was a transport strike or a railway strike? We have always got to look at these things as practical men. What these men resent being called upon to do is not to go abroad to fight, because they are really a transport battalion—their special qualification is not as fighting men, but as railway or transport men, and, therefore, the only object of organising them is to have an efficient Army, efficient for the practical purposes to which these men adapt themselves in their everyday life—but, in the event of a railway or transport strike, they object, and rightly object, that they should he called upon to be used as policemen, as it were, for law and order, and they rightly say, "We offered our services for national defence in any emergency to be used to do our own work, and not to blackleg our own people." That is exactly the difference between us, and I hope the House will appreciate that point. It should not be mixed up with the question of troops sent to keep order. What I have stated is absolutely the only purpose for which these men could be used, namely, to perform their regular daily occupation, and I am sure hon. Members will understand their feeling of resentment if they are to be called upon, when offering their services to the State, to be used to blackleg their own men in their own particular occupation. That is the ground of their objection. The Minister for War went a tremendous long way to meet that, and I think I am justified in saying it was a legal obligation that prevented him going all the way.
    That shows that there was quite a frank discussion. Those who volunteer under the circumstances I have mentioned have now had it made perfectly clear to them that they are not volunteering for any other purpose than that of national defence in a national emergency, and they have nothing to do with an industrial or a trade dispute. I say, quite frankly, that I should deplore that these men should be put into the category of blacklegs. As far as I am concerned, I have no hesitation in saying that they certainly will not be put in that category,

    1915
    but, as I have said, mistakes were made in the circumstances I have mentioned, and I hope my right, hon. Friend will still see whether it is possible to get over this legal barrier. It is hardly necessary for me to say that the railwaymen of the country have never been unmindful of their national obligation. They proved it during the War. I am quite sure that, with, perhaps, a little tact and sweet reasonableness on all sides, we shall even now get over the difficulty that at the moment appears to divide us.
    Brigadier-General MAKINS: One of the outstanding features of this Report on the Army is shown in the figures regarding recruiting, which are really very startling. We are told that five out of every eight men who offered themselves for enlistment were refused for physical and medical reasons. That may have something to do with the War, but not very much, because these lads were born before the War, though there may something, perhaps, in their not having been fully nourished at a certain period. The figures are startling, however, from the point of view of the general physique of the people of this country. After all, the standard of an ordinary line infantry regiment is not a very high one, as anyone who has served in one of these regiments will admit.
    It has been proved over and over again that one of the best methods of improving the physique of the youth of this country is the cadet corps, and this shows the improvidence of the policy of trying to starve the cadet corps out of existence. I am sorry to say that my own party was responsible for that two years ago, and it was carried on by the following Government; and I am afraid there is nothing in the Report this year with regard to re-introducing the grant for the cadet corps of this country. There is very little money in it; it is only a matter of a few thousands. I do not know the exact amount, but I think it is something like £20,000. I believe, however, that the results to the youth of this country and the general physique of the country would far outweigh the small amount expended on it, and I would urge the Secretary of State earnestly to consider the question of re-introducing this
    1916
    grant for the cadet corps. I am sure it would pay the country over and over again.
    Another point, which has been already mentioned, is the question of research in the Army. I am glad to see that £500,000 is set aside for this Service. Our Army now is absurdly small. Even before the War it was nothing but a police force for the Empire, and was just sufficiently large to supply drafts for garrisons abroad. Now it is smaller than ever, and this question of research comes all the more to the front. With the shortage of money for the Army, with the hope that the League of Nations puts the picture of war further off, and with conferences for the reduction of armaments and all the rest of it, this is not, perhaps, the time to ask that the Army should be increased. All that we want is to keep our security in the face of other nations. Research will keep us abreast of the times, and nothing would be worse for this country than that it should be niggardly in regard to the money that may he wanted for research.
    History has generally shown that big wars can he foresee that The question is when to put research into operation and bring the Army up to modern requirements. I remember that military opinion at the beginning of this century put the War with Germany as coming on in 1913. That was not far out, but, of course, as history again shows, the Government did not foresee that War and take time by the forelock. It has always been seen, and it was notable in the ease of the past War, that a government says that peace is absolutely assured, that. there is not a cloud on the horizon, it is then, as a rule, that you have to sit up and take notice and look out for danger. It seems to me that any money spent on research for the purpose of keeping us up to date, when the time comes, is money very well spent. These are the only two points that wanted to make. I hope to get an answer about the cadet corps, because I think that, with the terrible indictment that has been made on the physique of this country, it is about time we started that again.
    Major-General Sir R. HUTCHISON: I am particularly upset over the question of recruiting. The Secretary of State's Memorandum points out that, even

    1917
    during a time when over a million of our men in this country are unemployed, we have not been able to attract sufficient recruits for the Army, and the serious thing is that the shortage of recruits this year will undoubtedly have a very serious effect in years to come, because a shortage of recruits in any one year affects the outgoing of soldiers at the end of their Colour service, and, therefore, a shortage during a period of two or three years upsets the whole recruiting system of the Army. It seems to me that greater efforts will have to be made in the direction of making the Army more popular, or bringing its advantages before the people, if we are to attract to its ranks those whom we require. The Army in the past has gone through periods of lack of recruits, and it seems to me that we ought, especially in this House, to draw attention to the fact that, as long as we 'have a number of men serving His Majesty in the Army, we are here to protect their interests, to see that their life is a good one and that their conditions of service are of the very best; and that anything we can do in Parliament towards seeing that the conditions of service are first-rate will be done. We should voice these matters here, so that recruits in the country may know that when they come into the Service they will receive treatment which, I venture to say, is second to none in the world.
    The next point to which I should to draw attention is the deplorable state of the reserves for the regular Army. My right hon. Friend has very rightly drawn attention to a very serious situation. A Territorial Army can never be a real reserve for the regular Army. It is a home army, and it is only in case of a war of dimensions something like the last war that we can look to the Territorial Army for reinforcements. The wars that we have to visualise in the immediate future are small wars in various parts of the world where we have commitments. I should like to know from the Secretary of State if he is satisfied that he can mobilise one or two divisions at the present moment, take them across the seas to wherever they are required, and be happy about their condition as to reinforcements. I venture to say that we in this House should be quite wrong to vote Looney for an Army unless we thought we were going to get an efficient
    1918
    Army, and, from what I know of the present state of the Service, we should have the greatest difficulty in moblising two divisions and keeping them in the field for any length of time. Unless the Secretary of State for War can make sufficient arrangements for keeping these divisions in the field, we on these benches are perfectly justified in moving a reduction of £100 in order to call attention to that fact. After all, we stand for the security of the country as much as any party, but we do think we ought to get value for money. If we are simply spending money on producing an Army on paper, that money is not well spent Therefore, I hope that during this Debate the Secretary of State will reassure us as to what is behind the regular Army in the way of reserves.
    In relation to the Territorial Army, I think it has been forgotten in the War Office that in 1919 there was what might be called a very intelligent Committee which considered the knitting together of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, and the question how far we could use the Territorial Army to work in co-operation and closer touch with the Regular Army. That Committee, I may remaind the Financial Secretary, who is now occupying the place of the Secretary of State on the Front Bench, was presided over by General Hamilton Gordon, and, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the proceedings of that Committee, he will find there many very interesting facts brought out, and many interesting suggestions pat forward, which I think might be very usefully applied to-day. They refer largely to conditions such as have arisen over this Supplementary Reserve, and I am satisfied that, if the recommendations put forward by that Committee had been carried out we should not have been faced to-day with the necessity for recruiting Supplementary Reserves. Anything that we can do to promote a closer unity and closer touch between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army will, I feel sure, he for the good of the Army as a whole and for the good of this country.
    The next question to which I desire to refer is that of administration. Administration since the War has been a subject of inquiry by various committees. Everyone who has anything to do with

    1919
    6.0 P.M.
    the handling of forces in the field knows well that, in modern war, administration is much more important as regards the actual effect of the application of troops in the field than the pure direction of the General Staff, and I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me when I say that many an army in the field has been tethered from behind simply because of inefficient administrative arrangements. In order that our administrative arrangements may be effective, we ought, undoubtedly, to give as many of our senior officers as possible a chance of dealing with administration, but the present policy of the War Office seems to be moving in an exactly opposite direction. Instead of giving the various officers in commands and in armies, such as the Rhine Army, and in Egypt a free hand to carry out their administration, they are held in by the War Office and everything is centralised in the Departments in the War Office. I am sure if you referred it to a Committee and got a recommendation for passing on the responsibility for the spending of money to the administrative staff in those commands you would generate a sense of responsibility for finance amongst the officers administering those posts, instead of expecting even small sums to be agreed to by the War Office. In my experience there has been far too much centralisation in the past over the question of finance. If blocks of money had been handed over to the various commands and Armies, you would have had a very much more economical administration and you would get a number of officers growing up who know the value of money and of sound administration. I hope a movement in that direction will be taken by the Secretary of State. The real trouble about getting an alteration in the system of administration is the hold that finance and the War Office has in the whole Army machine, and until devolution takes place, so that the responsibility for finance is passed down to the lower formations, you will not get any advance in this respect. I hope the real advance which was made during the War, whereby various officers of high spending really had the handling of money and really made an advance on what we had before—I hope the education of those officers by actual experience will go on.
    1920
    The next point I want to deal with is that of the Staff College. The Staff College is one of our chief instruments for the training of officers who come along for the higher staff appointments. I have heard the question asked recently why more money is not spent on it. It seems to me that the authorities at present in power are not really encouraging the Staff College and those who go there. We have tremendous competition on the part of young officers to get into the Staff College. Either they pass in on the competitive list or get a nomination. They spend two years there working to fit themselves for staff appointments, and yet when they come out they find the higher staff appointments are given to officers who have never had any staff experience at all, which is entirely wrong and bad I hope that when higher staff appointments become vacant, as some will at no distant date, the Secretary of State will see that they are filled by those who have taken the trouble to fit themselves for such appointments in the way of education and experience.
    The next point I should like to refer to is the question of the knitting together of the three Services. I are not so wholeheartedly in favour of a Minister of Defence as some, though I admit in principle that it is a very desirable end to arrive at, but I think a very great advance can be made towards the unification of the Services in many directions. The Committee of Imperial Defence could he made a much more efficient body than it is at present by being made a more permanent body sitting regularly in session rind considering various problems, such as how far money allotted to defence purposes should be allotted to the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. The control of the military and naval and air force during the War was largely centred in the War Cabinet Committee, which had at its head the Prime Minister, and undoubtedly for war purposes such a Committee is about as good an instrument as we can get, but in peace time definite Ministers, or other than Ministers, should he nominated to such a Committee and should form part of the Imperial Defence Committee so that they can be brought into close and personal touch with the various problems which concern the Services and thereby be more fitted to deal with the problems which will come

    1921
    before them in time of war. The War Cabinet Committee was evolved from a much larger committee. In my view it should consist of something like three Ministers, who are relieved from all other responsibility, and they should be a purely directing force entirely responsible to the Prime Minister. They must have the necessary guidance of experts and we should aim at getting the co-ordination of the experts with the Chief of the Staffs of the Navy, Army and Air Force, and possibly we ought to move towards the creation of an executive body in the Committee of Imperial Defence—Lot so much an advisory board as an executive body—and thereby lead towards what my hon. and gallant Friends want so much, a Defence Ministry. I believe the real Defence 'Minister must be the Prime Minister. After all, he is responsible, and it is only by having a co-ordinated body through the Committee of Imperial Defence that all three Services can be controlled collectively.
    Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: I have never recommended a Defence Ministry in any shape or form.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: I withdraw the remark. I recognise what my hon. and gallant Friend has always advocated before, that we want co-ordination in that matter beyond the higher co-ordination which is so necessary, especially as regards finance and what you are going to spend on Army, Navy and Air Force, because if the various duties which are now undertaken by the Army can be conducted by the Air Force, it ought to lead automatically to some reduction in the Army Vote. In the same way, if duties now performed by the Navy are taken over by the Air Force, there will be a corresponding reduction. They put forward their views that something is necessary for their particular service, and it is only through a co-ordinating committee with executive power that we could get the result the House desires, which is a reduction in the amount of money we are spending on the Army. We ought undoubtedly to unify and get together over the question of supplies. You have common needs in the various services. You have supplies, that is, food, clothing, transport, hospitals, medical officers—I could go through the whole list of these services which are required by the Navy, the Army and the Air Force, and are
    1922
    common to all. They are produced by each of them now with slight differences. They all have their own personnel, from the highest officers down to the lowest man, and it seems to me a great deal more could be done to co-ordinate and reduce expenditure in this direction. Everyone who has had any experience of administrative matters within the Service knows that there are differences in. colours, in uniforms, in the size of wagons and things like that. If a committee could be got together to look into the matter and cut down certain expenditure, I believe we could save a good deal of money.
    I am sorry the question of the ex-ranker officers is not going to be raised. I should like to say a word on this point, which really concerns the honour of the War Office. I was Director of Organisation when this offer to the serving noncommissioned officers was made. Then we had to offer inducements to them to take temporary commissions. We offered them a definite term for their service, that when they went on retired pay they would get a definite pension. The reason that was not extended to the noncommissioned officers who had left the service prior to the War was that those non-commissioned ex-rankers had already been given commissions and there were no further ex-rankers to be given commissions. It seems to me that had there been ex-ranker officers at that time, the inducement we offered to the serving noncommissioned officers would have been offered to the ex-rankers. Therefore, I think the War Office is bound in honour to meet that just claim. If it was not for the fact that it concerns a large number of officers, I am sure it would have been met before now. It is purely because it is a substantial sum that it has been resisted. It was not resisted in the Admiralty. These non-commissioned officers came to our help at the beginning of the War and were invaluable in the training of men for service abroad. We had no experienced officers helping us, and they came in and filled the breach. Otherwise, we should have been put in a very great difficulty. I hope those ex-rankers who took commissions at the beginning of the War will be given similar terms as were

    1923
    offered in 1918 when we asked the serving non-commissioned officers to take commissions.
    I should like to say a word in reference to the position of the Rhine Army, which I know so well. We in the Rhine Army have gone through various vicissitudes. We have had to fight for justice as regards pay, which was paid in the rapidly depreciating mark for some years. I know that question has been settled on more or less fair terms, but there still exists a certain amount of discontent. It is an unsettled Army. The cost and conditions of living have gone up enormously. They are told they may move at any moment, but where they may move to is not known. They do not know whether they will go home or move to Wiesbaden or Coblenz according to arrangements with our French friends. They are in a state of unrest, and I would ask the Secretary of State if he can do anything to re-assure them that in any movement that takes place they will be helped financially in carrying it out. A great many of the younger officers are in a difficult position, as are a great many of the non-commissioned officers and men on the married roll. There is also a section of officers and men who arc married off the strength, and they have been asked to pay for billets they have occupied, and, owing to their not being on the establishment, they are in a particularly hard position. I believe some amelioration of their situation has been arrived at, but the Rhine Army to-day is not the happy Army it was a year ago, and it is largely owing to the question of flux. They do not know whether they are going or what is going to happen. If my right hon. Friend can give his attention to that matter he will be doing a service to that Army.
    We, on these benches, do not object to the payment, or advocating the payment of money towards Army Estimates, provided we get value for it and provided we get economy in the directions I have pointed out in regard to the other two Services. If the right hon. Gentleman can satisfy us that if the Air Force takes over a certain amount of work from the Army we get a corresponding reduction in the Army Estimates, then we, on these benches, will do all we can to further these Estimates. But, if we are not
    1924
    satisfied that increases in the Air Force for further use in the field are not correspondingly met by reductions in the other Services, then we want to know the reason why. I am certain that the country at large is not prepared to go on spending these huge sums of money for armaments without getting a really good and substantial reason for such expenditure.
    Mr. ATTLEE: I wish to refer to a few items in the Estimates and to put one or two questions to my right hon. Friend. First, I should like to deal with recruiting: On page 4 of the Memorandum we have some rather remarkable statements with regard to recruiting. I think it is the first time we have had it definitely set down—for that is what it really amounts to—that the British Army in the past has always depended for recruits on economic pressure. That is what the reference in Item (iii) on page 4 of the Memorandum really amounts to: that it was the pressure of unemployment which drove people into the Army. From that, one might. rashly deduce, as some of the newspapers have already done, that the best thing we could do in the interests of the Army would be to abolish the dole. If hon. Members will turn to page 3 they will find the other side of the story. They will find that from 55 per cent. to 60 per cent. of those presenting themselves as recruits have to be rejected for physical defects. That is due to conditions of unemployment where there was not even the dole. The real fact that emerges is that if we want to have a healthy lot of people for recruiting purposes we must have a higher standard of life in this country, and that the unemployment question affects every single sphere of life.
    The Memorandum, further, gives as a reason which militates against recruiting:—
    "War-weariness and consequent aversion to a military life, not only among the younger men, but also among their parents."
    I cannot; help thinking that that is one of the most hopeful statements I have ever seen in an Army Estimate. It is a great thing if young people are getting weary and sick of war, and if the parents are getting sick of sending their children into armies. It is not so much because of the bad conditions in the Army—the conditions of Army life have been largely

    1925
    improved—but it is due to the fact that people are becoming more intelligent, more educated. They had a pretty fair education from 1914 to 1918 in the value of armaments for bringing about the peace of the world. Further, every unemployed ex-service man you have in a village or a town or a street in a town acts, by his very existence, against recruiting, because the down-and-out ex-service man is a very strong argument against anyone going into the Army.
    While I agree with what was said by the Secretary of State with regard to training at Hounslow and Catterick, and I would like to see that extended, we have to face the fact of this vast mass of 30,000 men coming out into the world from the Army, and the difficulty of their finding employment. When we were in office, we tried to deal with this difficulty to some extent. The difficulty is the enormous amount of civilian unemployment. That question ought to have been taken up and dealt with long before the War. We mast: deal more strenuously with the conditions of unemployment among the civilian population if we want better conditions for men who are coining out of the Army.
    With respect to administrative expenditure, I have been looking at the figures in connection with staff at the War Office. There has been a certain amount of cutting down, but I doubt whether it goes far enough in all cases. In dealing with the War Office, hon. Members have their own favourite figures. One hon. Member wants to scrap the M.G.O., another hon. Member wants to scrap something else. The Department which I think has overgrown, and which might be reduced or might even be abolished, is that of the Military Secretary. The staff has come down from 77 to. 51. It might very well be abolished and its functions transferred to the Adjutant-General's Department.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Without a staff?
    Mr. ATTLEE: No. You will have to have some staff, but it might be very much reduced. This staff, if my memory serves me aright, has grown from 28 to 77, and it has now come down from 77 to 51. No doubt, there is a certain amount of arrears of war work to be dealt with, but I do think that this Department ought to be cut down and transferred. Cer-
    1926
    tainly I think that the Department as a separate Department is an extra wheel in the coach.
    We have had talk about the horrible word "mechanicalisation." One hon. Member raised the question of the danger of going too fast with mechanicalisation. I believe that that danger is very well understood at the War Office. There is a difficulty in regard to tanks, armoured cars, etc., that you are getting very much into the old position of the competition of gun v. fort, which has existed in the Admiralty. First you have a great gun made and then you have a stronger battleship or fort built, and then you get a stronger gun. You may spend a great deal of money uselessly in that way. If my right hon. Friend will consult his colleague, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will find that full information will be given to him as to the danger that may arise from too sudden plunges in mechanicalisation.
    I am glad that research is continuing, because that is one of the most successful Departments in the Army. It is not generally known how much service the Research Department does for civilians, and I am not sure that it would not be a good thing if sonic of the industrialists who profit by these researches paid something extra towards it for the benefit they get. I should like to raise a point with regard to Catterick camp, which is the Northern Aldershot. The Southern Aldershot is cramped and confined to a small acre of ground. The War Office should look very carefully into the question of Catterick as to whether they have enough land there for adequate training ground, and as to the use to which the surrounding land is going to be put. The danger is that if they do not extend now, they may be held up by high prices later on. I should also like to know something about that hardy annual, Lulworth Cove. We heard a great deal of that last Session, but it seems to have become quiet since hon. Members representing the district are now on the other side.
    Another item in the Estimate refers to barracks. Considerable expenditure is down for barracks in Egypt. That expenditure is for new construction. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with regard to our position in Egypt, and as to whether it is wise to sink so much money in Egypt? I am well

    1927
    aware of the need of better barracks in Egypt and of the extremely difficult position we are in at the present time in regard to the unsettled political situation, on the one side, and the unsettled military position, on the other. In regard to barracks, there is a further question on which I should like information, and that is, the difficult question of evictions from barracks. We had a good many cases last year of people who had finished their term of Army service who could not find alternative accommodation, and they stayed on. We were shot at on that point, but I am sure my right hon. Friend is in a happier position than we were, because he has now in his Ministry as Parliamentary Secretary for Health a gentleman who is very interested in this question and who, I am sure, will do anything he possibly can to prevent any eviction of people who cannot find alternative accommodation. The hon. Member the Parliamentary Secretary is pledged up to the hilt on that point, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will be able to press him as far as he likes in regard to providing accommodation.
    I should like to know something more regarding the expenditure on gas warfare, what is the present position at Porton, and w hat we are doing in the matter generally. There is also the question of officers. I should like to know whether the supply is better, and whether we are drawing our supply of officers from as wide an area as possible. I do not want to anticipate what may be said later in the Debate, but I would like to know whether anything has been done towards reconsidering an improvement of the charges at Woolwich and Sandhurst. My right hon. Friend seems to have become rather cold this year compared with last year as regards the Lawrence Report. I remember that last year he got up from these benches with tremendous enthusiasm as to the Lawrence Report, but now that seems to be in a state of suspended animation. I should like to hear from my right hon. Friend that he means to push on with that Report. I am aware of the difficulties of its application, but I would ask that an attempt should be made to put the principles of the Lawrence Report into force, say, in some detached area such as Pembroke Dock, and put to the test the theories that
    1928
    were put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose Burghs (Sir R. Hutchison) with regard to the great saving that could be effected where the local administration was given greater powers and given a chance to show its genius for economy.
    There is also the question of the Territorial Army. I am not one of those who think that we need to revive either the Militia or the Yeomanry, but we have to recognise that the position of the Territorial Army to-day is not very satisfactory from the point of view of strength. I should like to ask whether anything can be done towards obtaining from employers better facilities for members of the Territorial Force. It is rather too much to ask any man, in addition to doing drill, etc., to convert his whole holiday into military training, and I think that a stronger position should be taken up with regard to the employers in these cases.
    Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: The hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) raised the question of reserves, and I wish to say a few words in regard to that. He asked what is the present position, and the answer is given in the reply to a question of mine which was asked last week. Reserves of Class B amount at present to half what they did before the War. The figure is approximately 52,000 as against 106,000 before the War. Reserve Class A is being newly constituted, as we have been told, so that, from the point of view of Reserves, the country has less than half, as regards Class A and B, of what. we had 11 years ago. Judging from what I happened to see last year at the Royal Review at Aldershot the line battalions are deplorably weak, and it would take a very large number of these 50,000 men in reserve to get the home battalions up to the strength of 791, the peace establishment, or 881, which is the foreign establishment. Last summer, Indian drafts had not then gone off, and in October the battalions were even weaker than in June or July.
    Before the War we had, as the House knows, Special Reserve battalions whose job it was, as soon as the Regular battalions went abroad, to act as draft-finding units. I do not think that the work done by the Special Reserve battalions during the War has ever been adequately recognised by the public. I

