Sitting of 25 February 1926

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
PRIVATE BILLS (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Teignmouth and Shaldon Bridge Bill.
Metropolitan Railway Bill.
Bills committed.

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

    SPECIAL GRANTS COMMITTEE.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received representations from local war pensions committees, complaining of the numerous cases in which applications for education grants have been refused by the Special Grants Committee, and asking for a review of the Regulations relative to this point; and whether he intends to take any steps in this direction?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I have received representations complaining on various grounds against the refusal of a grant by the Special Grants Committee in individual cases. With regard to the last part of the question, the Regulations dealing with this matter are for the consideration of the
    678
    Special Grants Committee in the first instance, but I have the whole subject under consideration.
    Mr. MORRISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not anticipate coming to a decision at an early date?
    Major TRYON: I certainly cannot anticipate what will be the result of my consideration.
    Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that a good many of these complaints were sent in months ago, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether anything has been done up to the present to improve the situation?
    Major TRYON: I think in the Debate last night I dealt with that point, but I fully appreciate the object of the hon. Member.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: May we have an answer as soon as possible as to the intentions of the Government?
    Major TRYON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put down a question.
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that his Department has approved the refusal of the Special Grants Committee to assist in the secondary education of the late Private Oldfield's son, now resident at 12, Ing Lane, Newsome, Huddersfield, and that the widowed mother receives a pension quite inadequate for the maintenance of herself and her two children, particularly with the added costs of a secondary education; and whether, in in view of the high estimate which the teachers of this boy have of his abilities, he will be prepared to reconsider his Department's decision?
    Major TRYON: As the hon. Member has already been informed, this matter is one for determination by the Special Grants Committee under their Regulations. The ability of a child in such a case is always taken into consideration, but the Committee have no power to contribute out of public funds towards the educational expenses of a pensioned child unless they are satisfied on the facts before them that the child cannot, by reason of the death of its father in the Great War, be given the education he would have provided.
    Mr. HUDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only means by which a secondary education in a case like this can be obtained is by the mother going out to work, and is it the intention of the Ministry of Pensions that mothers should supplement their pensions in that way