    1929
    know battalions in which they had a great many thousand men, in some cases 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000, going through the battalion during the War, and being made fit and trained and sent away, according as fresh recruits came on. At the present time we have no cadre for doing that work. I agree that immediately after the War, when we had in the country so many trained men and were short of money, and we had to decide as to the best way to spend what we had, it was thought probably better not to perpetuate the Special Reserve or the Militia. But it is about six and a half years since the end of the War, when I think that it was postulated that for 10 years we might reasonably expect that there would be no large-scale warfare. We are through two-thirds of that time. If we were ever, unfortunately, to find ourselves again engaged in hostilities on a wide scale we should have no organisation to train the men to come forward, and rejoin the Reserve, and to train the fresh recruits who would come in.
    One hon. Member said something about the Territorial Army. In that connection we should know clearly that the Territorial Army should not be used for draft finding. One of the great points made now is that men joining the Territorial Army would always go out together if the question of going abroad arose. There is very strong feeling of esprit de corps. If they thought for one moment that they would be split up for draft finding, you would have no fresh recruits coming forward, and men at the end of the four years' service would leave the Territorial Army. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the provision of some form of Special Reserve or Militia battalion. I imagine that it is very largely a question of money. I quite agree that, with things as they are, it would not be necessary to have one Special Reserve battalion for every two line battalions, as we had before the War, but we do want a certain number of reserve battalions constituted. As regards the cadre, the obvious districts are agricultural districts which used to feed adequately the Special Reserve battalions before the War, but are not so suitable for recruiting for the Territorial Army, as it is not possible for the men to do their drill in the local Territorial headquarters owing to the distances. I
    1930
    think that in the near future steps should be taken to revive, especially in the agricultural districts, a reserve force to fulfil the same functions which were fulfilled so admirably during the War by the Special Reserve.
    Another matter to which I wish to draw attention is the position of the officers of the Royal Army Medical Corps. I ventured to address the House on this question last year. I do not think that the House generally appreciates how very serious is the question of the Royal Army Medical Corps, owing to the shortage of officers. Many officers, whom the Corps would have been glad to keep on, have resigned in recent years, as they were not satisfied with regard to their professional prospects in the Corps, and very few, indeed, have been coming forward. Until recently no examination was held for candidates for the Royal Army Medical Corps. Of 80 vacancies advertised during the last two years, only 25 have been filled, and during the year which has elapsed since the 31st January, 1924, only one candidate has been gazetted into the 'loyal Army Medical Corps. The total establishment in England and abroad is 884. The wastage is about 60 or 70 a year. Only one candidate has been gazetted in the Royal Army Medical Corps during the last 12 months. That shows the existence of a very serious state of affairs.
    One naturally asks the reason for it. I find on inquiry that it is partly, as far as one can tell, that because while the pay of the Royal Army Medical Corps officers before the War was considerably more than the pay of combatant officers, the pay of combatant officers has been greatly increased while that of the Royal Army Medical Corps officers is very slightly more than it was in 1914. At present while the pay of captains and majors in the Royal Army Medical Corps is somewhat more than that of combatant officers, lieutenant-colonels actually draw less if you include command pay. One has to remember that officers in the Royal Army Medical Corps do not get their commissions until they are 24, while officers in the combatant forces are gazetted at 19. During those years between 19 and 24 up to £2,000 has to be spent before the officer can be gazetted, and many parents are not prepared to put up this money in view of the somewhat uncertain prospects

    1931
    of the Royal Army Medical Corps officers. Apart from that, those who are in the Royal Army Medical Corps are encouraged to specialise—this is one of the minor grievances which I understand they have. They receive from 2s. 6d. to 5s. a day extra pay, but a number of them who have done this work are taxed as regards Income Tax on the whole of their allowance, and in some cases far more than the 2s. 6d. a day is taken in increased Income Tax from those who have taken the trouble to qualify, in their case at considerable expense, for these special duties. This is only a minor point, but it discourages the men from work.
    The long and short of it is that civilian practitioners have been doing so much better in recent years, owing, it may be, to the assured position of panel practitioners, that men will not run the risk of going into the Army. That again is very largely question of pay. I do suggest that it is encouraging in the interests of the health of the Army that the pay of the Royal Army Medical Corps should be increased. It may be worth while considering whether it would not be worth while making the Director-General of the Medical Service a member of the Army Council. I understand that Lord Esher's Committee some years ago recommended this, and it would give an extra status to the Royal Army Medical Corps and allow their point of view to he ventilated in the Army Council in a way in which it cannot be done at present. I hope for these reasons that before the next Estimates are brought forward my right hon. Friend will be able to do something for the Royal Army Medical Corps to improve the very unsatisfactory state of affairs which at present exists.

    DEMOCRATIC PROMOTION.
    Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word, "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
    "in the opinion of this House, the opening of a broader avenue of promotion in the Army and the abolition of fees at military colleges, to enable the sons of working-class parents to take advantage of the training provided, would promote efficiency in all ranks."
    I wish first to say a word as to the attitude of the Labour party in reference
    1932
    to the Army. This was defined in the Debate on the Air Estimates by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynea) We have a minority in our party which favours immediate disarmament, but the great majority of our Members, both in this House and in the country, believe in bringing about disarmament by international co-operation, and in the meantime in the maintenance of a small but efficient Army. We believe that an efficient Army can best lie maintained by its being representative of every section of the community. All that we ask is that the Army should be democratic in constitution, because we realise that on its executive side, the Army can never be democratic.
    I do not intend to speak as anything but a layman in military matters, but I have not been without some opportunity of observing the relations of officers and men in the Army. Long before the War I served as a private in the Territorials for five years, and after some experience, in Edinburgh and Oxford, of officers' training corps, I served as a combatant officer in one of the Kitchener divisions during the War. Therefore I do not speak on this subject entirely from an academic point of view.
    I think it obvious that in regard to its officers the Army, as in other respects, is in a transition period. The old type of Army officer is passing away. He was generally of good family. He was noted at school for his lave of sport, for his physical courage, and for some qualities of leadership. With a very few exceptions, he was not bookish, and he sometimes had a little difficulty with his entrance examinations. I held a small brigade command during the War, and I had the privilege therefore of attending conferences before attacks and on other occasions, and I had the opportunity of meeting a great many of these regular soldiers. What I was struck with in most cases was their single-mindedness and their passionate devotion to their profession, and with the fact that the Army constituted practically their whole world. They denounced politicians and distrusted our whole Parliamentary system, but they obeyed those same politicians without hesitation, if not without some pungent comments. Their high personal courage and chivalry and their reckless daring cost the lives of many of them, especially early

    1933
    in the War, and they set a splendid example in this respect to the officers of the new armies. But during the War and since the War, there has been a great change in what is needed in our officers. Personal courage and qualities of leadership are still fundamental, but technical skill in many directions is now almost equally essential.
    The fact that our Army officers are still almost entirely drawn from one class prevents the Army from getting all the best available brains in the country. Work in the Army is harder now; there is more drudgery, and the resulting interference with social claims has deprived the Army of the type of officer who used to give somewhat nominal service in the old days. The result has been that there has been a difficulty in maintaining the supply of officers, and the War Office has already gone a considerable length in widening the area from which officers are drawn. The fact that officers can now live on their pay has made that possible. Cadets can now enter Sandhurst and Woolwich from grammar schools, o to which they go from elementary schools. As has been said to-night already, an effort is being made to bring the university contribution up to what it was before the War, and there are efforts to secure recruits from the Territorials and from the Reserve. So that in these various directions there are certain possibilities of the sons of lower middle-class and working-class families finding their way into the commissioned ranks. Further, and most: important from the point of view of this Amendment, 30 junior noncommissioned officers now enter Sandhurst every year, are maintained there, and are given a grant when they obtain their commissions. It will be noted that it is junior non-commissioned officers who are sent, and I think that that is wise.
    It is often said that non-commissioned officers, and especially warrant officers, when promoted to commissioned rank, do not make good officers. They know their work well; they are perhaps more efficient than their fellow-officers of the same rank, and yet great complaint is made that they are not popular with the men. I must say that in my experience, with certain notable exceptions, I found that to be the case. Why was it? The fact puzzled me. I asked myself, was there-something in the idea after all that there
    1934
    was an element in the social status of a man which enabled him to command his fellows, and to win their loyalty and respect '1 I felt, however, as a loyal member of my party, that that could not be the explanation. I think I realised the true explanation after consideration of the problem. What is a non-commissioned officer? He is a detective and a watch-clog, and he has to do the unpleasant work of the commissioned rank. After a few years as a non-commissioned officer, he develops the hawk-like eye and the suspicious mind which believes every man to be guilty until he is proved innocent. He is up to every device, innocent or otherwise, of the private soldier, and it is in vain to attempt to deceive him, even for his own good. When he becomes a commissioned officer—as is the case in many other walks of life—he cannot rid himself of his past.
    Every officer knows that one of his most useful possessions is a blind eye. He sees a great deal, but he does not notice everything. The result is greater happiness for himself and for his men. But the ex-warrant officer and senior noncommissioned officer has no blind eye. He sees everything, and, from force of habit, he notices everything. The result is increased worry for himself and unhappiness for his men, who grumble, and murmur that they always prefer a gentleman. It is, therefore, the Army system and not any social difference that explains the unpopularity of the commissioned ex-warrant officer. Therefore, in the old phrase, "we must catch them young."
    The Amendment also proposes the abolition of fees at military colleges. The cost to the country of a cadet at Sandhurst is £398, and at Woolwich £524. The fees charged to the cadet or to his parents vary very much. There are King's cadets, who pay nothing at all; they are the sons of officers killed in the War. There are other sums charged, varying from £40 to £200. A very interesting fact is that there is distinct preferential treatment given to the sons of officers. Some of these classes pay almost nominal sums—£40 a year, when the total cost of the education is £308 or £524. This system is open to the objection—some people think it is not all objection—that it maintains an officer caste, and prevents the recruits for the officer class being drawn from every portion of the community.
    Sir NEWTON MOORE: That is only Service officers.
    Dr. SHIELS: There are various classes. I am not able to go into them all now, but they are detailed on page 57 of the Estimates. Those cadets who have no Army connection, who are not the sons of officers, have to pay the highest fees, £200. The result is that lower middle class, and working-class children, whose fathers have not been officers, are practically prevented from gaining entrance to the commissioned ranks by this method, owing to the high fees. We believe that the fairest way would be to sweep away the fees altogether. In any case they do not in any instance come up to anything like the total cost of the education. As a result of the activity of the Geddes Committee, the fees have actually been increased in recent years. We believe that excellent material could be got from the sources which I have mentioned, and that the existing discrimination in fees id undesirable, and we hold that it would be in the interests of efficiency and democracy if the fees were abolished altogether.
    Then as regards actual promotion from the ranks, we believe that not nearly enough is being done. The Secretary of State for War very kindly supplied me with figures for the two years before the War and for the years since the War. In 1912 there were 13 promotions from the ranks, in 1913 there were 12. Then there came the War years, with thousands of promotions from the ranks, with results that justify my Amendment. In 1920 there were three promotions from the ranks; in 1921 there were 96, but that was due practically entirely to Army schoolmasters being appointed to the Army Educational Corps; in 1922, for some strange reason, there was none; and in 1923 there were 31.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Are the figures presented by the Committee that considered the question of the educational training of officers altogether wrong?
    Dr. SHIELS: I was about to say that there is a discrepancy between those figures and the figures of Lord Haldane's Committee. That Committee said that from 1919 to 1922, there were no promotions from the ranks. I do not know why there is that discrepancy, but it certainly exists. In regard to the number of men
    1936
    in the Army who are qualified for promotion, l must say something. There have been very great strides made in the educational system in the Army. I remember that after the War, when I was serving with the Army on the Rhine, just after the Armistice, a very great and fine effort was made to increase the educational efficiency of the members of that Army. Owing unfortunately to increasing demobilisation, the scheme fizzled out, But it has been revived, and in 1921 a very great increase was made in the Army education staff. Now there are excellent facilities for education in the Army. I would like to pay my tribute to the various Governments and the various administrators who have brought about this result. It is a very interesting fact, as showing the better type of recruit that is now being got into the Army, that a very large number of men qualify themselves for certificates. I am informed that last year 2,400 men sat for first-class and special certificates. The special certificates correspond with the University matriculation examination, which is a relatively high standard of educational efficiency. Of those 2,400 men, only 400 failed to satisfy the examiners.
    7.0 P.M.
    There we have 2,000 men, who presumably are qualified for these cadetships. But only 30 are allowed for in the Estimates and in the arrangements made by the War Office. We want that total of 30 very much increased. We believe that it will help recruiting. It will help to get a better type of man into the Army if a recruit feels that he has an opportunity of attaining what is the height of ambition of every soldier. Then, again, we want the principle extended from Sandhurst to Woolwich. This arrangement of non-commissioned officer cadets only applies to Sandhurst. At Woolwich officers are trained for the artillery and engineers. The cost of the training is very much more and the condition of things is such that at the present time one might say that it certainly means the entire exclusion of any lower middle-class or working-class boy from an officer-ship in those branches. I believe that in the artillery and in the engineers we want specially the type that we could draw from the sources I have mentioned, because these are specially technical departments where lads with engineering ability would be most desirable. We can

    1937
    get those types better, not from the big public schools of England, but from the rank and file of the working and middle classes. Therefore, we ask that Woolwich should also be open to the non-commissioned officer cadets, and the same opportunity provided as in the case of Sandhurst. If the right hon. Gentleman does not see his way entirely to abolish fees at these colleges, a very popular measure would be to abolish them at least in the case of the sons of men who served in the Great War. That would go a certain length towards meeting our case, and would, I am sure, be very popular in the country. There are some people who are of the opinion that all commissioned officers should first pass through the ranks. While there is considerable sentimental support for this, I am not satisfied that it is at present possible or desirable, but it is certainly an ideal that we might keep in view.
    There is another point in regard to these junior non-commissioned officers. They have to be recommended by their commanding officers, who have to indicate their willingness to take them back into their own battalion if necessary. This has not prevented a full panel of cadets being obtained, but it is just possible that it might operate hardly in the case of some lad who was unfortunate in his commanding officer, and I think it would be desirable that all noncommissioned officers who secure certificates which I have mentioned, those high educational certificates, should have the opportunity of qualifying for the training in the colleges.
    To make it possible for officers without private means to live on their pay, there must be rigid control of expenditure on messes, on society functions, on hunting, and so on, which are often a very great difficulty for young officers.
    There is no doubt that social prejudice still exists in the Army, especially in the higher ranks, although I think it is less strong than in the Navy. We shall never have a truly democratically constituted Army until the social distinction between the various units is swept away. At the present time there is very little likelihood of a ranker officer of the Guards or the Household Cavalry. The feeling of superiority in those regiments is not altogether confined to the commissioned officers. I am told that many
    1938
    of the rank and file of the Guards are proud, not only of the fine physique of their brigade and of its perfection of discipline and drill, but also that their officers are lords or baronets, or are relatives of lords and baronets, or are possessed of so much of this world's goods that in the bad old days, which I understand, under democratic Conservatism, are now gone for good, they could have become lords or baronets. There is, unfortunately, a snobbery of the working classes as well as of other classes, and it must be swept away like the rest. After all, the Guards had a dilution in their ranks during the War. The social status of the officer was lowered. I met some of those war-time officers of the Guards in France, and I found them very fine fellows. There were many of them who never returned. They died as Guardsmen. While they, perhaps, were not a credit to the Guards socially, they did not in the field fail to maintain the high reputation of the brigade for gallantry and honour. But I understand that since the War we have returned again, in the case of the Guards, to the status quo ante bellum. These class distinctions between line regiments and the aristocrats of the Army will have to go, and the sooner the better.
    We look forward to the time when an Army will be no longer necessary. We are sure that the lustre of its great history will not be dimmed if in its latter days. it is true in fact as well as in theory that every British soldier carries a field marshal's baton in his knapsack.
    Mr. PALING: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Some of us on this side cannot by any stretch of imagination be called enthusiastic supporters of the Army and the Army system as a good many Members on the opposite benches. In any event, we realise the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) has stated this afternoon, that we have to have an Army at the present time. Whatever we may believe as individuals with regard to the Army, we have not got the country to agree to our point of view of putting it down altogether. We are as anxious as most people that that Army should be as efficient as possible. It is from that

    1939
    point of view that we are moving this Amendment. We also want that Army to be as democratic as possible. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for War has been lamenting the fact that recruiting has fallen off. He wants it to go up, and mentioned that he thought the advantages the Army contained in it for young men were such that recruiting ought to go up, and that the full complement of men ought to be obtained. But they are not obtained. We on this side are of the opinion that one, of the reasons is the class distinction that still obtains in the Army. It is pointed out that there are men who rise from the ranks and who have risen from the ranks to the highest position in the Army. It is quite true, but they are the exceptions to the rule; they are by no means the rule. They are so uncommon that when one does such a thing he is pointed out as being a very exceptional case. The rule does not exist that there is to be opportunity for these men to rise from the ranks. These class distinctions are in the Army at the present time. The fact is illustrated in the story that went about during the War when so many working men—a good many of them men from the lower classes—were made into temporary officers. You know the old saying about an officer and a gentleman and how when it was pointed out to a particularly high officer in the Army about these men, he said, "Yes. Temporary officers and temporary gentlemen." That is the kind of distinction that has existed and to some extent 'does exist at the moment. We want to cut it out. We think that if these distinctions were cut out in the Army the question of recruiting would be easier.
    There is the question of fees. Last week, when we were having a discussion on the Air Estimates, it was asked that the amount that had to be paid by parents who were anxious to send their boys to the college for training for the Air Service should be cut down. I remember the hon. Member who sits on my left (Lieut.-Commander Burney) getting up and saying that he hoped the Secretary of State for Air was going to pay no attention to the sentimental democratic fallacies expounded by the hon. and gallant Member for null (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), and he said, "Surely there are wealthy families enough in this
    1940
    country who can afford to pay for their sons being taught in those colleges. Why should not the State take advantage of that fact, and take the money? "That very fact is keeping out possibly thousands who might be in the Air Service or the Army and who, if the conditions and the opportunities were equal, would come in, but who are not coming in under present circumstances. It is impossible for these people to pay these fees. I have been looking with some interest through these Estimates to see the amount which has to be paid, and I find—so far as my knowledge of dissecting a volume of this character goes, and it is a very difficult thing, I agree, unless you have had a lot of experience in it—that there is a table here giving a description of people who were helped. King's Cadets pay nothing a year. They go to these colleges and, of course, are found all the money.
    "King's cadetships are awarded to the sons of officers who have been killed in action, leaving their families in need. The holder receives £40 a year between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, and is exempt from the Woolwich and Sandhurst fees."
    We make no complaint about that. There are
    "Sons of deceased officers and men whose families are in pecuniary distress £20 a year."
    "Sons of certain deceased officers and men and serving and retired officers up to Major £55 a year."
    It was £40 in 1922.
    "Sons of serving or retired Lieutenant-Colonels or Colonels £80 a year."
    That was previously £75.
    "Sons of Major-Generals or Lieutenant-Generals £95 a year";
    Previously £75.
    "Sons of Generals £105 a year";
    Previously £75, and so on. We make no objection to that, but we do say that if help can be awarded in cases like these—most of them batter able to pay the full amounts than members of working-class families—it should be given in all others. We do not object to help being given in these cases, but we want equal opportunity for everybody. This table simply means this, that it is a caste system, and the people who have the money and can afford to pay are the people who are likely to have their sons get officer-ships in the Army. We want the system to be democratised. We want the sons of working-class people

    1941
    to have as good a chance of becoming officers as the sons of the well-to-do. A very interesting booklet which has just been sent out is the General Annual Report of the British Army, and on pages 74 and 75 it analyses the educational attainments of the recruits who have joined in 1924 and 1925, I find that between 6,000 and 7,000 ordinary rankers possess educational qualifications sufficiently good to enable them to go forward and ultimately become cadets either at Woolwich or at Sandhurst. I find there are 6,883 who come within the categories of Classes A and B. Class A consists of men of good education who can read a Standard VII reader, write a composition on a subject of which they can be expected to have some knowledge, work compound rules of arithmetic, vulgar fractions, and mensuration of rectangles and rectangular solids. Class B consists of men of fair education who can read a Standard V reader, can reproduce in writing a story which they have heard read twice and work the compound rules of arithmetic. If 6,883 of these men have been enlisted during the last year there is no shortage of material even in the present circumstances, and we suggest it is time that these fees and these class distinctions were swept away altogether. If we learned no other lesson from the War, we found in any event that it was necessary to go to the working-class families for officers, and we found that when it carne to the pinch these officers did just as well as the sons of the wealthy. If it could be done then it could be done in the future, and the War should have taught us at least that lesson. We ask for equal advantages for all in regard to education, and we want to spread the democratic idea all over the country, and I believe every Member of the Conservative party wants to do the same—with the possible exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge. If the principle is good in regard to ordinary education, it should be good in regard to the Army also. We want to democratise the Army and give equal chances to all, so that, the lowest recruit, however poverty-stricken the home from which he comes, may have the opportunity, if he has the capacity of rising to the highest place in the Army. For these reasons I desire to second the Amendment.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): It may be convenient if I reply to the two speeches we have just heard, as until this Amendment is disposed of we are not able to continue the general Debate. Ca course, in replying to this Amendment, I am precluded from answering many questions which have already been put in the earlier stage of the Debate. From the speech of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels), I think there is very little between us when we come to the general questions of democracy and the standard of officers in the Army. The main question which he and the Seconder of the Amendment raised was that of doing away with the fees, and the Seconder, I think, rather confused the question of class distinction with that of fees. I do not consider that class distinction is a money distinction entirely, and I think the hon. Member is taking up a rather false attitude with regard to the question of fees in that connection. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, in dealing with the question of fees, referred to what he called "the officer class," and paid a very high tribute, which I think everybody in the House appreciated, to the officer class as he knew them before and during the War. On that I agree with everything he said. He mentioned that there was a certain distinction as between what he called the "old officer class" and some of the newer promotions, and apparently he found great difficulty in his own mind in finding wherein that difference lay. He said he only realised the reason of that difference when he became a loyal member of his party, and I take it he was quite unable, when a serving soldier, to appreciate a difference which now, as a loyal member of the Socialist party, he does appreciate.
    Dr. SHIELS: I should like to explain that I was a loyal member of my party when I was a serving soldier.
    Captain KING: But being also a loyal soldier, the hon. Member was prevented from seeing the reason which now as a loyal Socialist he does see. With regard to the question of fees and of limiting entry to the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College to what he calls the officer class, the hon. Member did not object to that officer class, but,

    1943
    indeed, as I have said, paid a tribute to it. I should like to point out to the House that the Army is, and always been, looked upon as one of the most honourable professions in this country. To serve His Majesty in one of the forces of the Crown has always been considered a very honourable profession. Alongside it come many civilian professions, such as those of medicine, law, and so on, and when we consider the possibilities open to the sons of working-class people of entering the Army as a profession, we must also consider the opportunities which they enjoy of entering the other profession. There is a method of obtaining entrance to all those professions under the very generous educational system which we have in this country.
    I desire to deal with the question of entry from the Universities, but before doing so I go back for a moment to the question of abolishing fees. The Seconder of the Amendment has quoted from the Estimates various fees which are chargeable in connection with the Royal Military College and Royal Military Academy, and he read these out as though he disagreed with them, but he then stated that he and his party did not disagree with them. I can hardly see how either he or any member of his party could disagree with these terms because they are terms offered not to the sons of deceased officers alone, but to the sons of deceased officers and men. Surely there is no class distinction of any kind when these privileges are given to the sons of deceased officers and men whose families are in pecuniary distress. He also referred to the terms offered to the sons of certain deceased officers and men and serving and retired officers up to major. Surely there is no class distinction in that.
    Mr. PALING: Does it work out in practice?
    Captain KING: I am dealing with the actual figures and conditions set out in the Estimates and read by the hon. Member.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In order to avoid misapprehension, does the hon. and gallant Member think that the son of a deceased soldier who was a working man prior to joining the Army could possibly find £55 per year?
    Captain KING: The terms with which I am dealing undoubtedly apply to other ranks as well as officers and the fees under the second schedule amount to a sum of £20 a year and not £55. All I maintain is that there is no class distinction when the same terms are offered. Whether the hon. Member considers them to be high or low they are the same terms.
    Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but is it not the case that working-class or middle-class entrants whose fathers were not either officers or serving in the Army, have to pay the highest fee of £200?
    Captain KING: Most certainly. I am coming to that point and I am showing that there are other methods by which they can come in. Seeing that I have the hon. Member so much with me as to the value of the old officer class, I maintain that the Army being one of the honourable professions, those who have no qualifications and who are not, under the Regulations, entitled to a reduced fee, can put their sons into one of the finest professions in this country at a lower cost than they can educate their sons for any other profession. That is most certain. When cadets have passed through their training, either at the Military College or the Military Academy, they are in a position to earn their own living, and I do not think you will find in the case of any other honourable profession in this country that a boy of 21 entering it is able after a very cheap education to earn his own living. Further, do the, hon. Members, who speak about the fee of £20 or whatever it may be which is charged for the sons of deceased officers and men, realise that every cadet at Sandhurst receives for the whole of his 18 months' course an allowance of 4s. per day. That is, certainly, not to he found in the case of any outside profession.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: We ask that working men should get these privileges.
    Captain KING: Every cadet receives the allowance of 4s. a day.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, after they get in.
    Captain KING: I will come to that point in a minute. Hon. Members keep going back to the point that working men's sons cannot get in. As I have said, there are other avenues through which

    1945
    the sons of working men have the same opportunity of entering this profession as they have of entering any other profession. I am very proud and glad to realise the opportunities which are given to the sons of the working class to take advantage of higher education. We know that the granting of scholarships by county councils and education authorities enables the sons of working men to go up to the Universities, and we hope the Universities are going to provide one of the most fruitful sources of the supply of officers to the Army. One hundred corn-missions are available to entrants from the Universities every year, and that does not mean merely the Universities of Oxford and. Cambridge. At the present time 20 Universities in the British Isles have the opportunity of sending candidates forward for entrance into the Army—for one of these 100 commissions offered every year—and that certainly gives an opportunity to people of all classes, throughout the country.
    Mr. G. SPENCER: Does that include the number recommended by masters?
    Captain KING: That is another question, and I thank the hon. Member for reminding me of it. The Haldane Report suggested the possibility of getting the county councils and education authorities to allow scholarships to be used for sending boys to the military college. That has been put forward and is still the subject of negotiation. Up to now we have not been able to complete any definite arrangement with the schools, but we are not without hope, and the question is still under consideration. That would be another avenue, and it is not the fault of the War Office that it is not in operation at the present time. As to the men coming in from the universities, those 100 commissions, not even half of them are taken up, but those coming in, according to the order of merit in which they pass in, are being given antedated seniority. There is no doubt that those 100 commissions, if they were availed of, would put their possessors in a position of being able to earn their own living straight away. In addition to that, we also have the question of promotion from the ranks.
    Exception was taken from the benches opposite to the figures which were given in the Haldane Report. I am not in a
    1946
    position actually to state the figures previous to 1922, but I think the hon. Member for East Edinburgh provided a solution of the difference when he said that most of those commissions were given for the educational branch, whereas the figures which the Haldane Committee were dealing with were admissions to the Royal Military Academy and the Military College. Though that opportunity has been given now since 1922 for certain men, certain other ranks, to be able to enter the Royal Military College, this January has been the first occasion on which all those opportunities have been taken up. In the previous years there have not been sufficient suitable men applying or being recommended for those vacancies.
    Mr. SPENCER: Not from the ranks?
    Captain KING: No. I will give the figures. In August, 1922, the vacancies offered were 35, and the vacancies recommended and filled were 32; in January, 1924, there were 35 vacancies offered and only 32 recommended and filled; in August, 1924, came the new scheme of 15 in each half-year, and there were 14 recommended and filled; and in January of this year, for the first time, we had a sufficient number of recommendations to fill the 15 vacancies.
    Mr. SPENCER: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider it satisfactory that each of the entrants, so far as the rankers are concerned, have to he recommended, but cannot apply for examination and pass it and proceed on their merits
    Captain KING: I think every hon. Member in this House will agree with me that you have to have certain very definite standards for officers in His Majesty's Army. A man must have education, he must have ability, he must have character, and you can only arrive at those qualities by recommendation and by examination, and I am putting the definite fact that up to January of this year there have not been sufficient men who were thought suitable to recommend for the vacancies. To show that there is nothing behind that lack of candidates, if I may put it in that way, we find now that there were sufficient who were put forward in January, and there are sufficient to be put forward in the coming September, and, therefore.

    1947
    the question may arise as to whether it will be possible or feasible to increase the number of vacancies. In addition to that, we not only try to induce men to come in and take up commissions, but while they are in training at the military college they are receiving the pay of their rank, free education, free clothing, and everything provided for them throughout their 18 months' training, so that they are put to no expense and are receiving, while training, the pay of their rank and, of course, the grant of which I have previously spoken.
    I want to point out one further inducement to men coming in, to democratic promotion in the Army. In this year, 11 scholarships are being offered, not to any particular class. When a man becomes an officer, there is no qualification about whether he is a ranker officer or anything like that. I object to the term. If a man is in possession of the King's Commission, whether dm originated in the ranks or anywhere else, he is an officer, and there is no question as to what his origin may have been, and 11 scholarships are being given each year, for £50 a year, for five years, to officers leaving the Military College and the Military Academy. Those scholarships certainly are going to be a very great help to those officers who are fortunate enough to get them. In addition to the pay of their rank, when they are promoted, they will be entitled to these scholarships of £50 a year for five years. I have tried, as far as possible, to convince the House that there is democratic promotion at the present time, and that there are ample opportunities for the sons of working men to obtain entrance to the Army as commissioned officers.
    With regard to the question of free education, I would only say that, apart from any other reason there May be, one very strong reason against free education is that, though they might receive free a very valuable, expensive, and technical education, costing the country many hundreds of pounds a year, there is no power under which the Army could bind those cadets to stay on after they had been trained, and, therefore, you might
    1948
    possibly find that, if you threw the Royal Military Academy and College open without fee, you would find men coming there in order to get a highly technical and expensive education, and at the end of it saying, "Thank you very much, but we have no intention of going on." That, I think, is one of the strongest arguments against giving free education in the Academy.
    Mr. PALING: Could the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what proportion of the students are fee-paying, and if the entrance examination is the same for the fee-paying students as for the others?
    Dr. SHIELS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman comment on my point regarding Woolwich, and why it is not open to these junior cadets in the same way as Sandhurst?
    Captain KING: It has not been found possible yet to open Woolwich in the saine way as Sandhurst. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Paling), the examination is the same, whatever fee the entrants pay, but I am unable without notice to say how many come under each category at the present time. If the hon. Member will give me notice, I will answer it another time.
    Mr. SPENCER: I am not quite satisfied with the reply that has been given with regard to men from the ranks. I quite realise all that has been said, and the relevancy of it, with regard to the question of the entrance fees, but I am convinced that a lot could be done in the way of making it easier for members of the lower ranks to rise into the commissioned ranks. The figures put forward to-night by the hon. and gallant Member are very misleading indeed, because, so far as the Haldane Committee is concerned, in 1913 the commissions given were seven, and since the War, in 1920, 1921, and 1922, so far as the Haldane Committee was concerned, there was not a single commission offered to men who joined the ranks, but since that time there have been offered to men in the ranks commissions to the number of about 35, and I want to ask the hon. and gallant Member whether he thinks, in his own mind, that that is a satisfactory number out of 450.
    Captain KING: It is more than we have been able to fill up to this date.
    Mr. SPENCER: I do not believe it. I quite agree on one point, and that is that the method you have adopted for filling them will probably prevent them being filled; but if you had a highway to allow these men in the ranks to enter a competitive examination, and be judged upon that examination, when they have the other characteristics which are essential for an officer, I am convinced that you would not have the plea that you have to-night of a dearth of entrants. It is because they have not got the opportunity. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment stated definitely that 2,000 of them had taken Certificate A. Does the hon. and gallant Member say that; out of those 2,000 who, from an intellectual and an educational point of view, have equipped themselves with the essential qualifications, only 30 were competent to go up higher and become commissioned officers? If he believes that, I cannot agree with him, and what I suggest is that, instead of these vacancies for commissions being dependent upon recommendations which are made by the commanding officer, the entrance should be similar to that of cadets coming from the universities; that is to say, that when there has been a preliminary training, and they have satisfied the examiner that, from the point of view of intelligence and standard of education, they are fitted to take a commission, the commission should be offered them. It is very interesting to read what the Haldane Committee had to say with regard to officers.
    They said:
    "It is not necessary, nor is it wholly desirable, that all or even a majority of regimental officers should be intellectual"
    That is a very interesting statement. What they do lay stress upon is other characteristics, and they say, later on, that what is essential for the majority of officers is:
    "Character and capacity for leadership rather than special intellectual attainments."
    I quite agree that if a man in the lower ranks has ambition, and desires to qualify for commissioned rank, he should show certain definite qualities which are essen-
    1950
    tial for that high position, and one of those undoubtedly is character. The hon. and gallant Member emphasised the fact that what was essential was character and the qualities of leadership, and we on this side of the House quite agree. I would not for a moment stand up here and say that any man who belongs to the ranks should have the right to become a commissioned officer unless he had the essential qualifications. The high standard which has been set hitherto, by character, by qualities of leadership, and by education, so far as the officers are concerned, should be maintained, but the way for the lower ranks to reach the higher ranks should be made wider than it is now.
    We on this side of the House are not satisfied with the 35 commissions held out to the men in the lower ranks. There is no opportunity whatever for them to advance along the lines on which they desire to advance. I would like to call attention to what is happening in other directions. I know perfectly well that, so far as educational facilities have been given for men in the mining world to take certificates of the highest character as inspectors of mines, the men from the lower ranks have taken them to such an extent that there are not jobs for them, and there are hundreds of men to-day holding first-class certificates who cannot get appointments. I venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will give the same facilities for men in the ranks of the Army to fit themselves to become officers, he will find it will not be a question of getting the entrants, but he will be inundated with applications from these men, fully qualified from every point of view. He has only to let it become known in the Army that it is possible for a larger number of men to rise to commission rank. If he says there are a hundred commissions open to the ranks, if they can fit themselves for them competitively, I venture to say the men will come forward, fully equipped and capable of holding the commission, men who will do honour to the Army in peace or in war.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 100.

    Division No. 41.]

    AYES.

    [7.50 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Fleming, D. P.

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Alexander, E. E. (Layton)

    Ford, P. J.

    Monsen, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Ganzoni, Sir John

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

    Gates, Percy

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Neville, R.

    Atkinson, C.

    Grace, John

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

    Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

    Grant, J. A.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Oakley, T.

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Pease, William Edwin

    Bellaire, Commander Carlyon W.

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Berry, Sir George

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Hall, Capt. W. WA, (Brecon & Rad.)

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

    Philipson, Mabel

    Bowyer. Captain G. E. W.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Plicher, G.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Headlamp, Lieut-Colonel C. M.

    Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)

    Ramsden, E.

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Chits'y)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Henniker-Hnghan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

    Ropner, Major L.

    Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)

    Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Buckingham, Sir H.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Rye. F G.

    Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Burman, J. B.

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Widsworth, Putney)

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Shaw, Lt-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Holt, Capt. H. P.

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Homan, C. W. J.

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

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

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester. City)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

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

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Skelton, A. N.

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinedine, C.)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Smithers, Waldron

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hurd, Percy A.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Hurst, Gerald B.

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    Hutchison, G.A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)

    Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.(Westm'eland)

    Cohen, Major J. Brunel

    Illffe, Sir Edward M.

    Storry Deans, R.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Cope. Major William

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

    Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.

    Couper, J. B.

    James. Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

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

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.

    Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

    Tasker, Major R. Inigo

    Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Crook, C. W.

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Titchfieid, Major the Marquess of

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)

    Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Cunliffe, Joseph Herbert

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Loder, J. de V.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Looker, Herbert William

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempstid)

    Lord, Walter Greaves

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Wells, S. R.

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

    Dixey, A. C.

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Doyle, Sir N. Grattan

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Drewe, C.

    MacIntyre, Ian

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    McLean, Major A.

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Macmillan Captain H.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ellis, R. G.

    McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Elveden, Viscount

    Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel

    Womersiey, W. J.

    England, Colonel A.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Wood, E. (Chest'r. Stalyb'dge & Hyde)

    Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Falle, Sir Bertram G.

    Meller, R. J.

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    Merriman, F. B.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Fermoy, Lord

    Meyer, Sir Frank

    Colonel Gibbs and Major Hennessy.

    Heiden, E. B.

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    1952

    1953

    NOES.

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

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvii)

    Scurr, John

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

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Shiels, Dr. Drummond

    Ammon, Charles George

    Harris, Percy A.

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Attlee, Clement. Richard

    Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)

    Hayes, John Henry

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Barnes, A.

    Hirst, G. H.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Barr, J.

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Batey, Joseph

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Beckett, John (Gateshead)

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Snell, Harry

    Bromley, J.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Stamford, T. W.

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kelly, W. T.

    Sutton, J. E.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Lansbury, George

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

    Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)

    Lee, F.

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

    Connolly, M.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

    Crawford, H. E.

    Livingstone, A. M.

    Thurtle, E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Duncan, C.

    Mackinder, W.

    Wallhead, Richard C.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwelltyl

    March, S.

    Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen

    Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

    Morris, R. H.

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

    Fenby, T. D.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

    Gillett, George M.

    Paling, W.

    Welsh, I. C.

    Greonall, T.

    Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)

    Wignall, James

    Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilkinson, Ellen C.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Grundy, T. W.

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Riley, Ben

    Wright, W.

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)

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

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

    Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Warne.

    Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
    Supply accordingly considered in Committee.
    [Captain FITZFOY in the Chair.]

    NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 160,600, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926."
    8.0 P.M.
    Colonel ENGLAND: I should like, first of all, to offer my congratulations to the Minister on his excellent exposition this afternoon in presenting the Estimates to the House. The question as to the number of rejections for the Army he treated very seriously, and rightly so, for it is certainly a very serious matter. But I do think that, probably, we are setting up a much higher standard than was the case prior to the War. However, the recruits coming into the Army at the present time are men of whom we can be proud. In going about the streets one cannot help being struck by the very splendid physique of these men, and I feel sure the recruiting
    1954
    authorities are picking out the best, and rejecting those who, probably, would have. been accepted prior to the War. The Minister mentioned that he thought the dole was keeping many men from joining the Army. I wonder if that can be the case, or whether the dole is keeping away the poorer type of man and getting the man of better spirit to come forward and do his duty.
    The Supplementary Reserve is a very delicate question at the moment, but I do hope that the Secretary of State will lay hold of—I was going to say the olive branch—that was held out this afternoon, and proceed to discuss with the leaders of the trade union movement the question of not only withdrawing the ban on the men joining, but that he will take into consideration the question of inducing men to join. If it is clearly laid down that the, men are not expected to be mobilised to aid the civil power, I am sure there will he no difficulty in obtaining sufficient men to fill up the ranks.
    Stress has this afternoon been laid on the question of the transportation units. There are a lot of tradesmen who may he induced to join this Supplementary Force. In my district with which I am well acquainted the men who might have been

    1955
    expected, the bricklayer and the joiner, are not joining, and I do not think that there is any ban on their joining up. If, however, inducement is offered to them personally, I myself think the additional pay ought to be in itself sufficient inducement to enable them to join. After all is said something added to a workman's income always means a little more money, and these men are not called upon to leave their work and to do a fortnight's training in camp. The bulk of them will simply have to report, probably, twice a year and draw their pay. There is not the difficulty in getting away from their work to attend camp, or to go through any training in arms; when called up they are simply called up to carry on in their own special line. There is also, I think, room for further encouragement of boys' technical training schools. The system is one, I think, which has only to be worked in order to train boys in technical work for the Army. I quite agree, too, and would like to stress the plea made from these benches this afternoon on behalf of the ex-ranker officer. I am quite aware that the position is a difficult one, but I do think that the Secretary of State might, take the matter again into consideration.
    The Territorial Force was mentioned, and also the question of recruiting, which is one which will have to be seriously considered in the very near future. I have found that the difficulty with officers in the Territorial Force is one that takes a lot of getting over when it comes to the matter of the qualifying examination. Many young men are able to devote their fortnight's holiday to going to camp, and are quite willing for the first, second, or third year to have a fortnight's training, but they have at times considerable difficulty with their employers. If some means could be found by which their training could be done at holiday times it would be well. A young fellow may have to take his holiday from his firm at a specified time, and if other time has to be found for the training he is prevented, for objection is raised by employers, and, it may be, a possible refusal of the time. I have wondered whether it would he possible for officers to take their qualifying examination during the period in which they are in camp? If the camp is at Aldershot, or one or other of the military centres, there should be no difficulty in
    1956
    arranging it. If that were done, there would be a very large increase in the numbers joining the Territorial Force. The difficulty in obtaining men for the ranks—and possibly it will be a great difficulty in the coming year—is that at the end of four years men will be wanting to retire. At the end of the four years' service many men retire solely because they have got tired of wearing the same uniform. Their only chance of getting another uniform is to leave the ranks, go away, and rejoin later. We ought to leave no stone unturned to retain these men. At the end of four years a man is becoming really valuable, and if he can be induced to stay another two, three, or four years, it is worth while. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the question of seeing whether he can get over the difficulty by offering a bigger inducement to the men, who have been recruited for the four years, to continue their service.
    Mr. HOMAN: In addressing the House for the first time I feel sure that the usual courtesy extended to new Members will be extended to me. I desire to move the abolition of the Corps of Military Accountants (page 267 of the Estimates), for which, taking everything into consideration, £300,000 is asked. In order, really, to explain What I have in mind I must go into the details of the administration of the Army. There are in the North South, East and Western parts attached to each Command a Pay Office. We gel that under the heading of "Pay." Looking at this in the Estimates we find that there are 766 men in the Pay Offices at home and abroad, and in addition to that we have 744 more men in the Corps of Military Accountants. I myself cannot see how exactly this particular regiment functions apart from drawing their pay. The Pay Offices deal with all allowances and so forth of the various regiments in their respective Commands. The only thing they do not deal with is the question of Supplies. That is dealt with by separate Departments. The question of food o and so on is dealt with entirely, I believe, by a separate Contracts Department for which there is an Estimate (on page 284) which shows (Army Contracts Directorate) a sum of £37,645. The cost of food, fuel, etc., for all ranks is stated definitely in the Estimates. There is a certain amount of food, bread, 16 ounces, meat so much,

    1957
    and I believe it is the function of the Contracts Department to supply these necessary articles. The Royal Army Clothing Department is, in itself, a self-contained business. I cannot see exactly how this particular regiment functions apart front being a second Accountancy Department. I believe it is only a branch service. In going through the Estimates I find that these two regiments, the Royal Army Pay Corps and the Corps of Military Accountants are side by side with each other, not only at home, but abroad, for at. Gibraltar there are three officers and 11 men of the Royal Army Pay Corps, and one officer and nine men of the Corps of Military Accountants. Right away through you see this, from Northern China, where we find there is one. officer and four men of the Royal Army Pay Corps and two men of the Corps of Military Accountants.
    This particular regiment was thought of during the War; towards the latter end of 1918. It appeared in the Estimates for the first time during the year 1919–20. Since then it has appeared year by year, and has gone on and has functioned in the way that it does. I earnestly suggest that this particular department is not required, but taking one view of the case, the particulars that are necessary for them are obtained from the pay office, in their particular areas. What. will be the position of this Corps of Military Accountants if war broke out again? If they could not obtain their particulars from each regiment or command they would be idle. In the event of war there is no commanding officer, let alone a pay officer, who could or would have time to furnish all the necessary particulars upon which this department depends. During the late War we did not have this particular department, or before the War, and the Army carried on quite well with the Army Pay Office, which is really an accountancy department. If the reform I suggest is carried out, at least 700 men at present employed would be absolutely at liberty for fresh duties. I appeal to the Committee to consider the suggestion that I make, that public money should not he voted, or taken from the taxpayer, to any arm or department which does not yield proper value, or which is, in fact, no earthly use whatever. I say there could be a considerable reduction in the staff. Not only so, but in the
    1958
    cost, if my suggestion were carried out. The cost., additional to that of the Royal Army Pay Corps, works out at over £296 per man; that is, nearly £300 per man is spent on duplicating the work of the Royal Army Pay Corps. I wish to make it perfectly clear that I have no axe to grind in respect of the Royal Army Pay Corps, neither have I any prejudice against any members of the Corps of Military Accountants, but I do most sincerely object to money being wasted in this way. When this regiment was formed, the suggestion was put forward that the officers should be, if possible, qualified accountants, either chartered accountants, incorporated accountants, or in some way qualified; but since that time I believe that rule has been relaxed a little, and we arrive at the present time with the regiment increasing in numbers and in expense year by year, and, if the ultimate object could he put into operation, it would end in having an accountancy department with every regiment of the British Army at home and abroad. If they formulated all their particulars and got all their statements and placed them before the Minister, what real information would they have given him? In the event of war—and I believe we keep an army because of the possibility of war—all the Minister desires to know is how many men, how many guns, how many rifles he has got, and so on. He does not want to know that he has got so many guns which, on the books, have depreciated by 33⅓ per cent., or so many rifles upon which 25 per cent, has been written off. That is of no interest to him. What he wants to know is whether those particular armaments are service able and useful. If this regiment goes on we shall arrive at this ridiculous position: A form will be sent down to an accountant at a regiment—any given regiment—stating "On the 16th June'—any particular year, say 1925—"you were supplied with one horse, costing £50, I want you to state the position on 1st September, bearing in mind the number of hours that this horse has worked, the amount of food it has consumed, and so on, in order that this Department may arrive at the depreciation on the same horse." After we had arrived at the depreciation on the horse, or on anything else, it leads us nowhere. In the Army a thing is either serviceable

    1959
    or it is not serviceable, and in the event of war the whole of this Department will automatically cease, it is bound to cease, because there would be no means of obtaining the particulars which at the present time are the basis of their existence.
    I appeal to the Committee to refuse to pass this particular Estimate. We have been told by the Minister this afternoon that there is a Committee reporting on this particular matter. One Report has been issued, but I believe it is a Departmental Report, and not a Report which has been brought before the House. The Minister also mentioned the second Committee, which has not yet reported. Assuming that the reorganisation which I have in mind is brought in to-morrow, it would take six months to put this particular accountancy branch into a state of proper organisation. Therefore, if money must be voted, I feel that only half of the Estimate for 1925–26 should be allowed to pass the Committee. It is futile to carry on a thing which is of no use. I do not know the individual who invented this particular Corps of Military Accountants, but I feel sure that, with due application, he could have amplified the present Royal Army Pay Corps to a very small extent, and so put us into the position we were prior to the War, when we had all the particulars necessary.
    Major CRAWFURD: I beg to mere to reduce the Vote by 100 men.
    As a recent fellow sufferer of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, may I extend to him my congratulations on the matter and the effect of his first speech in the House? We who sit on these benches will welcome very warmly anybody who speaks and works in the interests of public economy, and, if I may say so, the hon. Gentleman has not only done that, but has also succeeded, being a master of the subject with which he dealt, in making his first speech in Committee a most interesting one—a result which it is not always easy to achieve.
    It is on wider grounds than those he referred to, however, that I move a reduction of this Vote. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman who spoke
    1960
    for the Government earlier this afternoon, I wish to express my profound disappointment with the nature of that statement. It is not so much of the presentation of the contents of his speech that I complain, as of the very limited scope of the speech itself. The statement, although admirably performed and accurate in exposition, seemed to me to be the kind of statement that might very well have been made by a manager of a department store who was introducing to the public his spring catalogue, rather than the statement of a Minister presenting Estimates bearing on very grave matters of policy. Reference has already been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) to the question of co-ordinating the various ministries of defence, and although it would not be in order on this Vote to discuss matters that arise in relation to the other services, it is also true that nobody can realise, criticise, or evaluate these Estimates unless he has at the back of his mind the Navy Estimates and the Army Estimates.
    I want hon. Members for a moment to consider the position of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite in this respect. The Estimates presented to us to-day were, I believe, by a few thousands pounds less than the equivalent Estimates presented last year, but the Secretary for War pointed out, in the course of his statement, that as a good many sources could be drawn upon in regard to accumulated stocks, this did not really represented the full figure that had to be considered. I can quite recognise that within the last few years, when Government has succeeded Government with considerable rapidity, it has been a little difficult for any Minister or any Department to take a long view of the future in regard to the things which he controls, but now that period has apparently passed away. We are now being treated, not so much as has been the case during the last few years, when things have been like a film being unrolled with considerable rapidity, but with a slow motion presentation of the same thing. Therefore I think we are entitled to ask that Estimates of this kind that fighting services should represent our policy, and I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the position of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter.

    1961
    Here we have the chief, the head of the present Government at the present time, engaged in a plea for peace. We welcome the change in the tone of the Ministers representing the party opposite. The Prime Minister has put in a plea for peace here and abroad. We find the Foreign Secretary at present arguing in Geneva, or I should say, that he is not so much arguing as deciding to reverse the policy of his predecessor on the ground that it was too war-like. You have two of the principal Members of the Government actually engaged in a peace crusade. I ought to say that the endeavours of these two right hon. Gentlemen are directed to a peace crusade, and actually while this is going on we have presented to this House Estimates which, to put it very mildly, will go a very long way to cancel the efforts of the two colleagues of the Secretary of State for War. Not only is that so, but these Estimates represent that other present strength of the Army in the view of the Government should remain and not be reduced. These Estimates must be considered coupled with the corresponding Estimates of the other Services, and then we find not only do they tend to cancel the efforts being made by the two colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman, but they go far to stultify a good deal that has been said in this House during the present Session, not only from above, but below the Gangway on this side of the Committee, but also from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite.
    Let me take one or two significant facts. Take the very figure referrer? to this afternoon of the proportion of those ejected from amongst the new recruits of the Army. Is it not perfectly clear from the mere statement of that figure that there s a vast scope for the extension of the public health services? Take again the Debate that we had the other evening inaugurated, I believe, from the benches opposite with regard to the education of juvenile unemployed. Take also the matter about which we all gave pledges during the recent election, the removal of the means disqualification from Old Age Pensions and pensions for widows. There was also the statement of the professions—I am using the word without any wrong significance—of the President. of the Board of Education.
    1962
    Take the admissions which have been made with regard to the administration of unemployed benefit—all these things go to show, not only that there is a need, but that that need is recognised by all sections in this House, and there is general agreement that there is more money wanted to promote what we Ian social reform. All these objects tend to be defeated if our military expenditure is kept up. It has not only been kept up year by year, but under various Governments the tendency has been to increase military expenditure. We are getting back almost to the period of 1914, when expenditure on armaments tended to increase and go up year by year because of a danger and a peril that was threatening. As we have so often argued from these benches, that danger has been removed, and if we are to help forward the work of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and those who are working in the interests of peace, I conceive it to be the duty of this Committee not to increase but to decrease our military and similar expenditure.
    I want the Committee to consider the effect, not only on social reform in this country and the peaceful endeavours of members of the Government, but also on the opinion of other nations. It is only a few days ago that we were discussing in this House the Air Estimates, just as we are now discussing the Army Estimates, and reference was made from time to time, of course with all due reserve, to air construction and air development in the friendly country of our ally, France. Is it not perfectly clear that just as we are bound to take notice of the armaments of other countries, other countries are bound to take notice of any increase of armaments in this country? I say that this policy is definitely taking us away from the path of peace, and from what is the declared policy of all parties in this House.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I want especially on this Vote to call attention to a matter that has been raised in the form of questions relating to Broughty Ferry. During the negotiations it had been made clear some considerable time before that the first part of the negotiations not being successful with regard to the exchange of the ground, a new position was taken up, and T, personally, had the duty of seeing whether or not the Department would be

    1963
    prepared to make an actual negotiation for the disposal of the Castle altogether. The Castle was bought by the Department from the old-time Broughty Ferry Town Council, before it had been included within the boundaries of the City of Dundee, and the cost at that time was somewhere about £6,000. It was hoped, at the time when the matter was presented to the City Engineer, that the Department would be able to come to an arrangement, and, in view of the latest announcement by the Secretary for War to the effect that it is not now going to be disposed of at all, I want to bring to the notice of the Committee this letter which I have received to-day from the City Engineer, Mr. George Baxter:—
    "I regret very much that matters have taken the turn they have. I was certainly led to believe, by the officers who have charge of this matter, that this place was absolutely no use in time of war, and I was asked if I would provide training ground. I agreed to do so at very little expense to the Department. We could have given off a good many acres not far from the Castle, and they could have had the Castle for barracks at any time, if they wanted it."
    As is pointed out by the secretary of the Broughty Ferry Merchants' Society, if the Corparation were able to get possession of the Castle it would be of great advantage to the community of Broughty Ferry, which for some years has been advertised as a summer resort, and has been very successful in that direction. Even if it be not possible to overcome the difficulties that seem to have arisen quite recently, the secretary of the Broughton Ferry Merchants' Society makes the following suggestions:
    "hailing all effort to secure this desirable result—the Castle and grounds as a pleasure ground for the people—the Society desire to suggest that at least the War Office might, as at Edinburgh and Stirling Castles, give access to a part of the building, the Lower, for instance, and permission to enjoy the Castle Pock view, the mound between the Castle and the river. They wish to point out, also, how unsightly and dilapidated are the buildings around the Castle. A site that might well be as pretty as that facing Edinburgh Castle from Princes Street Gardens is—well, let the War Minister just come and see it. It reminds one of the site of the City Victoria Art Gallery when showmen's booths prevailed, only worse."
    This is a historic castle, going back to the fifteenth century, with very remarkable records and with all the accessions that have been provided in recent times to
    1964
    enhance the beauty of the place and bring visitors, which all means business to the district, as well as to the City of Dundee itself. It is now rather unsightly, as can be imagined from this testimony here. There is the further great disadvantage that the promenade, which is a very beautiful setting to the riverside, is completely blocked by unsightly buildings, or, rather, erections, around the Castle grounds, which render it necessary for visitors to make a long detour in order to reach the sands. Some few months ago there appeared in the Press special notices and photographs of the decampment that had then taken place, several of the large batteries being removed. There was, therefore, ostensible evidence to the general body of the public, which was confirmed by the officers' statements to the City Engineer, that the Department were really getting done with the place.
    Then it has been pointed out that, as we are well aware, there are encampments at Buddon and Barry, and I notice that on another Vote provision is being made for a further expenditure of £13,000 at Buddon. Is it not possible that any farther operations that may now be contemplated at the Castle might be conducted. at Buddon, which is only a very few miles away? Moreover, the Castle is situated in the midst of a residential neighbourhood, the inhabitants of which have from time to time had to make strong remonstrances in regard to the severe reverberations from the guns at the Castle, and also in regard to damage to property within the houses. The special appeal now made is that any operations that may be presently in view might be undertaken at some place such as I have suggested, which is away from the district altogether. It has been suggested that the Secretary of State might himself visit the place, and I would make the further suggestion that the Prime Minister, who is shortly going to receive the freedom of the city, might use his influence with the Secretary of State for War, and thus might make some little practical recognition of what I am very pleased to see the city is going to confer upon him. It would be a very graceful act on his part if he would enable some of us to take Broughty Ferry Castle, attempts to take which have been made in past centuries, lout

    1965
    have never been successful. Many people, from what they can see, imagine that it is of little or no practical use to the War Office now. It was taken over simply for war purposes, and although there are symptoms that arrangements are being made for the next war, this is certainly a pacific suggestion. Could not this old-time castle be obtained for the community, so as not only to make it accessible to visitors, but also to enable the corporation to continue their promenade, and thus enhance the interests of the community? I earnestly commend this to the serious consideration of the Secretary of State.
    Major TASKER: So far from supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) to reduce the Vote by 100 men, I am going to say quite plainly that I should like to see an extension of the Territorial Army to double its number. The complaint made by the Secretary of State to-day as to lack of recruits is due, in my opinion, to a good deal of unnecessary irritation to which officers and men are subjected in the Territorial Army. It is no new thing, because they have been suffering from irritation from the military authorities for a long time. It takes various forms. Looking at the Estimates I find no less a sum than £798,600 devoted to the permanent staff. That is equivalent to 16 per cent. of the whole Vote. How can the staff employ their time? Not in encouraging the Territorial Force. I am amazed, speaking as an old Volunteer and Territorial, that there are half the number of men in the Territorial Force that there are to-day. One of the most fruitful causes of irritation is correspondence. May I read a specimen of the correspondence that emanates from the War Office? I could not commit it to memory, because to me it is something almost priceless. This is the letter:
    "The attached Artily form B. 178 is returned to you for favour of disposal in accordance with instructions contained in Appendix 77 of A.C.I. 455 of 1917 (d) (f) as amended by A.C.I. 23 of 1918, namely, to the officer commanding as named in the Schedule to General Instructions issued with A.C.I. 13 of 1917 amended by 40 of 1918, i.e., to Officer Commanding Depot."
    As far as I can make out, really what it means is that the attached form should be returned to the officer commanding the depot. That is putting it in the language
    1966
    of a Territorial. That is what the staff is engaged upon. Think of the bewilderment of some of the adjutants and the orderly room staff hunting out these A.C.I.s and wondering what the unintelligible gibberish is all about.
    I suggest that, instead of spending this huge sum of money on the staff, it should be devoted to training the men. The men are willing and eager enough, because if they were not, they would not be giving up their summer holidays every year. It is all very well to blame the employers for not giving their men time off, but everyone has to go to camp at the same time, and the patriotic employer cannot possibly let 75 per cent, of his staff go off at one and the same time—August Bank Holiday. If the Government have money to spend on the War Office staff, I suggest they should devote a considerable portion of it to staff tours to trained officers. Hon. Members opposite may not think that I, as a Tory, am a democrat, yet I entirely agree with them when they are pleading that officers should go through the ranks, because I believe before you are fit to command you ought to learn to obey, and I know this full well, that, on trek, if officers had to carry a pack weighing, theoretically, 40 lbs., but practically nearer 60—and when you have done a dozen miles it feels like 600—and 250 rounds of ball ammunition, they would not expect them to march four hours without halt, which, by the way, breaks Regulations. We do not want gentlemen with brass hats coming down and patting us on the back and going away and doing things which are a constant source of irritation. With regard to what has been said about command pay, it is a weird and wonderful office. No one understands their computations and you get no redress. In the end you accept whatever pay they send you, because command pay is such a wonderful and weird institution that you cannot make head or tail of their calculation, and you give it up as a bad job.
    There is another point. When men lose part of their kit, they are subjected to a good deal of irritation. A man loses a pair of trousers. He goes to the quartermaster serjeant, the major, the colonel, the brigadier, G.O.C. division, and then, perhaps, a requisition is made to Pimlico. Then the fun starts. Directly Pimlico gets hold of it, you get memorandums

    1967
    and a Court of Inquiry is held to explain how and why the trousers were lost. The findings of the inquiry go through the various channels, O.C. battalion, brigadier, G.O.C. division, G.O.C. Eastern, Western, Northern or Southern Command and War Office. It goes all the way back again, and then another Court of Inquiry is held. This is not romance, because I remember one such Court of Inquiry about a pair of trousers, and, unfortunately, the officer who presided in the first instance had gone overseas, and a young Territorial captain, who had just got his three pips, was put in charge. He was a very rash young officer, and the Committee will realise how inexperienced he was when he wrote the finding of the Court was:
    Damned trousers still lost." What would have happened to him I do not know, but he was sent overseas, he made the supreme sacrifice and I suppose the War Office conveniently forgot all about it. These matters ought to be stopped. If you are going to ask men to give their Saturday afternoons and Sundays to learn to shoot, to learn to drill, to learn discipline, to take their place in the firing line in the time of emergency, they ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged.
    Then there is the process of court-martial. Of that cumbersome process, the court-marital itself, I have nothing to complain about. It is the aftermath of the court-martial. I believe it is an established fact in the Army that whenever a Territorial sends out the finding of a court-martial it is always sent back for correction. A star should have been put in red ink instead of black. Back it goes. I have had some experience of courts-martial. I was never court-martialled myself, I do not know why, but it. was my misfortune, or good fortune, always to be selected for that honourable post of prisoners' best friend, and I have incurred more than one commanding officer's displeasure because I never failed to get my man off. That was a bit of luck for the man and perhaps a misfortune for me. I hope the Committee will not entertain the reduction for a moment. I hope to see encouragement given to these men who give of their best, and are still willing to give of their best, and to see it greatly increased, but in future volunteer and Territorial battalions must not
    1968
    be robbed of their battle honours. The unit in which I served provided not less than 6,000 men, and 5,000 of them were drafted to other battalions in regular regiments. The regular regiments got the credit of those battle honours and the Territorial battalion got the credit for none of them. That is another sort of irritation. I hope that there is going to be a change in the method adopted by the War Office towards the Territorial battalions, which will, I trust, expand and grow until they are twice their present strength.
    Sir NEWTON MOORE: I sympathise very sincerely with the struggles of the Territorial officer, as they have been expressed by the hon. and gallant, Member who has just spoken. As an old citizen soldier, and one who went in from the ranks, I appreciate the troubles that the officer has to put up with in going round and asking as a personal favour from employers that they will enable their men to get off work, and to put in efficient training. It is a great pity that the Territorial Force has not been increased. I disagree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Major Crawford) who has argued that this Vote should be reduced. While we are prepared to give the Minister credit for making a reduction of something like £500,000 in the Estimates, there are many hon. Members who are somewhat disturbed in their minds as to whether the retrenchment has not been too drastic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said that practically nothing had been done. If he will cast his eve over the White Paper he will see that since 1922–23 the Vote has been reduced from £62,300,000 to 152,000,000 in 1023–24, and to 145,000,000 in 1924–25, while this year it has been reduced to £44,500,000.
    Money wisely spent on the forces is a necessity to national safety, and should be looked upon more or less as a national insurance premium. While it is necessary at the present time to take risks, in view of the financial position of the country there is always a possibility of securing popular approval at the expense of the better judgment of the Government and their advisers. I hardly think that the establishment as it now exists will allow us to have at our command those reservoirs of men and materials which are so absolutely essential in the event of any

    1969
    emergencies abroad, whether they are within or without the Empire. In many ways our military responsibilities are greater now than they were in 1913. Although the menace of Imperial Germany has been removed, it cannot be denied that; there are very many more men under arms in Europe to-day than in 1913, while under cover of the peaceful guidance of regimental associations, we know that in Germany and other nations there are hundreds of thousands of men who could be very promptly and effectively mobilised, equipped and made ready for war at short notice.
    9.0 P.M.
    The present Secretary of State for War said two years ago that a Defence Force was the best guarantee for the liberty of the world, and with due economy and on a sufficient level we should be doing more for the freedom and happiness of the world than anything else that we could do. There is a difference of opinion as to what constitutes economy and a sufficient level. What is the state of our preparedness to-day? Two years ago the Minister said that we could be prepared within six weeks to despatch two divisions overseas, and that within another three months another division would be ready. Do hon. Members consider that that is a sufficient state of preparedness, especially as we realise that as far as Australia is concerned she has not anything like the active forces she had in 1914, while as regards Canada, although she has a big red book containing the list of organisations, yet, as far as men are concerned, I doubt whether you could get more than 10 per cent. on the commanding officer's parade.
    The late gallant and distinguished Field Marshal, Sir Henry Wilson, speaking in this house in the course of a very memorable speech two years ago said, in reply to the Minister, that we might be in this position as far as our defence was concerned: (1) we might have an Army not sufficiently strong to prevent war; (2) we might have an Army not sufficiently strong to win, and (3) our Army might be just sufficiently weak to lose the war. What category are we now in? I should be very glad if the Minister would give us some indication as to the preparedness of the forces at the present time for effective overseas work. The late Secretary of State for War
    1970
    emphasised the fact that out of the £44,000,000 of this Estimate something like £8,000,000 goes in non-effective pay, which cannot be reduced in any way. It is for pensions. The right hon. Gentleman, whom we were delighted to hear, and whose term at the War Office is recognised as a credit to himself, emphasised that fact, and also endeavoured to point out to the Minister how necessary it is to amend certain Regulations that have been sent out, which have had a reverse effect to that which was intended.
    I should like to ask a question with reference to the Empire Group Settlement Scheme, for which the men are being trained at Catterick. Of what does the training consist? It is very essential that if the men are to be sent out to West Australia, they should be given a chance to make good. They are going to one of the most delightful climates in the world, with good soil and plenty of water, but at the same time there are heavy forests, and these men will have pretty hard work to make good. Whoever is responsible for the scheme, I hope they will not be niggardly, but will see that these men have an opportunity in the next five or six years to make good. If the settlement is a success, it is bound to be a great encouragement to others. I would like to see a stream of emigrants going out of the same type of ex-service men as used to go out in the old days from India, when they compounded their pensions, went to West Australia, and made good and became excellent citizens.
    Mr. THURTLE: I wish to make a few observations on the recruitment of the British Army, but, before doing so, desire to explain that I and those friends of mine who take very much the same point of view in regard to armaments, would have moved this year, as we did last, a very large reduction of the total strength of the British Army, had we not taken the opportunity on the Air Vote of explaining our point of view in regard to the futility of all armaments. But to-night I wish to draw attention to one or two points in connection with the recruitment for the British Army. Before I do that I would like to make a comment on the extraordinary fact brought out by the Secretary of State for War in his Memorandum that no fewer than five out of every eight recruits who offer themselves for enlistment are rejected on the ground

    1971
    that they are suffering from physical defects. To many Members of this House it is an astonishing corroboration of what we, on this side, are constantly saying about the rottenness of the present social system. That it should produce such dreadful physical effects upon the male population of this country is a striking condemnation indeed of our present capitalist society.
    "Iil fares the land, to hastening ills a prey, Where wealth accumulates and men decay."
    We know—we have it before our eyes every day—that the wealth is accumulating in this land, and we here have it on the indisputable authority of the right hon. Gentleman that the men are decaying. That fact is something which ought to give us all food for reflection. There is no ground for us to be astonished at this extraordinary revelation of the physique of the working class of the country. We are merely reaping what we have sown. If you herd the great mass of your people in slums so that they have to live in single rooms or two rooms, if you habitually under-pay them, if you place large numbers of them in a state of unemployment, if you fail to allow your hoards of guardians to give them adequate relief to maintain their physique, inevitably you are bound to get a very inferior type of physique for the great mass of your people. Therefore you have no right to be astonished when these facts are brought to your notice. I would point out to the hon. Member below the Gangway, who unfortunately is not here now, that, when he suggests in this connection that what is necessary-is a great extension of the public health services of the country that is not going to the root of the evil. You have to do very much more than extend your public health services if you are going to make this nation as a whole a really Al nation physically. We have got to give people infinitely better houses. We have got to pay them very much higher wages, and when they are unemployed we have got to see that they get adequate maintenance for keeping themselves physically fit. Not until you do those things will you be able to get from your working classes physically fit men.
    One or two observations now with regard to recruitment for the British
    1972
    Army. I take first, on page 3 of the Memorandum, a paragraph by the Secretary of State for War dealing with recruitment. He points out that the British Army offers to men good food, clothes, housing accommodation, good education and chances of promotion, and yet the requirements of the Army are not being met. Presumably that sentence is meant to be a note of astonishment. May point out that that is a most misleading statement of the conditions under which a man is called upon to enlist in the British Army. There are company promoters in the great City of London, who are sometimes accused of issuing grossly misleading prospectuses on the ground that they suppress some very material facts. I cannot conceive any prospectus which in that respect is more misleading than this statement by the right hon. Gentleman, because after all why do we enlist men in the British Army? What is the main purpose and function of the British soldier? lie is to fight the battles of his country, and the essential fact which is kept out of this paragraph is that, in return for these advantages, the soldier is expected to give the country a lien on his life and on his limbs, and that is a lien which, if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues continue in office for any considerable time, is likely to be exercised.
    Any honest Secretary of State for War, when he is appealing for recruits, ought not only to put before potential recruits all these glowing prospects of pay and travel and education, but he ought also to make quite clear to the r 'el-nit the essential thing which he is to give 'a return. if the rigid, hon. Gentleman will not do it there arc some of us in the country who are determined, so far as our limited abilities will allow us, to see that side of the picture is presented to the potential recruit. A long time ago the poet Shelley described the British soldier as the innocent martyr of other men's iniquities. That was true then, and it is still true to-day, and he also said that it was the function of the soldier to kill other people who had never done him any harm. That is also as true to-day as when it was written, and there are some of us on this side of the House who are determined to use every possible occasion for making it quite clear to potential recruits that, if they do hand

    1973
    themselves over to the power of the military, they are putting themselves in the position in which they may be used for all sorts of purposes, and made to suffer for all sorts of blunders and crimes on the part of statesmen.
    I want to go to the reason which is given by the right hon. Gentleman for the slackness in the recruiting. He says that it is war weariness. I do not quite know what is meant by war weariness, hut if he means by war weariness that the young men of the present day have a deep loathing of and repugnance to war itself, if he means that they realise the futility and the horror of it, and that they are reluctant to sacrifice themselves in that business, then I am prepared to agree with him that war weariness is the reason why recruits are not coining forward as rapidly to-day as they were in the days before the War. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are!"] Then they are not coming forward as rapidly as the Secretary for War would like them to come forward. For my part, I see no reason at all why any men in this country, in the light of their recent experience, should offer their bodies as a shield for the war profiteers of this country. I see no reason at all why they should allow themselves to be made the pawns in the great game of diplomacy which is played by right hon. Gentlemen opposite time after time; because it must never be forgotten that, though it is right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Government Front Bench and plan these war moves, who put the pieces here and pieces there which lead to devastating outbursts and the tremendous sacrifice on the part of the people—although it is right hon. Gentlemen who do these things, they are not the people who pay the price. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The right hon. Gentlemen are not the people who pay the price. I am speaking of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench opposite. They sit at home and they direct operations and send the other people out to do the fighting business.
    I pass on to another point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] I do not know whether I ought to pass on to another point in view of those observations. I think it is fairly common knowledge that the War Cabinet and the War Council of this country, whatever it might have done before it became a War
    1974
    Cabinet or a War Council, did very little indeed in the way of actual fighting, in meeting the enemy troops or enemy sailors or enemy airmen. It stayed at home and directed the operations. It sent the other people to fight and did not fight itself. I pass on now to deal with the economic incentive. I see that the right hon. Gentleman says that the lack of recruits may possibly be due to the lack of economic incentive which unemployment used to provide. It is true that unemployment used to provide an incentive for recruitment. As I have reminded the Committee, a very distinguished soldier, the late Lord Roberts, never believed in this humbug of a voluntary Army. He preferred to call a spade a spade, and said that our so-called system of voluntaryism was really the conscription of hunger, because we used the fact that people were unemployed and could not get food wherewith to meet their requirements to drive them into the Army.
    There are suggestions now abroad, as a result of what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the dole should be taken from the able-bodied unemployed in order to force them into the Army. I see that that great pillar of the Conservative party, Mr. Harold Cox, writing in the "Sunday Times" yesterday, was actually suggesting that the unemployment benefit should be taken away from the fit males, and that in that way they should be forced to join the Army. I know there was a Conservative Member—ho may not be a Member now, but he was in the last Parliament—who actually put it, to the Secretary for War that the dole should be taken away from these people in order to stimulate recruiting. All that I have to say on that is that if right hon. Gentlemen opposite really want to produce a tremendous convulsion in this country, if they want to mobilise the last man in the Labour movement against them, they will start a campaign of compulsory recruitment of this kind; they will take away the unemployment benefit from the fit male and try to force him into the Army. What a mean, miserable and contemptible subterfuge it is after all. If our voluntary system is not working as a voluntary system, do not let us have economic conscription, do not let us have hunger conscription, but let us be perfectly honest and straightforward, and

    1975
    say, "This question of national defence is a national responsibility and a national duty. It is something which should fall on the rich and the poor alike," and if we must have men for the Army, let us be honest and have a complete system of conscription with no hunger conscription about it at all.
    One other word about this extraordinary Memorandum. I want to deal with the references which are made to parents. It is suggested that if the parents are able to get a little more money it will go far towards removing any antipathy to military service that there may be among the parents of potential recruits. I represent a working-class constituency, and I want to say on behalf of the working men and women, the parents in that constituency, that I regard this as a deliberate insult, a despicable innuendo against working-class parents. The suggestion is that the only reason why working-class parents do not want their sons to go into the Army is that they are not able to make enough out of them if they go into the Army. It is cowardly and contemptible to say that thing about working-class parents. Working-class parents are as fond of their sons as are the rich. They have hearts to feel just as much as the rich people have. To say that they object to their sons going into the Army only because they cannot get so much money out of them is, well, unworthy of an English gentleman—I will put it like that.
    The reason why the great majority of the parents of the working classes do not want their sons to go into the Army is that they did not. bring them up to be Main or maimed in war. They have memories as well as the rest of us. They have eyes; in the streets they can see the maimed and crippled ex-service men walking about; they can see the hundreds and thousands of unemployed ex-service men. Even if they have not been to France, they have seen the pictures of those acres upon acres of graveyards which are scattered all over Europe. They know these things, and it is for these reasons and not from any miserable petty cash consideration they are reluctant to see their sons go into the Army and be used, as they may he used, in some other great useless tragedy. If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about getting recruits for his Army, why
    1976
    should he confine his attention to the parents of the working classes? So far as I know, there is no barrier in the British Army against a man of the aristocracy, of the wealthy classes, or the middle classes joining the ranks of the British Army. If the right hon. Gentleman wants his recruits, let him go to the wealthy classes, to the mothers in the wealthy classes, the middle classes and the aristocracy, and let him tell those people that there are recruits needed for the British Army for the defence of this country. They will not worry about cash. They have plenty of cash. I invite him to go to these people and ask them to send their sons into the Army, and not come along to the poor working-class mothers and insult them by saying that the reason they do not want their sons to go is because they cannot make enough money out of it.
    My last word is in connection with the Supplementary Reserve. I do not pretend to speak with anything like the authority or the influence of the right hon. Gentleman on my own Front Bench who has already spoken. In spite of all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and, indeed, in spite of what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman sitting in front of me, I want to make it quite clear that, if any trade unionist joins this Supplementary Reserve, he is going to expose himself to the possibility of being put under the jurisdiction of military law in the event of any great national emergency. This is a very wide and very elastic term. I want to point out to my hon. Friend here and to the Labour movement as a whole that we on this side have pledged ourselves to do everything in our power to prevent this country being dragged again into another great war, and there are various methods of accomplishing that. We in the Labour movement a re very proud a the fact that we think we prevented a war with Russia some two or three years ago when we mobilised councils of action and threatened the country with a great national strike. At any rate, it is conceivable that in the last resort, after every other method has failed, the great mass of the working classes, in order to prevent this country from being stampeded into another war, may have to organise a great national strike. In that connection I want to say that if

    1977
    trade unionists allow themselves to be inveigled or cajoled into joining this Supplementary Reserve then when that time of great emergency comes and they 'e ant to stand four square with all their organised comrades in this great attempt to prevent a war taking place, they will find they have put themselves under the heel of the swashbuckling people in Whitehall and will not be able to help themselves. I hope they will not allow any smooth words on the part of the right hon Gentleman opposite to deceive them, but they will use their own judgment.
    I hope they will realise that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not to be trusted in this respect, and they will have nothing whatever to do with this Special Reserve. I have very much pleasure in supporting this reduction.
    Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, in his opening speech, said very few of us would understand the Estimates, as they are pretty complicated. I quite agree. So the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Major Crawfurd) came to the conclusion that we were spending as much money to-day on the Army as we were during the War.
    Major CRAWFURD: I only rise because this is the second time that inference has been drawn incorrectly from what I said. I said nothing of the sort.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: You said, "No reduction has been made since the early days in the War."
    Major CRAWFURDThe only reference I made to the figures of this year was when I pointed out that there was a reduction of a few thousands on the figures of last year.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: In 1920–1921 we spent £164,000,000 on the Army. To-day it is £44,000,000. The reduction has taken place as rapidly as in the circumstances could be expected, having regard to the fact that there were certain terminal charges in connection with the War. The Secretary for War has also evidently miscalculated the opinion as to the course of recruiting. He puts it down to various reasons, but we know now from the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle)—I was rather surprised he said it, because I know he gallantly stood in the ranks during the
    1978
    War—the real reason why we are not getting recruits. It is that he and some of his colleagues go about the country persuading men not to join the Army. He has twitted this side by saying that we are not prepared to allow our sons to go and fight for their King and country. Lot me tell the hon. Member for Shoreditch that nearly all the Members on the Front Bench were engaged in the War and some of us were not afraid of letting our sons go out. I had six of my boys who went out in the War and I am proud of it. They all put on uniform when they were lads of 14 in the cadet companies of their public schools. I was not ashamed to put on the uniform of the King myself. I was too old to serve, but I put in five years during the War. The idea which the hon. Member seems to have that the people of this country are not likely to join the ranks does not extend to the county of Hampshire. The county of Hampshire is very proud to say that we sent into the Army, the Navy and the Air Forces a greater number of young men than any other county in England, and we shall continue to do it notwithstanding the efforts of hon. Members on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentle o the Secretary for War referred to the magnificent spirit displayed by our soldiers. I quite agree. We all as Englishmen are proud that our young men stood in the trenches and kept back the German fighting machine. I feel that we are rather short in our memories after the War.
    We do not always recognise the services which have been rendered, and although I have withdrawn my Amendment, I cannot allow myself to be speaking on this matter without referring to the Army pensioned ranker officers, whose cause I have espoused for the last two or three years. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) and the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) have spoken on the question this evening. I consider that we are a little mean in dealing with these ex-Army pensioned Regular officers. These men came, when their services were much needed, to train Kitchener's Army. They came at the call of Lord Kitchener and did their duty splendidly. I have many instances of them in my own observation. I feel that those old pensioned Regular non-com-

    1979
    missioned officers are entitled to the same consideration as young men promoted from the ranks, many of whom were trained by them. They should be given an opportunity of retiring with the same pensions as the serving soldier promoted from the ranks. I have withdrawn the Amendment which was down in my name because I hope the Prime Minister will fulfil the promise he gave to me during the Election to have a discussion in this House on the question, and perhaps I may bring the matter forward as a Private Member's Motion later on. Whatever may be the result—and I believe if I get a free vote I shall carry my Motion—I hope that the War Office will exercise a liberal spirit and, if they are unable to go all the way, that they will at any rate recognise the principle that non-commissioned officers who trained the Army should receive some consideration in this respect. I shall suggest, later on, the remuneration for which I shall ask if I do not carry a Vote of the House in favour of the whole of my proposal.
    We have heard a great deal about economy in Army administration and an hon. Member has advocated the cutting down of the accounts branch. I agree with him. I cannot sec the necessity for having an Army Pay Department and an Accounts Department doing practically the same work, and I think they might be combined. I also think the Remount Department might be amalgamated with the Army Veterinary Corps During war-time on Salisbury Plain, the Remount Department brought in the horses for service and they were taken over by the Veterinary Corps to be examined and passed. Surely the one organisation might do all the work and thus effect a considerable, saving. We have heard that this year there are to he manœuvres. I speak now on a subject which affects my division very materially, and that is the question of land, hitherto under arable cultivation in the neighbourhood of Salisbury Plain, in regard to which the War Office has recently issued an Order to the effect that it is to he turned into grass. This is creating a large amount of unemployment among agricultural labourers in that district and I think that the scheme might be modified, because a lot of this land could well be employed as before for arable
    1980
    cultivation such as wheat growing, and it seems against public policy that it should be turned into grass by order of the War Office.
    While we are economising, we should at the same time consider the position of the old soldiers, particularly those in receipt of 10s. per week campaign pension. I made several applications on behalf of the men receiving this allowance, because when food prices were advancing and other pensioners were getting some addition to their receipts in consequence of that rise, the men receiving campaign pensions were put outside that category. I appeal to the War Office to reconsider the case of these old soldiers, all of whom are pretty aged and many of whom are in very poor circumstances, and to see if it is not possible to give them the same advantages as other pensioners. We have heard a great deal about the Territorials, and having served for the greater part of my life in the old Volunteers, I feel that something should be done to make the Territorial Force more popular than it is. Hon. Members opposite have said that a man is asked to give up his holiday in order to go and serve his country. What better holiday could any man have than a fortnight's soldiering in the open air? I put in 40 years of my life as a Volunteer, and. being a busy man, the only holiday I could get was my week or two in camp and I was very much better for it. I would encourage every young man to join the Territorial Force. He is not going to do himself any harm by joining, and if our Territorial Army were properly encouraged, its strength could be maintained.
    I wish now to refer to a branch of the tiny to which I was attached (luring the War, namely, the Royal Army Service Corps. A change has taken place in the pay of the officers of that corps. Under the old system, officers received what was known as corps pay, and as they have enormous responsibilities, I feel that they were entitled to draw corps pay, but under the new system, officers who are not members of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers are deprived of corps pay, which I think is unfair. Many young officers recently joined, who are qualified as mechanical engineers, draw corps pay while senior officers with long practical experience are deprived of this

    1981
    advantage. I am quite sure that the Secretary for War does not appreciate the feeling aroused by this change. I was amused at the time when the papers were full of praise for the great advances of pay to be given to officers, because I happened to know the cases of two officers, one a captain in the Army Service Corps and the other a lieutenant of Engineers. If an addition was made to their pay in one respect they were at the same time deprived of corps pay, and the result of the so-called increase was an loss to each of one shilling per day, and yet there was boasting in the papers about the great advantage conferred on the officers.
    May I point out to the hon. Member for Shoreditch that while he was complaining of young men being forced into the Army, the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) was complaining that the sons of working men could not get into the Army hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. There must be some reason why the hon. Member for East Edinburgh is so anxious to get the sons of working men into the Army, and I think myself that the hon. Member for Shoreditch, in his heart, is just as much a soldier as any man who has served in the British Army. A short time ago a reduction was made of 5½ per cent. in the pay and required pay of officers. I cannot understand why that reduction was made at that time, because in the same week I saw in the paper that tramway workers had received Os. per week extra because the price of food had gone up. When I asked a question about the reduction of officers' pay, I was told it was because the price of food had fallen. At the same time there was a newspaper announcement that furnace men and associated workers in the Midlands who were due for a reduction of pay had been told that their pay would not be reduced because the price of food had gone up. I do not know why the War Office should have chosen that particular time to reduce the officers' pay. Another feature of that reduction struck me as most unfair. A man who retired on a pension of, say, £200 a year had a bonus given him on his pension to meet the increased cost of living. The 5½ per cent. reduction was calculated, not on the bonus, but on the retired pay which the man had already earned. He is not very much better off
    1982
    than he was before, if, indeed, he is so well off. Surely it is a mean thing to take 5½ per cent. off a man's pension, which he has earned and on which he has retired.
    With regard to the employment of soldiers when they retire, I am glad to find that there is a greater consideration shown to-day to men who have served, but I think we ought to go a great deal further. The Post Office and other Government offices of that character might be reserved for ex-service men. Let them be trained while serving, and be able to take these posts afterwards. In war time we are all anxious to recognise the wonderful gallantry of the men who fight for us, but when the war is over in a very short time they are forgotten, and there seems to be no desire then to see that these heroes are fully recognised. There is an office called a sub-postmastership, and I am told that there are thousands of them in this country. Why should not these sub-postmasterships be given to senior non-commissioned or regular officers when they retire? Some of these berths are worth £300 a year, I am told, and it would be a very nice job for a man who has served his country, and I do not see why they should be given to civilians only. Again, we have established the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes, and if you go into any of those institutions, you will find that very few of the employés in them are ex-service men. Surely, above all things the Navy, Army, and Air Force Institutes should be reserved for the employment of ex-service men.
    I want to say a word about the question of armaments and ammunition, referred to by the Secretary of State for War. I think this country recognises the immense service which has been rendered by the National Rifle Association for many years in training men to shoot. That Association to-day is in a very serious condition, because its funds have been depleted, and unless some assistance is forthcoming, the Association will not be able to carry on its work for many years longer. I think that, having regard to the work which that Association has done in training men to shoot, not only in the Volunteers and the Territorial Force, but in the Regular Army and in the Navy, some national grant should be made in order to ensure the carrying on

    1983
    of their work. It is one of great importance, and although hon. Members opposite are looking forward to the time when there will never be a war again, we have to be ready if other nations are armed also.
    It is no good our sitting clown quietly and saying we are quite safe. You know, if you carry your mind back to school days, that the big bully always punched the small boy; who, he thought, was very weak, and it is the same with nations. We may want to stop war, but if we get ourselves so weak as to attract the ambition of some bullying nation, they will come down and smite us, and we shall not be able to defend ourselves. Great empires before us have gone under in the same way. Take Rome. You know very well that the Roman people got idle and luxurious. [HON. MEMBERS: "At the top!"] It was the masses of the people who were idle and luxurious. Look up your history, and you will find them drawing doles and being fed by national funds. What happened? When the barbarians came, they were not ready to defend themselves, hut were wiped out. I do not believe that we English people want to see a recurrence of that sort of thing in our Empire, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will not pass the Amendment reducing the Vote. I think that we are getting, very close to the margin of safety, and we cannot., in our isolated position, afford to take risks. We have to see to it that our forces are maintained in such a position that we can be quite sure of defending ourselves in time of need.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The speech with which we have just been favoured comes from an hon. and gallant Gentleman who has justified the reputation of being a patriotic soldier, and who has contributed not only by his own services but through his family to the forces in this country. He has offered criticisms which, I hope, have merited the attention of the Secretary of State, but I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me if I say that if the same things had been said from the benches above the Gangway here, they would have met with a very different reception from the Committee. It often happens that what is said is of the least importance, and that the man who says
    1984
    it is of the most. The hon. and gallant Member who replied for the War Office referred to purely technical matters, as did the Secretary of State himself. The statement with which this Debate opened was of a purely departmental character. I do not say that with any degree of contempt for departmental matters. The clearer they are, the better, and nothing could have been clearer than the statement which the right bon. Gentleman gave to us at the opening of the Debate. He dealt only with the technicalities of his office, and in moving the Speaker out of the Chair I submit that it would have been as well, and of great service to the House, if he had dealt with his large Estimates from a broader point of view, and if he had pointed out to the House the justification that there is for them in a time of peace, when disarmament is one of the topics discussed by all international statesmen, in Europe as well as in America, when the necessities of the Empire are no greater than they were before, and when the whole character of war has been completely altered. If I am not giving a correct description of the military situation in the world, I am afraid the Secretary of State is partly to blame for my lack of education, for he said not one single word on these subjects.The figures of the Estimates themselves are most eloquent. It is quite true, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said in opening his remarks, that there have been tremendous reductions since the War was concluded, and so there should have been. To have had war expenditure carried on in pewee time would have been more than our finances could stand. The Exchequer would have been unable to carry on in the last two years it there had not been immense reductions, and the reductions have taken place continuously until two years ago. Now we seem to have reached a new stability in war expenditure, and it is that new stability of somewhere in the region of £45,000,000 for the War Office which I venture to challenge to-night. A point that I would like the Secretary of State to clear up, if he will, in concluding this Debate, is how he can justify an increase in the Army Estimates for this year. I know that on the total figures as they have been published there is an apparent decrease of £500,000, but that is bringing into account terminal charges, and if they

    1985
    are left out, the maintenance of the Army actually comes to more this year than last year.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS indicated dissent.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Let me turn to the terminal charges, and explain to the Committee how it is that these terminal charges have been reduced, how it happens that the figures are so adjusted that there is an apparent decrease of £500,000 in the total expenditure. These terminal charges are not likely to be repeated. The figures for the maintenance of the Army—and the right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity of clearing up that point if he can—are actually greater than they were in the previous year. Let me point to a very remarkable fact with regard to the maintenance charges of the Army. I look through the various items, from page to page and from item to item, and I find that the one important head under which there is a reduction is the head of the Territorial Force.
    It is a remarkable comment upon the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman and his highly skilled staff to maintain the Territorial Army, that actually the. expenditure on the Territorial Army in these Estimates shows a drop of over 2400,000, the only big head on which there is a drop in the maintenance of our Force under any arm. If the right hon. Gentleman will be so good as to explain) how he (,in justify the claim that there has been no reduction, he will no doubt be able to clear up the point by explaining why there should be a reduction on the Territorial Force. As I understand the, accounts, very much the same effect is shown in these figures by the manipulation of the Territorial accounts as by the accounts as a whole. The fact remains that we are stabilised somewhere in the region of £45,000,000.
    I want to press on the Committee, if I may, the necessity of our taking a much wider view of our military commitments. We cannot deal with the Army in isolation. There are now two other arms no less important than ever they were. The Air Force has entirely altered the balance of our defensive forces. The demands which must, of necessity, be made on it, if it is to keep pace with the military
    1986
    progress of the time, and the inventions which, year after year, will become more rapid, following on the heels of each other, necessitate a heavy expenditure on the Air Force, if we are to rise to the standard of one single Power. There is no inclination—I do not think the country would tolerate it—of our sinking into the position of a second Naval Power in Europe; so that there is not likely to be much reduction in naval expenditure under our present military system. But the justification for the expense of the Army has been altered by the experience of the last 10 years. The rise of the Air Force has certainly reduced the Army in importance, and no account of that appears to be shown in the present Estimates.
    In the discussion on the Air Votes, the Secretary of State for Air complained of the fact that he could not obtain enough money from the Treasury for research, for the extension of his machines, for the training of his men, for the capital expenditure at home, and in every case where the point was pressed upon him by those who are capable of speaking with great authority in this House, his justification always was that the Treasury could not spare him any more money than was then at his command. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is in a more fortunate position. He has got all he has asked for, arid if he gets it, it will certainly riot be available for the other forces. it is not only a question of the other defensive forces. We are having to spend more and more money every year in great schemes of social reform. They are being pressed upon Parliament from both sides of the House. To their honour be it said, there are a certain number of Conservative Members of Parliament who never cease in the Debates of our Civil Departments to press new proposals upon the Government for the amelioration of the lot of our people, greatly to their credit. But from where is the money to come? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of a few weeks, will be telling us how bare the cupboard is. He will, no doubt, describe to the House the success with which he has kept the spending Departments in order, and will tell us it is impossible to give us something in the way of postage, something in the way of pensions beginning at an

    1987
    10.0 P.M.
    earlier age, and devoting money to other social services, because his revenue will not permit him. I am sure it is the desire of everyone in this House to see our taxation less. It is up at a level now which not only embarrasses the individual, but is an impediment to the recovery of trade. The only way to bring about reduction of taxation is by the reduction of expenditure in the spending Departments, and if we have to make a choice as between the spending Departments, the first choice ought to fall on the War Office. The Secretary of State, of course, holds a War Office brief. He will make a case for his Department. I only wish he had made it at the beginning of this Debate, and then we should have known where we stand. He would no doubt, have been able to show how preferable it is to have a large. Army than to have a large Air Force. He would, no doubt, have been able to show how much he is doing for the social amelioration of the people by spending for the War Office, rather than spending it, say, for the Ministry of Health or on education. All these things can be done quite easily if the right hon. Gentleman takes purely the view of his Department, but he is a Cabinet Minister, and must take a broader view of the government of this country. He must respect the claims of other Departments as well as his own, and take into consideration the financial necessities of the country, and the burden of taxation which must be thrown upon the taxpayers. If he does that, he will be brought hack to one conclusion, and that is, in one direction or another some one of the spending Departments must reduce its Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to reduce his. They are up this year, and he has not yet justified it to the House.
    If the right hon. Gentleman has failed to take into consideration the relation of the Army to the Air Force and the Navy, may I make another suggestion to him? It is that this is an appropriate occasion on which he might point out to us exactly what function the Army has to perform in these days. We all are well aware of the situation in India and the limitation that that places upon every Secretary of State. The linked-battalion system, which is
    1988
    probably one of the most ingenious systems ever invented for army organisation, must be considered, and the requirements of India will, to a large extent, settle the size of the British Army. Then we have commitments in Egypt, which might have been different. We have commitments in Iraq, which are rapidly being reduced, and the more rapidly the better We have commitments in Palestine, which are now down, we are assured, to a minimum. But what is the real function the British Army has to perform? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain to the House, and when he has dealt with the Army as a whole, I think we are justified in asking him what functions he intends the various arms of the British Army to perform.
    I notice we are still spending about £1,900,000 a year on cavalry. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how cavalry are to be used in the modern conditions of warfare? I am sure he is as well aware as anybody in this House of the fact that, during the Great War, the cavalry were, to a very large extent, unused. It is quite true that amongst the Cavalry officers there sprang up some of our most brilliant generals. [An HON. MEMBER: "Palestine!"] I am coming to that. I am now talking about the Great War on the Continent of Europe. The cavalry, to a large extent, were unused during our European operations, and they justified themselves almost entirely in Egypt as well as Palestine. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the cavalry need be maintained up to its present size, that is to say, 12,693 men? That is adding, of course, the Indian forces to those not borne on the Indian Army but borne on our own. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that we need maintain our cavalry to that number, or what can be done with them in Egypt or Palestine? If he has any other function which they have to perform, it would be a kindness to the House to explain what function that is. It is a remarkable fact in these days, when the whole history of warfare has changed through our experience of the Great War, that the total expenditure on the engineers comes to very nearly £400,000 a year less than is spent on the cavalry. One is tempted to the reflection that the cavalry is much more spectacular than other parts of the Army.
    Sir J. DAVIDSON: I only want to say that if we had had more cavalry at the end of the Great War, we should have finished the War much more expeditiously.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite entitled to his own opinion, but it is a matter of experience, and I very often see it stated that—
    Mr. BANKS: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to know. that my experience is different from that, and that in Mesopotamia more cavalry is required.
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that the only justification, so far as I heard, for the maintenance of a very large cavalry force is for the Middle East, and the Secretary of State ought: to be able to show quite eaisily how the requirements work out for that force of cavalry, and not only the cavalry but the other forces as well. The right hon. Gentleman should justify in these days the maintenance of such a large cavalry force. If the right hon. Gentleman will do that he will throw some light upon the men that are required for the British Army.
    Not only have we to deal with the military situation as we find it in the Middle East and in India: we have also to remember what is the International situation. If there was ever a time when agreement on disarmament might have been dealt with practically by those who rule over us, this is the time. The atmosphere is favourable to-day in America, as it has never been before—even the events of the last 24 hours have, I think, justified us in saying that a Disarmament Conference, which deals with Armies as well as Navies, and the Air Force, is more possible now than it was a month ago. The right hon. Gentleman who has placed before this House on more than one occasion Estimates which he has defended on purely technical grounds, is a Member of the Cabinet. He should join hands with the Foreign Secretary and with the Prime Minister himself, and urge the holding of a Disarmament Conference in which we might take the lead.
    I can see no justification in our always waiting for a lead on this subject made either by one of the other Powers or a President of the United States. To
    1990
    carry the United States with us so far as the Navy is concerned a disarmament agreement would be worth it. But in matters of the Army an agreement made with European Powers would meet all our necessities, and would enable us to bring about a reduction in the Army and would set free a large amount of money which would be available for social services, if not for a reduction of taxation. Both of them are needs in this country; and the right hon. Gentleman had it in his power to do it, and to take a larger conception of the duties which fall upon him as a Member of the Government as well as the Secretary of State for War.
    The last word that I have to say on this subject is that I would like to say, quite emphatically, what is the Liberal attitude with regard to the Army. We do not share the views of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). We are not pacifists in that sense. We believe in our having an Army for the prosecution of Imperial needs. We believe that those needs should be kept within the narrowest possible limit. We believe that primarily those limits should be restricted by international agreement. We regard it as the duty of the Government to bring about that international agreement. We press for this, not only on humane grounds and for the preservation of the peace, but also on financial grounds. I do not believe it possible for this country to bear its present immense financial strain, or for its trade to recover, unless the Army Spending Departments are practically and drastically reduced.
    Colonel COURTHOPE: I desire to deal with two or three points in connection with the Territorial, which I shall endeavour to put before the Committee as briefly as possible. They have relation to certain officers of the permanent staff. I know where the difficulty lies. It is this: many individuals on the permanent staff of the Territorial Army are excellent men and well fitted for their jobs, but their general status is not as high as it should be, and the Territorial Army suffers practically in this respect. The former instructors were a. better class of men than those you are getting to-day for the Territorial Army from the Regular units. I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows this, but I assure him that it is of the utmost importance that really a good

    1991
    class of warrant officer or non-commissioned officer should go to fill these posts in the Territorial Army, because in many cases these instructors have a position of considerable responsibility without a great deal of oversight, and it is the better class of men who act up to this responsible position and are able to hold their own in their locality.
    There is another reason why the better class of instructor is necessary, and that is at the annual training, and still more on mobilisation. The warrant officers and non-commissioned officers of the Territorials have their many duties to perform for which they have no special training, and to which they can only look for guidance to the permanent staff instructors who are posted to their units. It is quite an exception to-day to get a permanent staff instructor from a regular unit who can even keep a pay mess book. It is a task to keep that somewhat complicated book, which is a very important item in the administration of the unit on mobilisation. I hope that the Secretary of State may be able to give some sort of assurance that efforts are being made to see that the best class of regular sergeants are being selected for the Territorials, and that there shall be no risks that the men who are not quite up to their job in the Regulars shall be dumped on the Territorial Army, where they may do infinitely greater harm than they could possibly do if they were with their regular unit.
    The second point which I think my right hon. Friend might find very easy indeed to meet is this: Some of the permanent instructors have to maintain a certain amount of position in their locality. They received great help in doing so in days gone by because they were granted local unpaid warrant rank. That has been taken from them. No question of cost or increase of pension is involved, and I cannot see why the War Office should find it difficult to restore this unpaid local warrant rank. It is not only important for the men's status among the civil population in the district in which they are working, but it is very important at times that the permanent staff instructor should be senior to the Territorial sergeants with whom he is working. It quite frequently happens that a sergeant in the Regular Army, when posted to a unit, finds himself
    1992
    amongst a number of Territorial sergeants all of whom are senior to himself; and when he is responsible for instructing them in their duties it is very difficult if he is unable to exercise discipline or assert his seniority.
    The third point I want to raise is the question of the number of Territorial officers. At the present time we are only allowed to fill our officer cadre up to peace establishment. That peace establishment is just sufficient, and only just sufficient, for the effective handling of a unit—I am speaking of infantry, but I believe the same thing applies to other arms—in camp, at their annual training. It does not allow of a sufficiency of officers for scattered units in the country districts, so as to enable each local detachment to have an officer looking after it. What will happen on mobilisation is very difficult to conceive. I have a suggestion to put to the right hon. Gentleman which I hope he will consider favourably, and I will put it in alternative forms. To start with I will take it as admitted that we Territorials should not ask for an increase of paid officer ranks for the purposes of annual training, and that we should be content with our peace establishment for that purpose, but I suggest that we should either be allowed to fill our officer ranks up to war establishment, so that we may have other officers not only training themselves. but training our local detachments, during the rest of the year, when we are not undergoing annual training, or as an alternative, and I think this is better, I suggest that we should be allowed to fill the officer ranks of a peace establishment, not only for the active unit, but for the corresponding unit of the Class A regimental reserve. That regimental reserve will be required at once on mobilisation. If we have only the one set of peace establishment officers, it will be a very difficult thing indeed to man the second line battalions which we shall be asked to form the moment we mobilise. We might. manage the senior ranks, because the senior officers, when they reture, usually transfer to the regimental reserve for some years before dropping out altogether, but that is not the case with junior officers: and if you want to get subalterns and junior captains for the Class A reserve, you must commission them for that purpose

    1993
    in most cases. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he should not be allowed to do so, and whether a commanding officer might not fill his regimental reserve with junior officers as well as his service battalion as long as he took the peace establishment into consideration. The only effect that would have on the Estimates would be to increase the outfit allowance, and that is a very small price to pay for the benefits and extra security which would accrue to the country if those officers were commissioned and trained. I hope my right hon. Friend will not turn down this suggestion without due consideration.
    Mr. KELLY: I want to ask a question with regard to the War Department. The service members have been confining their remarks to those in the fighting force and the War Department, and I hope they will pardon me if I do not deal with that particular section. I am wondering whether those in control of the War Office are doing what is to the advantage of the country at this time. Recently they decided to centralise certain stores departments, and they have taken one of the Departments to Didcot. I have often wondered why they have removed that stores depot to Didcot, a place which seems most unsatisfactory and unsuitable for such work. It is In a low-lying country, and yet they are retaining and holding material that may be needed for the forces, but about which there will be complaints in the near future. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House some of the reasons why they have moved so much material to Didcot when it is a place so unsatisfactory for that purpose. I am very glad that the Prime Minister is present, because within the last few weeks he has been making an appeal to those of us in the trade union movement to meet together with the employers, not only to secure peace in industry, but in order that there may be something of a constructive character set up. I want to ask the Prime Minister if he will just look at the War Department, and he will find that it is an anti-trade union department.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No.
    Mr. KELLY: I have in my hand a circular issued by the War Department. It is issued by F6 department of the War
    1994
    Office, and in Clause 3 it states that writers and clerks must sever all connection with trade unions immediately they are placed on the establishment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] Some hon. Members say "Hear, hear," hut I did not think there were any hon. Member opposite who would enable us to tell the country that they were opposed to trade unions at this particular time. The point is here in the circular; and the right hon. Gentleman, in answering a question last week, stated something which, I suggest to him, was not accurate—he was misinformed. He stated that this was in operation prior to 1923. I want to say to him now, as representing those men and speaking for them, that it was not in operation prior to 1923, when his Department operated it, and are operating it again, in discriminating between trade uninonists at the present time. The hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) spoke a few moments ago of the reduction in the salaries of officers. May I remind him that the men on the industrial side of the War Office had their wages reduced, time and time again, and even to-day the War Department is paying as low as 49s. per week to men in their employ at Woolwich Arsenal. That is a great deal lower than the salaries suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke as being paid to the men on whose behalf he was complaining. Although we have pointed out to them that this wage is one on which it is impossible to maintain anything like a reasonable standard of life, we have been unable to persuade the War Department to make any increase.
    May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he is going to give us an answer with regard to the engineers who are employed on the War Department vessels, who some years ago were promised establishment? The War Office is sheltering itself behind some committee which is sitting on this matter. It appears to have been sitting for a considerable time, and it is unfair to these men, who have been in the service of the War Office for no long, and who are now denied establish-men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Amen!"] I thank you. The "Amen" might very well come from those who in Lancashire are unable quite to appreciate what is required in the industrial field. Some of us are endeavouring to persuade the

    1995
    Government, at any rate, in conducting its Departments, not to be as bad as some of the Employers whom we know in the Lancashire district. I ask the Secretary of State for War if he will look into these matters with regard to wages, with regard to Didcot, and with regard to the men in the War Department vessels.
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) throughout his speech, but I should like to make one or two remarks about what he said. He said that we on this side of the House objected to trade unions, but I think he did not realise the old saying, "You cannot serve two masters." When you are dealing with the Forces of the Crown, you have to make up your mind whether your duty is first to the Crown or to your trade union. That is a point which we have noticed several speakers on the other side have ignored as regards the duties of the citizen to the State. They have put their duty to their trade union higher than they do their duty to the State. That is an attitude which I deeply deplore, and which I think is unworthy of any Member of this House.
    One of the things that strike me in connection with this Vote is that there does not seem to me to be a sufficient reserve for the Regular Army. I think the figure at the present time is somewhere about 50,000, rising eventually to a larger figure, but we are also told, in the words of the Memorandum, that the Territorial Army is the accepted medium for the expansion of the Army. What would that mean in the event of war, which Heaven forbid? It would mean that we have at the present time two Regular divisions, or whatever the number may be, available for overseas service, and a certain number of reserves. What happens when those reservists, through the wastage of war, are not available? I would ask the Secretary of State, does it mean that, should we have the misfortune to go to war, and the Regular Army, owing to wastage, practically disappears, we are to infer that the remainder of the Regular Army are to become drafting units for the Territorial Army? Otherwise how are you going to keep your Regular Army up to the scratch? There are deeper questions connected with it, hut it seems to me that while we talk
    1996
    about disarmament, and desire disarmament at present, if the Government had signed the Protocol, as advocated by the Leader of the Opposition, we might easily find ourselves in the position of having to fight a big war on behalf of the Treaty of Versailles. That is a position which I should be sorry to visualise, but which would undoubtedly entail a large number of reservists in order to maintain our Regular Army.
    May I add a word to supplement what has been already said on the other side of the House as to the advisability of a joint purchasing board for the three Services? I know that the Army and Navy at Gibraltar, Singapore and other places have a board which is worked jointly instead of each having one board. I am certain that the development of joint purchasing would be an economy, and, I believe, would be a benefit to each. of the fighting Services. It is quite as important that there should be a full interchange of ideas in the General Staff of the three forces. I understand that on the Imperial General Staff there is a sub-committee representing the three forces who meet—I only hope they really do meet—and discuss the strategic problems of the moment. I am not one of those who advocate a Ministry of Defence as long as we have proper co-operation between the three forces. That is essential, both from the strategical, the tactical and also the administrative point of view. I hope my right hon. Friend will do all he can to secure that.
    I should like to say one word with regard to the Supplementary Reserve. I deplore some of the speeches I have heard to-day. There may have been tactlessness in approaching the members of the Transport and Railway Workers. Of that phase of the case I am not in a position to judge. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) said what the men were afraid of was that they would be in the position of being called out. to blackleg their own members. It would be perfectly possible—we all have to recognise it—for the Transport Union, combined with other unions, to hold up the whole of the country, and the whole future of the country may be jeopardised owing to the action of the National Union of Railwaymen combined with other unions. But let us remember that

    1997
    there is something worse than black-legging the unions and that is endeavouring to blackmail the State owing to the power you have in holding up the whole of the food and the transport of the country it is fair to point that out, that it is possible for these three unions to be in such a position that the whole State may be paralysed. This Supplemental Reserve is an absolute necessity to the regular Army and I hope those feelings of fear may be removed but there is no excuse for putting the State second and the trade unions first.
    Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: During the last three years I have watched Estimates being brought in for the Army. the Navy and the Air Force, and I have observed with growing concern the absence of any desire really to cut down the expenditure on these three Estimates. The Estimates make it very difficult for the country to get hold of what the expenditure as a whole is. The only way that we can treat the expenditure on one Estimate is by regarding it in connection with the whole expenditure on armaments. Three remarkable things have happened during the last month which are closely related. In the first place, the Protocol has been killed; in the second place our Army, Navy and Air Estimate, have gone up by £7,500,000, and in the third place a large building contract for ships has gone to Germany. If hon. Members will consider these three facts, they will see that they are very closely related. If we want to reduce our taxation, to save our trade and to secure peace, we must cut down expenditure on armaments.
    I will put one question to the Secretary of State for War, and that is with regard to the staff of the War Office Before the War, the Army consisted of 186,000 men, and the total staff of the War Office was 2,800. To-day the force is 160,000 and we have a staff of 4,319. That demands explanation. Undoubtedly, there is a great opportunity there for economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pay attention to that, and, if possible, assure the House that the large staff is going to be reduced.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if endeavour to reply to the large number of questions which have
    1998
    been addressed to me in Committee and during the previous Debate. First. let me thank my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), for the speech that he made, and for his general concurrence in the Estimates which I have had the honour to place before the House. There is one point he made with which I ought to deal. He called attention to the large non-effective Vote, and said that we were spending this year £7,800,000, nearly £8,000,000, out of the £44,500,000 of this Estimate on non-effective services. He said this was a large sum which ought to be dealt with in some way, and he seemed to suggest that it was possible to reduce it. Let us consider of what this £8,000,000 consists. It is for the retired pay and pensions of men who have given service to the country, and which we cannot reduce without a breach of contract. I hardly thing the right hon. Gentleman realised that the phrase "non-effective," which might appear to anybody who did not realise what it meant a likely item for reduction, because it was non-effective, covers an actual contractual liability on behalf of the State.
    The right hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) asked me how I can justify an increased Vote. He would have it that it is an increase although I have claimed that it is an actual decrease in cash of £500,000. I pointed out, I hope with honesty, that that was due very largely to a reduction of the war terminal charges, which have been reduced by close upon £700,000, and that, therefore, the cash required was an increase, which I admitted, on last year's Vote. That was not all. While I was quite candid, the right hon. Gentleman was not quite candid, because he did not take into account what I pointed out, namely, that to ascertain what the cost of the establishment of the Army actually is, you have to take into account not merely cash, but also the expenditure out of stores. There is no excuse for not realising that fact. I would call attention to page 4 of the same Estimates, which show clearly that the net decrease in stocks is £2,698,000, and that if you take cash and stocks for this year and last year, you have for this year's Estimates £48,216,000, compared with last year's £49,240,000, or a reduction of £1,000,000. So I claim that, notwithstanding that the war terminal charges

    1999
    are reduced, the actual Vote which I am asking the Committee to approve on account of cash and stocks is about £200,000 to £300,000 less than last year's Estimates.
    I will try to 'deal with the various questions which hon. Members have raised. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), the hon. Member for Montrose (Sir B. Hutchison), and the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) raised the question of recruiting, from various points of view. The hon. Member for Limehouse said, as if it were a great discovery, that recruits to the Army came in frequently from economic pressure. That is true and always has been true. Before the War among the recruits whom we got for the. Army, many were the sons and relations of ex-soldiers or serving soldiers. If you wish to classify them broadly, you have on the one hand that type of recruit, and on the other hand you have the recruits, some of course attracted by the Army as such, and others who were at the moment in a position of being unable to find civilian employment which suited them, and who came into the Army. That has always been so, and I have no doubt will always be so, and a man does not make any the worse soldier because of that. It is no new discovery in the Memorandum which was issued to hon. Members, but the hon. Member for Shore-ditch was very indignant, and claimed that I was not honest. I do not know why he suggested that he was more honest than I, but he claimed that it was a cowardly suggestion in the White Paper that parents were restraining their children from joining the Army, because of, as he called it, the dole. I have never made any suggestion of the sort, and the hon. Member is wrong, because he will not read the paper. He puts his own gloss, which is a false one, upon the paper that I have circulated.
    Mr. THURTLE: It says on page 4, paragraph A:
    "Arrangements are being made whereby a soldier can remit a weekly allotment from his pay to his parents through his accounts. This will, I hope, go far towards removing any antipathy to military service there may be among the parents of potential recruits."
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Why should that be a cowardly suggestion'? One knows that there are many poor
    2000
    families in this country who have to take from their sons a part of their unemployment benefit. But that is not a cowardly suggestion it is a statement of fact. What I say is, that it is better that these poor families, who have to take against their will from their sons a portion of the unemployment benefit, should take a portion of a sons pay as a soldier in the Army, and it is because I know that they want to do that rather than take a part of the unemployment benefit that I am making arrangements whereby, instead of the soldier having to go out and buy a postal order at the post office, he can say that. a portion of his pay shall be paid by the Paymaster through his accounts to his parents, if he choose, and only if he choose I know that every young man, however well he resolves to remit a postal order week by week to his parents, is forgetful some weeks. That is the habit of the young man, and it is much easier that he should give an instruction to the Paymaster that a part of his pay shall be remitted direct to his parents. I hope that that will have the effect of enabling some of these poor households to benefit by the pay which the soldier gets. Why is that not honest? Why is it cowardly?
    Mr. THURTLE: My point was that the over-riding consideration which prevented parents allowing their sons to go into the Army was that they did not want their sons to be used for the purposes of war, and not a financial consideration at all.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That was a second point made by the hon. Member, and I will deal with it presently. The hon. Member suggested that this statement in the Memorandum was cowardly, and he used another adjective which I cannot remember.
    Mr. THURTLE: I reiterate that it is a contemptible innuendo on working-class parents.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member has supplied my lack of recollection. He says it is cowardly and contemptible. I ask any hon. Member to judge whether the statement is not in fact true, natural, and neither cowardly nor contemptible. I have emphasised the desire to get recruits of the right class into the Army. Perhaps I have over-emphasised it, because the hon. Member opposite has been gloating over the fact

    2001
    that only 30,000 joined the Army last year. I could have done with 34,000, not because I wanted 34,000 as an addition to the serving ranks, but because I wanted to add quickly to Reserve, and if I had the 34,000 we could have transferred, as we call it, prematurely, 7,500 men to the Reserve. Actually we got 30,000. That was more than enough to make up wastage, and it enabled us to transfer to Reserve prematurely a certain number of men. Transferring prematurely to Reserve means that, instead of a man serving his due time in the Army, he is given his discharge earlier, and transferred to Reserve. The object of that policy, as we know that we are short of Reserves, is to increase the Reserve as quickly as possible. Hon. Members from all sides of the House have called attention to the fact that we have not as many Reserves as we had before the War.
    We have not, even now, as many Reserves as we ought to have, considering the strength of the Army and the duties that it may be called upon to perform. We have deliberately adopted the policy of allowing men, before their term is up, to leave the Army and be transferred to Reserve. I n that way last year we added an additional 6,000 men to the Reserve, and this year I hope we shall add an additional 5,000 men to Reserve. At the end of this year we shall have some 99,000 men in Reserve. One of my hon. Friends was talking of 52,000 as if that were the actual Reserve. That is not so. It will be at the end of this year 99.000. Those who look with delight upon us not getting so many recruits as we should desire ought not to crow too much, because, after all, we got 30,000 last year, and that was a great many more than we got pre-War, notwithstanding that the Air Force also are recruiting, and there are many other calls upon those recruits.
    Let me deal next with the Reserve. The hon. Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) called attention to the question of the Reserves. I would like to get Reserves as quickly as I can. We are getting them fairly quickly, and in the course of two or three years, I hope we shall have the full complement of the Reserves. The right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) put in a very eloquent plea, supported by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member
    2002
    for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall), for the Militia as a means of strengthening the Reserves and supporting the Regular Army. I do not want to say anything final on the question of the Militia. I realise, as well as they do, the great value that that force was in the past; the great use it was in the War, both in providing actual battalions for overseas work and. more useful even in providing reserves for the Expeditionary Force. It may be that our Reserves do not grow with sufficient rapidity. It may be that we shall have to revert to the pre-War. Special Reserves or Militia, not, indeed, on a scale or the size of the pre-War Militia. Neither my right. hon. Friend nor my hon. and gallant Friend thought that would he necessary, but it may well be that some form of Special Reserve or Militia may give us the reserve that may become necessary.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend is talking about the Reserve. hoping that in the course of the year it may be up to 99,000. Am I right in understanding that these Reserves are Supplementary Reserves, that they really are mechanics and artisans?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No. That does not include the Supplementary Reserve at all. That does include men specially enlisted in Section D, some of whom are specialists. That is true, but it does not include anyone on the Supplementary Reserve which is a reserve, a part, for the moment at any rate, of the ordinary sections A, B, C, or D of the Reserve. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that, although we still want actual fighting reserve, the reserves for the fighting ranks, we also want as reserves men who are specialists both in the Supplementary Reserve and in the ordinary Reserve, and we are getting a supply of these men with special knowledge who have done their period of service in the Army and who can pass in the ordinary way to reserve. Specialists are in two categories, the ordinary Reserve and the Supplementary Reserve. The figures I was giving deal only with the ordinary reserves.
    The hon. Member for the Wells Division (Sir R. Sanders) called attention to grievances of four of the Yeomanry regiments with regard to battle honours. I am just like my hon. Friend. He repre-

    2003
    sents a county with one of those Yeomanry divisions. I represent a division of a county with one of the Yeomanry regiments, and I have done my best, having the same feeling towards the county regiments that he has, to bring them within the rules which govern the distribution of war honours. If it were true that we could do this merely by a stretching of the Regulations to cover these four regiments, I do not think the question would have been raised this evening, but it is not so, unfortunately. If the Regulations are stretched to cover these four regiments, at least another 100 regiments are entitled to consideration.
    Sir R. SANDERS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me that quite clearly. Are there 100 other regiments which have actually been kept in one brigade, and then have not been able to get the battle honours which that brigade has earned.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will make this offer to my right hon. and gallant Friend. Let him come and see the War Office file on this subject. It is a most difficult question. I do not want to argue it here, because I do not believe it would interest the Committee generally. But when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that these regiments served as regiments during this period, that is exactly what is denied. What actually happened was that they were attached to various cavalry regiments in the 6th Cavalry Brigade, and actually wore the uniforms, not of their own regiments, but of the regiments to which they were attached. Those regiments did get the battle honours, and these particular yeomanry regiments, not then being in existence as regiments, although the individuals served in the battle area, were not entitled to get the battle honours.
    Sir R. SANDERS: If they were got, in existence as regiments, how was it the 3rd Echelon was retained at Rouen?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is another point, and one which is quite easy to answer. There are dozens of these points, and it will only show the Committee that this is not a question which can easily be pursued. The headquarters were at Rouen, not in the battle area at all, and was a regiment with its
    2004
    11.0 P.M.
    headquarters, not in the battle area, to have a battle honour? As a matter of fact, most of the promotions to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred were done from Rouen. I only wish that it were otherwise, and that the Essex Yeomanry could also have these battle honours, but unfortunately I have been convinced, against my will, that they do not fulfil the essentials of the Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty raised the question of the ex-ranker officers. This question has been debated at considerable length already, and I have gone into it with the greatest possible care. It will be remembered that the Barnes Committee examined these claims and came to a unanimous conclusion, although they did advise that one additional advantage should be given to the ex-ranker officers. That additional advantage has been given, and everybody entitled under the Barnes Committee Report has had that to which he was entitled. I was impressed by the statement frequently made that men in the ranks were induced or even ordered to take commissions during the War, and because they took those commissions they had suffered pecuniarily. I have been endeavouring to see whether that statement could be sustained, because I agree, as I am sure every hon. Member would agree, that no man in the ranks who, because he was told he could do better service for the country in the War by taking a commission, ought to suffer pecuniarily. If there are any such cases, I am perfectly prepared to examine them and to see that a man does not lose on that account. I am told there are no such cases. I have had some claims brought to my personal attention, and those that have been examined have convinced me that such cases do not exist.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: There is one case, to my own knowledge, of a man in the Royal Engineers, who, if he had remained a warrant officer, would have retired with £141 a year, but he has retired with £71 a year.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend has called attention to that particular case. I do not know the case, but I am glad to hear of it, and I will look into it. If it be the

    2005
    fact that any man serving in the ranks, because he took a commission during the War, has suffered pecuniarily, then I agree that he ought not so to suffer, and it ought to be made up to him, and if that case is a case of suffering of that sort, I shall be very glad to have particulars of it, so that I may deal with it.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Are we to understand that this is the final decision of the Government and that the House is not to he allowed to discuss the subject fully again?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The House has the opportunity of discussing the subject on these Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as, if not better than, most hon. Members how these discussions take place. If he means, Is a special day going to be given to this subject, I understand the answer is No, but the House is not to be deprived of the ordinary occasions when it can discuss this matter, if it so desire.
    Sir GERALD HOHLER: I clearly understood at the last General Election that this point was put to the Prime Minister, and I received a telegram which justified me in making the only pledge I think I made, and that was that we had been promised a clay for the discussion of this subject.
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that a large number of us were coming down to-night to discuss this matter, and that we have only sat still and said nothing about it, because we understood from one of the supporters of the Government that another day was going to be given? I hope hon. and right hon. Members, who are continually talking about people keeping their word, are not going to do what was done last year, and run away from this proposition.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sure the Prime Minister will remember the occasion when he stood up in this House and asked his party to aid him in supporting the then Prime Minister to send the whole matter to a Committee, but that the moment that Committee reported he himself told his colleagues that on that report the House of Commons would have the opportunity of discussion. I know my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is eminently fair-minded, and I would beg
    2006
    of him not to say that that is the final decision of the Government in this matter. It is a matter on which almost every Member is pledged, and is not one which can be fobbed off by a few fugitive remarks of the Secretary of State.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the time is not at my disposal. The discussion can take place on Report if it is wanted, or, in the ordinary way, a Supply day can be asked for, and the actual Vote can be put down and the discussion take place. That is probably the best way in which you can have a discussion, in which a specific Vote can be put down. My hon. Friend said there was a promise that there should he a specific day. I have had a look at the promise given during the Election, and I think, without quoting the actual words, I am right in saying that what was said was there would he an opportunity for discussion and there can be an opportunity for discussion either on Report or, if that be not convenient, upon a Supply day.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the intention was—I am speaking in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—that not only should an opportunity for full and free discussion be given to this important subject, but that it should be left to the free vote of the House?
    Sir G. HOHLER: I had to communicate with our head office, and the answer I got distinctly left me under the impression, not merely that an opportunity would be given, but that a day would be given for this discussion, and that it would he left to the free vote of the House. But whether I got it or not. I so understood and I pledged myself—it is the only pledge I made—in all honour to these men. I shall certainly stand to it, and I do hope the Prime Minister will do so.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: I obtained a promise. I wrote to the chairman of my party, and told him the position in which this ease stood. The Leader of the Labour party in the House had promised that there should he an opportunity for the free discussion of this question. During the Election I wrote to the chairman of my party, and asked him whether

    2007
    he could obtain from Mr. Baldwin an undertaking that, if he were returned to power we should have the same opportunity given to us. The reply I gat was that an opportunity would be given for discussing the question. I took it to mean that we should have a free discussion.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not believe there is any difference in point of fact. What was said was that an opportunity would be given for discussion, and the sole question, therefore, is what is the best opportunity for discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "A free vote!"] There is not the slightest desire to run away from the promise that was made. That promise was that there should be an opportunity for discussion. There are several forms of opportunity for discussion, and what is necessary now is to find the form that suits the House best for the discussion of this question. You can do that by Report to-morrow. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that convenient, there are other ways in which the Vote can be put down on any Supply day and on which discussion can take place. Any of these ways seem to me to be convenient.
    Mr. LANSBURY: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the whole point. It is that there should be a free Vote. You are going to make it so that your supporters shall not be free to vote as they think they ought to vote, and as they ought to vote, because they do not want to defeat the Government. In a free Vote of the House you would find an overwhelming majority in favour of doing justice to these men. There is not a man to-night who has talked about our lack of patriotism—not a single man on this side who has not appealed to the Government to give us this free Vote. Freedom has been shown in the condemnation of the late Government, because they did not do this: but you are doing exactly the same thing. You ought to have the courage to allow the House of Commons for once to decide the question on its merits, and not as to whether or not it will hurt a particular Government.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to be so solicitous for our fate; I have indicated that there are several ways—
    2008
    [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—I have indicated ways in which the promise can be fulfilled. At any rate, we cannot very well, in the middle of a Debate like this, start another Debate. I think we have carried the matter as far as we can to-night. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman's point is really no point at all. The Opposition have got certain powers with regard to Supply Days, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite put their heads together they are entitled to claim that whatever Votes they like can be put down on a Supply Day, and so get the challenge that they seem to want. That is the ordinary procedure of the House.
    Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: May I put it to my right hon. Friend? I do not want to associate myself with the words that have fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. But I put it that right hon. and learned Gentlemen on this side of the House should have their opportunity of challenging the Vote proposed by the Govern meat. All we want is an opportunity to discuss the Vote, and the opportunity for a free vote.
    Sir G. HOHLER: Supposing the Vote was put down, and supposing it ran into several millions of money, and the Government were defeated on it, what would be the position? It is quite impossible. I therefore do appeal to the Prime Minister to grant us this free vote. I understood the pledge and meant it! There are only, too, 200 odd men involved
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The actual words, as I understand it, of the. answer given, were:
    "The Unionist Party, when returned to power, will certainly give an opportunity for discussion of the claims of the ex-ranker officers."
    That is the actual pledge.
    Sir A. HOLBROOK: Is that in answer to my request that we should have a free discussion?
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is impossible to have a free discussion of this question unless it be dissociated and separated from the question on the Vote.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: The hon. Gentleman has not read the exact words of the question that was put to him. The question was, in the terms in which it was

    2009
    telegraphed to the Conservative Headquarters:
    "Sir Arthur Holbrook and Sir Gerald Holder have written to you and Chief Whip asking if Conservatives return to office you favour free debate and unfettered decision of the House."
    The reply received was—
    "The Unionist party, when returned to power, will certainly give opportunity for discussion of claims of ex-ranker officers."
    Without the question, the answer is not clear.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Member has confirmed it exactly. That reply is exactly word for word the reply which the hon. and gallant Member himself read. It is perfectly true that the question asked another question—whether there would be a free vote, but there was no undertaking given that there should be a free vote.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Why did you not say so?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: There was no undertaking given beyond the undertaking which was contained in those words.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has challenged me directly. He tells me that I know as much about the procedure of the House as anybody else. That may or may not be so, but the fact is as follows: He has told me that those of us who are interested in this subject ran get certain occasions to discuss it. We know that, but we cannot get effective discussion; and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to listen to his own supporters. He knows perfectly well that an Amendment or Motion, as the case may be, may be put down on a certain Vote. That Vote involves a great many millions of pounds, which none of us could refuse to give the Government. But his own supporters are precluded from fulfilling their own pledges, because they are not given an opportunity which, whether expressly or impliedly, was given in that telegram and that answer.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think there would be difficulty in framing any Motion which would cover this question better than the Motion that would ordinarily be taken on a Supply day. But if the right hon. Gen-
    2010
    tleman thinks, as certainly the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) thinks, that we are not fulfilling our pledges—
    Mr. LANSBURY: Talk to your own supporters as well as me.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the hon. Member for Row and Bromley thinks so, and I am not a bit surprised at it.
    Sir A. SINCLAIR: They think so, too.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We will look quite carefully into every pledge. I thought that I had got in this Paper that has been given to me every pledge that had been given. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I thought I had, and I ask hon. Members to believe that I thought it; and I say that I thought I had. I am perfectly willing to look into any pledges that have been given, and on some subsequent occasion, more suitable occasion, an announcement can be made as to what will be done in the matter. I have still nearly a dozen other questions to which Members want me to deal. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Lieut.-Colonel Pownall) called attention to the. Royal Army Medical Corps and its composition. I quite agree that it has got to be looked into most carefully. We are not getting the number of medical officers that we require, and consequently a much greater burden is being thrown upon those who are in the corps than they ought to be asked to support. It is very largely a question of money, it is very largely a question of conditions of service, and in that I am not an absolute master. The conditions of service in the Navy and the Air Service have to be considered at the same time, and I am hoping that proposals will be brought forward shortly which will enable that position to be remedied. I was asked a question about Catterick, and the Government have been asked whether there was enough land there for a manœuvring ground. There is more land there than probably hon. Members have in mind, but I would never say, with the greater mobility of forces and the greater range of all forms of projectiles, whether small arms or larger calibres, that the land there is sufficient. That is a matter which has not been overlooked, and there will be no hesitation in

    2011
    coming forward if it is required for further accommodation,
    I have been asked some questions about evictions. To the greatest possible extent evictions are being avoided; indeed, during the last two or three months I do not think a single eviction has taken place. But there are cases where it is absolutely impossible, in the interests of the serving soldier, to allow men who have left the Army, or left employment in the Civil Service Department of the Army, to continue to occupy quarters. This can only be done in such cases at greater hardship to those who have come into the Service, and, therefore, some evictions sometimes are inevitable. But all I can say is that the matter is being checked with the greatest possible care.
    Mr. ATTLEE: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he has managed to convince the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in regard to that view?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman did not act on the principles upon which I am now acting, and I am taking every care that my hon. Friend opposite will have no cause for complaint. The hon. Member for Basingstoke wised the question of the 5½ per cent. reduction in the officers' pay. I do not want to go into detail because this point has been dealt with in the House very frequently. The hon. Member says that this deduction ought not to be taken off retired pay. I wish he would read the Circular issued by the War Office explaining that the 5½ per cent. is a commuted sum. It is really 27½ per cent. of the 20 per cent. of the additional pay that prevailed under the previous Regulations. Therefore, it is not true to say that the original retired pay has been reduced by even a half per cent. There have been no reductions, and all the reduction has been on the 20 per cent. of the increased pay. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Homan) referred to the Lawrence report and the Corps of Military Accountants. I dealt with that point in my opening speech, and I do not think that I can add anything to my previous statement. The hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Colonel Courthope) made some valuable suggestions with regard to the Territorial
    2012
    Army. In his very interesting, though, short speech, he dealt with three points, that I will undertake to examine carefully each one of those points, to see whether anything ought to be done to meet the proposals that he made. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) complained that the War Office staff was still in excess of the pre-War staff. That is quite true. The staff is roughly 40 per cent. in excess of the pre-War staff; but I am told, and I can well believe it, that the work of the War Office is 60 per cent. in excess of the pre-War work. The criticism on that head was extended to the Army Council. One hon. Member suggested that the M.G.O. should go. Another suggested that the military secretary should go—not that he is on the Army Council, but at any rate it was suggested that he should go. Another hon. Member said that the Army Council was now as large as it was before the War. That is not so. One of the secretaries—the Joint Secretary for Finance—is no longer on the Army Council; and the post of the Deputy-Chief of the Imperial Staff, who used to be a member of the Army Council, has been abolished; so that there is no question that there has been a reduction both in the Staff and in the Army Council itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea said that the only considerable reduction in the Army Estimates was, curiously enough, in the Territorial Army. On the face of it, that does seem odd, but the answer to that is that last year's Estimates for the Territorial Army were made on a generous scale, hoping that the numbers, which were then 40,000 or 45,000 short of establishment, would he made up; but this year we are less sanguine, we are better instructed, and we have made a closer Estimate, in fact, reducing the sum asked for, but actually not reducing the numbers that we hope to get. The right hon. Gentleman complained that I had not made a larger review of the circumstances of the Vote, and he was tempting me, with that Parliamentary ruse of which he is so well a master, to spread myself beyond the Departmental Vote which I am asking the Committee to approve. He suggested that I should say few words about disarmament, and the

    2013
    relations between the Army and the Air Force, and, indeed, he threw all those little apples into the arena which he thought might induce dissension amongst the Service Departments or between other Members of my party. I, also, have been in the House for some little while, and I know that the duty of a Minister on these occasions, especially in Committee, is to get the Vote through and to answer the criticisms which are directed on Departmental points, but not to, enlarge discussion beyond what is necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, before he completes his work of explanation, give us some information as to the respects in which the work of the War Office has increased as compared with pre-War?
    Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the appeal that was made specially in connection with Broughty Ferry Castle in. the course of the Debate?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, Sir, I have not forgotten that appeal. I have looked into the matter with great care, as the hon. Member, by coming to see me in my room, knows well; but I thought that it was a matter which affected him and his constituents rather than the whole Committee, and that it would he wiser to deal with it with him direct, rather than discuss it this evening. With regard to the other question, the work of the War Office has considerably increased. We have the same responsibilities that we have ever had for policing the Empire and maintaining peace at home and abroad. We have many more responsibilities in Egypt, Iraq, Palestine and on the Rhine; we have infinitely more complicated classes of armament and equipment; and even the correspondence at the War Office has not died down. On the contrary it has increased, and. on the whole, the estimate. I gave of the additional work is a fair one.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: I should have been very reluctant to stand between the Committee and a division—for it is one of my good practices to go to bed as early as I possibly can—but in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I feel certain the Committee will not wish to retire until they have a more specific
    2014
    declaration from the Government on this question of ranker officers. The right hon. Gentleman was amazed because the recruiting is falling off. He has attributed that falling off to many diverse and ingenious reasons. I am going to tell him one of the reasons why recruits are unwilling to join the Army to-day. It is not because of emigration, as he suggests. Week by week the numbers of unemployed increase. There is a greater demand for work. It is not, as he suggests, because men are afraid of what will happen to them at the end of their 21 years' service. Provided you give, them work enough and pensions enough, such fears will not assail them. It is not because they prefer the dole to serving the country. That is a very dangerous reason indeed to put forward. Indeed, it is quite inconsistent with what the right hon. Gentleman says in his memorandum, in which he advertises this Utopia:
    "The conditions of Army life were never so good as they are to-day. The men are fed, clothed and housed with every regard to health and comfort. Practically all pay from the first day of enlistment is pocket money. Any necessary outlays reduce it by only a few pence a week. The chances of promotion are good, and the rates of pay have been substantially increased."
    Why is it, then, that when these inducements are offered to men, and particularly to unemployed men, they refuse them and refrain from enlisting in the army? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. It is because there arc 50,000 men who have been treated as he wishes to treat the ex-ranker officers, who served this country faithfully for 26 years, and who served it again during the War, and then had the pledges that were made to them broken. There are 50,000 men who are acting as anti-recruiters for the British Army to-day, and if the policy of the War Office is allowed to continue, as it has been expounded by the right hon. Gentleman, recruiting will continue to decline.
    What is the position? The ex-ranker officers were promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) that their claim would be granted. He broke his pledge. Hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite had some criticisms to make about the breaking of that pledge, and I assure the Secretary of State that they will provide very interesting reading when the discussion comes on. There are a great num

    2015
    ber of hon. Members sitting behind him who had some bitter words to say about the morals and the integrity of the right hon. Gentleman the member for Aberavon. Is it his desire that the same things should be said about the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister, and who has such a great and well-deserved reputation for honesty? The right hon. Member for Aberavon broke his pledge, and a Motion was put down on getting Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Army Estimates last year, calling upon the Government to fulfill its pledges to these ex-ranker officers. That motion was lost by only eleven votes. It would have been carried had not the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister made a speech in which he induced the House to allow the Government of the day as it then was to set up a committee to inquire into the question of: the ex-ranker officers and to report. He said:
    "If the report turns down all the demands of those interested, and if the Government support the Committee, then it will be open to anyone to put down a Motion to censure the Government, and in any case we shall get a Division upon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1924; cols. 2666–7, Vol. 170.]
    "In any case," said the present Prime Minister, "we shall get a Division upon it"—a division upon the question of whether or not the claims of ex-ranker officers are to be met. I need not remind the Committee of what are the claims of these men. These men served the country for 26 years, or whatever was the term of their engagement, and were induced to enlist again during the war. In many cases they were promoted to temporary commissions. They served as officers throughout the War, and rose to the rank of Lieutenant, Captain, Major, and in one case to the rank of Major-General. But when the War terminated they were put back upon the pensions of non-commissioned officers. The Navy did justice to those engaged under similar circumstances in the Navy, and gave them the means of maintaining the rank which they had earned and of educating their children in accordance with that rank.
    The claim of the ex-ranker officers is perfectly justified upon every ground of common-sense, reason and legality. Their claim was lost by only 11 Votes, and the House was to have an oppor-
    2016
    tunity of considering the report of the Committee. The House has had no such opportunity of considering the report, and of coming to a fair and free decision upon it. if was to have had that opportunity in the last Parliament, for the right hon. Gentleman who was then leader of the House (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) said,
    "I would only add as to the precise form in which the matter is to be presented to the House that the Government 'have not had an opportunity of considering the matter, but my view is that it ought to be in a form which will enable the House to reach a definite decision."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1924; 2786, Vol. 176.]
    That was the position. That was the position when the Government resigned. A date for a discussion had been promised, indeed, captured from the Government, by the insistence of my hon. Friends opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman, who was leading the House for the Socialist party, said that the House would have an opportunity of coming to a decision upon it. Then the General Election came, and, naturally, my hon. Friends opposite were anxious as to whether the views which they had expressed in this House were going to be honoured by their own leaders. Accordingly, they sent a telegram to their Chief Whip, and asked whether if the Conservatives were returned to office, a free and an unfettered decision of the House would be allowed. Quick as lightning came back the following answer:
    "Unionist party if returned to power will certainly give opportunity for discussion in the matter of ex-ranker officers."
    That telegram was sent in the middle of the General Election. It was sent in reply to a specific question and without qualification, and it can only mean that the answer was in the affirmative. How could it mean anything else?
    Everybody knows that this House has a full and an adequate opportunity of discussing anything that it wishes to discuss. My hon. Friends opposite who put this question, knew very well that they could raise it. What they were anxious about was whether they were going to have the Whips put on against it or not. It was open to them on one of numerous occasions to put down this Motion, but if the Government should signify that its will was that the Motion should be rejected, then my hon. Friends who had spoken so eloquently against the last

    2017
    Government would be made to look very small. Accordingly they wished to ascertain whether or not the Whips would be put on, and they asked the specific question, "Would there he a free vote?" and the answer came back, "Certainly," and no hon. Member of this House could interpret the answer other wise.
    If a Motion of censure be put down, or a Motion to reduce the estimates, it stands to reason that there can be no unlettered choice by hon. Members opposite. We shall be perfectly free. It is perfectly easy for every one of my right hon. Friends on these Benches to go into the Lobby against the Government. What we are anxious about is not scoring an advantage in the Lobby, but getting the money for these men. They are waiting for the money, and are waiting for the pledges to be fulfilled. I plead sincerely with the Secretary of State for War not to interpret these pledges in the literal fashion, in which he has done, because plain men, who have enlisted in the ranks and served their country for 31 years, do not understand these equivocations. They understand only what they were promised, and I plead with the Prime Minister, in whom I and the House have every confidence, again to consider what he has said, and to see if he cannot come to a more generous decision upon it.
    Mr. BASIL PETO: The hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down has stated that, naturally, he and the members of his party can take a detached view of this question which arose in the recent Debate.
    Major HORE-BELISHA: I did not say a "detached" view, because the whole of my party are pledged to this.
    Mr. PETO: The hon. Member said an independent view. He said that any member of his party would be perfectly free in voting, and they would gladly go into the Lobby against the Government on a vote which might mean the defeat of the Government. But I would like to make a reference to one aspect of the matter. The Secretary of State for War, in dealing with this question, said that an opportunity could be made at any time to meet the convenience of the House. I would rather urge that it is not a
    2018
    question of the convenience of the House. It is a question of a specific answer to a question that. was put to the Prime Minister's own supporters during the General Election, and I appeal to him to give us that opportunity for a free vote and an honest discussion on this one issue, in order to carry out what many of us, on this side of the House, are pledged to—a free vote on this issue whenever it come up. I ask the Prime Minister not to put us in the position of appearing to be wanting in our support of the Government, or of not standing by our pledges to these ex-ranker officers who, we believe, deserve far better treatment than they have had.
    The Secretary of State said that he wished to get this Vote as quickly as possible. I am sorry to have to stand between the Committee and a decision, even for a few moments, but I do not think it is saving time to shut out from a Debate of this kind a question of which due notice has been given to the Secretary of State by every means in my power through his Department. I propose to raise it now, even if it does take a minute or two of the Committee's time, and involve the Secretary of State in giving me an answer. The question I want to raise is the question of the Staff College. I notice that in the memorandum there is no mention of the Staff College at Camberley. When I turn to the Estimates, I see that there is a reduction of expenditure of £12,000, which is 10 per cent. of the expenditure at Camberley. I ask the Committee to consider two or three answers that I have received to questions. In 1905, 118 candidates competed for 33 places; in 1924, 269 competed for 67 places: and this year 400 competed for 67 places. When I say "57 places," it really does not give a fair view of the chances, because of that total six places are reserved for officers from the Dominions, eight for officers of the Indian Army, two for the Royal Navy and two for the Royal Air Force. A total of 18 has thus to be deducted, and only 39 places are left. Seventeen of these are open to competition and 22 to nomination. So that we have only 39 officers who can get places, out of a total this year of 400. Officers in the Army compete two or three times before they are finally plucked. Therefore I expect at least 600 candidates to come up next year for the 57 places.

    2019
    With a total of 16,313 officers, only one in 400 can hope to get through in any one year. In the Artillery branch, which is one of the most specialised branches in the Army, it is even worse. There are 2,000 officers in the Artillery, and there are only 10 places reserved for them. I ask, Is this adequate? I call attention to the fact that it is not necessary to ask for any increased expenditure at all. When I turn to the Estimate I see that the cost of a Staff College education is £709 per officer per year. I ask, Does that not constitute a world record for the cost of education of any sort or kind? When you look at the cost of the education that officers receive at Woolwich and at Sandhurst, you find that at Sandhurst, where there are 600 cadets, the cost is £391, and at Woolwich, where there are 225 cadets, the cost is £524 per annum. When I am asking for adequate numbers to be given facilities for Staff Colleges I am not necessarily asking for increased expenditure. I want to know from the Secretary of State for War whether the policy is that this small army which we now have should be a highly trained and specialised army. Young officers have never taken more keenly than they are now taking to their military careers and I want to know what is the policy of the War Office? Is it fair to take up the time of an increasing number of these young officers who wish to get themselves qualified to render very good service in this small specialised army and then shut them out wholesale so that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a young officer to get into the staff colleges. I do not think it is fair or a good policy. This most vital question of the training of staff officers is never mentioned in the memorandum put before the House, and in recent years there has been no addition made to the facilities for that training yet we see year by year a larger and larger number Coming forward for examination who have no possible chance of ever getting in. I understood what we wanted after the late War was what might he termed a pool of officers serving with their regiments who have all had Staff College training and who are all qualified to take up staff jobs in case of war. That was the great lack in the War. I believe there is no pool at the present moment in the
    2020
    junior ranks serving with their regiments who are qualified by staff training to take up a staff job. Therefore I ask the Secretary of State for War to give me some reply on this question and let me know whether there is any intention to carry out the policy that I have enunciated or whether it is not the policy of the War Office to have an efficient highly staff-trained army?
    Sir G. HOHLER: I am sorry the Prime Minister has left his seat, because I desire to make a personal appeal to him that he will not leave even one of his supporters in a position as a man of honour in which he would not like to find himself. I could almost make the proud boast that the Prime Minister made in the last Parliament. I recollect him saying that he never made an election pledge. That is, I believe, almost true of myself. I was very careful to make no election pledge that I knew I. could not justify. I only desire to add this to that which has been said regarding the history of the last Parliament. I think substantially the whole of the Labour party were in favour of carrying out the pledge that has been given to the ex-ranker officers. I am sure they would all have voted with us in the Division had we had the chance of a free vote. I remember it was the present Prime Minister who in my view saved the late Prime Minister from defeat on this very question by giving him the assistance of a suggestion that there should be a reference to a. Committee. We know it went to a Committee. With great respect I never wished it, and voted against it. I understood something of the case, and between us we could present it as well to the House of Commons as going to a Committee. I think that Committee never understood the case, and I believe these ex-ranker officers have a splendid case, but however that may be, we know it was turned down. There is one thing of which I wish to remind those hon. Members who were in the last Parliament. My recollection is that on the Adjournment this very question was raised by Dr. Macnamara, and so strong was the feeling in every part of the House that we were promised a day for discussion and a free vote. Then came the Election. It so happens in my case that my chairman is an ex-ranker officer and that there are about 20 of these men in my constituency.

    2021
    and they pressed me in regard to this particular matter. I told them I could not make a pledge without authority. and I thereupon either wrote or telegraphed to the central office and asked if the question would be left to the free vote of the House. I got a telegram in reply, and while I cannot pledge my memory as to whether or not it was in the same terms as the telegram which has been read out, it conveyed to me most clearly that a day would be given and a free vote allowed.
    12 P.M.
    As an old Member of the House, if I had received a telegram stating merely that the ordinary opportunities would be available on the Army Estimates for raising the question, I should have told my constituents that I was unable to give a pledge, and I should not have been in the unfortunate position in which I now find myself. They had no right to telegraph back from the central office to mislead me, and they knew they would mislead me in sending that telegram, and, in my view, I was justified in making an unqualified pledge that a day would be given if we were returned to office, and that our leader had promised it. I beg of the Prime Minister to think of these circumstances and not to leave us in this position. Is it to he said against us, and against all politicians "Here is the right hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Aberavon (Mr. R. MacDonald), who made a pledge and repudiated it, and then when it comes to your turn, you repudiate it also? "Do not let us begin the career or this Government, after the beautiful speech of the Prime Minister begging for peace in our time, by letting down even one Member of the party, however humble who in my judgment has been misled. If I cannot demand it as a right, then I beg f the right hon. Gentleman now to give us a day for a free discussion and vote on this question. It involves only 2,500 men, but still that is something, and they have suffered a grievous injustice. The issue is not raised now for the first time. It was a burning question at the last election, and I would undertake to say that there was not one speaker either on ear side or on the Liberal side who did not say: "Look at the pledge made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon; see his promise and see his performance." I am sure that was said on every platform. I shall
    2022
    vote in favour of those men, whether it be against the Government or not. It is not a fulfilment of any pledge nor the thousandth part of a fulfilment of the message in the telegram which was read out, to say that this matter can be brought up on a Vote involving millions and that we must vote upon that. On this side of the House, there are many new Members who know little or nothing of the discussions which have taken place, and they will be subservient, like practically the whole of this party to the Government Whip. Nobody wants another election at this time. I realise ate position, but I do ask that in justice and for the honour of the Conservative party, the Secretary of State will announce that a day will be given and this matter left to the free vote of the House, so that we can express our view as to what ought to be done.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I say one word in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. B. Peto)? I am very glad that he called attention to the question of the Staff College. A committee was recently sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Plumer, which raised some questions allied to the questions that my hon. Friend has raised, and those questions are being looked into now at the War Office. I will only tell my hon. Friend that I am advised to-day that the numbers of men passing through the Staff Colic se at Camberley are sufficient for the posts which they are called upon to hold. I quite agree that competition is very severe indeed. The question Is being looked into, and in a few months' time I shall be able to give him better information on this question.
    With regard to the pledges given by us at the last election, I do not want to discuss the details of them. I read the actual reply that was made, but it is quite clear that a large number of members of the Committee would like to have a day for this discussion. When I was speaking before, I was not, as hon. Members know, authorised to give away the time of the Government, but I have had the opportunity of consulting the Prime Minister in the meantime, and he is perfectly willing that there shall be a day, or so much of a day as is required, for the purpose of this discussion. [An

    2023
    HON. MEMBER: "And a free vote?"] If the hon. Member wants to make a speech after me, he will doubtless have the opportunity. That day cannot be given before Easter. It will have to be given after Easter, later in the year. The actual form of the Motion can be discussed in the ordinary way, and I need say no more about that at this moment.
    Mr. LANSBURY: I am not concerned with the honour of the Labour party, the Tory party, or the Liberal party, but I am concerned with the honour of this House. Only this morning I received from those who act for the men concerned a note which conveyed to me the fact that they were under the impression still that, although we were not to raise the question to-night, there was to be on another occasion a free discussion and a free vote, and I am amazed when I hear the way this discussion has gone. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman who was Prime Minister last year, it is perfectly true that he gave reasons for changing his point of view in regard to this question, but it is equally true that every man who was here on that night knows that the present Prime Minister led all of us to think that the setting up of a Committee did not settle the question, but that this House would ultimately be able to settle it itself.
    I cannot understand how any honourable man can, as it were, dodge about with words as we are doing with regard to the pledge about which the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G Hohler) has just been speaking. After all, we can play with words when it does not matter to the livelihood of men and women, but none of us has any right to play with words when it is a question of the means of maintenance for 2,500 men. We may use language that has a double meaning when it will not hurt anybody, but when we know that the interests of 2,500 men are involved, I think it is perfectly disgusting that such language should be used. Had this question related to a million men, there would have been no discussion about it, but it happens to affect only 2,500 men, and you can, of course, treat them more or less with contempt. I am certain that lots of people outside will think of it in that way. The Secretary of State for War
    2024
    and his right hon. colleague the Chief Whip will both have to do with settling the day and the conditions under which this discussion shall take place, and I only want to press upon everybody that what takes place in this House is read with more attention outside than ever it was before, because we now deal with the lives of people; and if once more we betray this. small band of men, we shall be giving those who say that this House has no regard for honour or pledges, and that all of us will say anything as long as we can get elected, and then forget it when we are elected, the very best case possible against the British House of Commons.
    I hope that when it is discussed the Members of the party opposite who have got influence on the other side, and who feel strongly on the matter, will take the only course open to them, and that is to go to their Whips and the Prime Minister and bring influence to bear on them by telling them, for once in their lives, that this Parliament must treat even a handful of men in a straightforward manner. You were glad to get them in the War. You heaped all kinds of honour upon them during the War, and now that the War is over the least you can do is to treat them as decently as you treated them during the War. I can say that rather better than most of you, because I had nothing to do with it. I hated the War, and would have stopped the War, and done anything to stop it. But from the first day the war started I did my best to look after those who stayed at home here, women and children and the men who came back wounded long before the British Legion started, because I had the feeling in regard to men who were being sacrificed, that the least decent people could do was to try to take care of those they left behind. These men have survived. I cannot tell what I should feel had I gone through what they have gone through, and then been treated in the contemptuous manner that many hon. Members have treated them. I beg right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side to compel the Government to do this mere act of justice to a handful of men.
    Mr. MACPHERSON: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the concession that he has made, I should like it to be made quite clear what is that

    2025
    concession. There has been some difference f opinion, but I want there to be none on this: Are we or are we not to have a free vote
    Mr. HARVEY: As far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman has accepted what we say was the meaning of the pledge given by his Government. I do not understand, however, that he says that he is going to fulfil it in that sense. We are quite familiar with the position of the Government. Before I read the exact words [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed"]—if they must be read, in view of what has occurred, I should just like to address a few sentences to the Committee. Before the Election, following which the Labour Government was in office, we were all asked: "Were we in favour of having these pensions granted to the ex-ranker officers?" Most Candidates replied: "Yes." In the last Parliament the Members of the Conservative party were most vociferous and most indignant in their denunciation of the Labour Government because they evaded the pledges given by their leaders by saying that they did not understand the questions put to them. I remember that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was very strong on the point. That was the way in which pledges were asked for during the last Election. There was no doubt in the mind of anybody as to who the questions were directed to. We must, at all events, be honest with one another. Here was the question asked:
    "Do you favour a free vote and an unfettered decision?"
    You cannot have a debate and a decision without a discussion. The question, therefore, was, and would be, so construed by arty reasonably-minded person:
    "Do you favour a discussion with a view to reaching an unfettered decision?"
    And the answer was:
    "We certainly do favour a discussion"—
    and it is downright dishonest to say that they do not include the words of the question—
    "We certainly favour a discussion with a view to what you ask—the arriving at an unfettered decision."
    That is the position. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Agreed."] Whatever form the right
    2026
    hon. Gentleman may select to bring this matter before the House, we on these benches, at all events, unmistakably wish to assert that unless it is so brought forward that, not only we, but those who sit, behind the right hon. Gentleman, are at liberty to give a free unfettered vote, then he has broken his pledge, and been returned to power upon promises that he has now retracted.
    Captain ERNEST EVANS: I did not intend to intervene, but I feel it is only right to do so because of a direct question of a perfectly simple character that has been addressed—several times—to the Government. I am entitled to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War 'has not treated the Committee in this matter with the candour we usually expect from him. When the Prime Minister was present, the Government were asked whether they were going to do two things; first, would they give a day for the discussion of the Question, and, secondly, would they allow the Committee to have a free vote upon it? They hedged over those two questions for a long time, and it was not until they were pressed from both sides of the House that the Secretary of State for War ultimately did get up and say, "In view of the expressions of opinion which have been addressed to us, we are now prepared to give a day for the discussion of this question." But the matter does not end there. When the question was raised, it was perfectly obvious what the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite and his friends had in mind. It was not necessary for them to send either to the Prime Minister, or the Chief Whip, or the Central Office, to ask whether they could discuss this question in the House. Everybody—even a man who had never been a Member of Parliament—knew that that would be possible for him to raise the matter and have it discussed, and the whole point of that question which was addressed to Headquarters was: Will the ordinary Members of Parliament be given an opportunity of voting upon this question as they think right, without any influence being put upon them by the Whips? The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the answer which came to

    2027
    him on that question satisfied him that, whatever the late Government had done, the Conservative party, if it came into power, would certainly give a day for the discussion and allow their supporters, as well as other Members, to vote as they liked. The Prime Minister has now returned. If I may say so, I think it is very creditable to him that he should he attending to his duties at this time. As far as I am concerned, I shall be very glad to relieve him of any further attendance if he will just answer this simple question, and it can be answered in one word. When this discussion takes place, will the result be left to the free decision of the House without the Government Whips being put on?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I gather that during the discussion there has been a certain amount of interest shown in this subject, partly owing to the subject itself, and partly owing to some differences of opinion on this side of the House. It is very natural indeed that people should take great interest in it. But the question for the moment, I understand, is about an opportunity for free discussion. [HON. MEMBERS "Free vote."] Oh! you have got a free discussion; it is about what is called a free vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Quite so. I understand the pledge I am alleged to have given, as circulated in the Pensioned Ranker
    Officers' Circular, is that I said in debate last March that—
    "if the Report turned down all demands a those interested, and if the Government support the Committee, then it will be open to anyone to put down a Motion to censure the Government, and in any case we shall get a Division upon it."
    That seems to me a statement of fact. If I remember aright—I am sorry I have not had an opportunity of looking up the debate: I have had something else to do to-day—the Secretary of State for War in the late Government supported the report of the Barnes Committee. That is what we had a discussion on and a vote last time. I cannot say at this moment until I see what the terms of the Motion are going to be, or until I know how it is going to be arranged that debate should proceed, exactly what steps I shall take. But I will say to the House at once that the form in which I would like to put it down would be to put down a Government Motion that the Barnes Committee's report be adopted by this House. The Government believe that that report was a perfectly fair report, and they stand by that report. That being so if that report is going to be challenged. there can be no question of our leaving it to a free vote of the House, because we have the courage of our convictions.
    Question put, "That a number, not exceeding 160,500, be maintained for the said Service."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 69 Noes. 208.

    Division No. 42.]

    AYES.

    [12.22 a.m.

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

    Hayes, John Henry

    Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Eiland)

    Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hilisbro.)

    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Barr, J.

    Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)

    Scurr, John

    Batey, Joseph

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Shlels, Dr. Drummond

    Broad, F. A.

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

    Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

    Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)

    Cape, Thomas

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kelly, W. T.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Kennedy, T.

    Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Sutton, J. E.

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Lawson, John James

    Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Lindley, F. W.

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

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

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

    Warne, G. H.

    Fenby, T. D.

    Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.

    Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)

    Forrest, W.

    Murnin, H.

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

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Palin, John Henry

    Welsh, J. C.

    Gibbins, Joseph

    Paling, W.

    Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

    Gillett, George M.

    Parkinson. John Allen (Wigan)

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Potts, John S.

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

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

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Windsor, Walter

    Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

    Riley, Ben

    Harney, E. A.

    Ritson, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

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

    Sir Godfrey Collins and Sir Robert

    Hutchison.

    NOES.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel

    Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

    O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)

    Albery, Irving James

    Grace, John

    Oakley, T.

    Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)

    Grant, J. A.

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)

    Greene, W. P. Crawford

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Polo. Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

    Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence

    Hall, Capt. W. D. A. (Brecon & Rad.)

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Promo)

    Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Philipson, Mabel

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Banks, Reginald Mitchell

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Raine, W

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Ramsden, E.

    Beamish, Captain T. P. H.

    Hawke, John Anthony

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

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

    Reid, D. D. (County Down)

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)

    Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.

    Blades, Sir George Rowland

    Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

    Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Chits'y)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Henn, Sir Sydney H

    Ropner, Major L.

    Boothby, R. J. G.

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Ruggies-Brise, Major E. A.

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemotith)

    Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

    Herbert, S. (York, N.B., Scar. & Wh'by)

    Rye F. G.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hilton, Cecil

    Salmon, Major I.

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

    Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Briggs, J. Harold

    Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylehone)

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

    Shaw. Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew. W)

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Holt. Capt. H. P.

    Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

    Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)

    Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)

    Skelton, A. N.

    Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)

    Hore-Belisha, Leslie

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

    Burman, J. B.

    Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.

    Smith, R. W. (Aberdin & Kinc'dine. C.)

    Burton, Colonel H. W.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Smithers, Waldron

    Campbell, E. T.

    Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

    Spender Clay, Colonel H.

    Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

    Hudson, R. S. (Curnberl'nd, Whiteh'n)

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

    Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

    Huntingfieid, Lord

    Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Sir Edward M.

    Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

    Stanley. Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)

    Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

    Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)

    Storry Deans. R.

    Clarry, Reginald George

    Jacob. A. E.

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Clayton, G. C.

    Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).

    Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)

    Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.

    Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips

    Knox, Sir Alfred

    Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

    Cooper, A. Duf

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Templeton, W. P.

    Cope, Major William

    Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Col. George R.

    Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

    Couper, B.

    Lister, Cunliffe. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

    Thornton, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    Loder. J. de V.

    Tichfield, Major the Marquess of

    Crook, C. W.

    Looker. Herbert William

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

    Lumley, L. R.

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Waterhouse, Captain Charles

    Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)

    McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus

    Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otiey)

    Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Wells. S. R.

    Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Roytnn)

    McLean, Major A.

    White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple

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

    Macmillan Captain H.

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Dixey, A. C.

    Macquisten. F. A.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Drewe, C.

    Makins, Brigadler-General E.

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

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Margesson, Captain D.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Ellis, R. G.

    Merriman, F. B.

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Elveden, Viscount

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Womersley, W. J.

    Everard, W. Lindsay

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

    Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Wood, E.(Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde

    Fermoy, Lord

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

    Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

    Flelden, E. B.

    Moreing. Captain A. H.

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Fleming, D. P.

    Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Neville. R. J.

    Colonel Gibbs and Captain

    Ganzonl, Sir John

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

    Hacking.

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Question put, and agreed to.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £17,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for defraying the Charges for Army Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1026, namely:

    Heads of Cost.

    Amount Required.

    £

    Head I.—Maintenance of Standing Army

    9,000,000

    Head II.—Territorial Army and Reserve Forces

    2,000,000

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

    2,000,000

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

    500,000

    Head V.—Capital Accounts

    800,000

    Head VI.—Terminal and Miscellaneous Charges, etc.

    700,000

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

    2,000,000

    Total to be Voted

    £17,000,000

    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow. Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERO DROME EXTENSION) [MONEY].
    Considered in Committee [Progress 13th March].
    [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]
    Question again proposed,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any expenditure incurred by the President of the Air Council under any
    2032
    Act of the present Session, to authorise the President of the Air Council to stop up a portion of a road known as Pough Lane. in the urban district of Beddington and Wallington, in the county of Surrey, and in lieu thereof to widen an existing road and to construct a new road within the said district, and to acquire such land and carry out such works as may he necessary for the purposes aforesaid, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid."
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL.
    Read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

    STATUTORY GAS COMPANIES (ELECTRICITY SUPPLY POWERS) BILL.
    Read a Second time. and committed to a Standing Committee.
    The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
    It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock. upon Monday Evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes before One o'Clock a.m., Tuesday, 17th March.

POST OFFICE.
  WHITLEY COUNCIL (MANIPULATIVE GRADES).
  WHITLEY COUNCIL (MANIPULATIVE GRADES).
  GAIRLOCH TO Pour HENDERSON (MAILS).
  GAIRLOCH TO Pour HENDERSON (MAILS).
  POSTAGE STAMP (PRINTING CONTRACT).
  POSTAGE STAMP (PRINTING CONTRACT).
  CONSOLS AND WAR LOAN (PURCHASES).
  CONSOLS AND WAR LOAN (PURCHASES).
  WIRELESS BEAM STATIONS.
  WIRELESS BEAM STATIONS.
EDUCATION.
  EDUCATION (INSTITUTION CHILDREN) ACT.
  EDUCATION (INSTITUTION CHILDREN) ACT.
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (NEW BUILDINGS).
  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (NEW BUILDINGS).
  MENTALLY-DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, SCOTLAND.
  MENTALLY-DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, SCOTLAND.
  IRAQ RAILWAY SYSTEM.
  IRAQ RAILWAY SYSTEM.
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIPLOMACY).
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DIPLOMACY).
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).
  COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENTS).
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION (EXPERIMENTS).
  ROAD CONSTRUCTION (EXPERIMENTS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  OLD AGE PENSIONS.
  PRINCIPAL AND DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES.
  PRINCIPAL AND DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES.
  ARMAMENTS (EXPENDITURE).
  ARMAMENTS (EXPENDITURE).
BRITISH ARMY.
  CIVILIAN ACTING PAYMASTERS (WAR GRATUITY).
  CIVILIAN ACTING PAYMASTERS (WAR GRATUITY).
  ADMIRALTY ARCH (CENTRE GATE).
  ADMIRALTY ARCH (CENTRE GATE).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (STATION OFFICERS).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (STATION OFFICERS).
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
  POLICE PENSIONS.
AGRICULTURE.
  LANDOWNERS.
  LANDOWNERS.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  ALLOTMENTS.
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  HOUSING (STATISTICS).
  EGYPT (MURDER OF SIR LEE STACK).
  EGYPT (MURDER OF SIR LEE STACK).
  IMPORTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN VESSELS).
  IMPORTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN VESSELS).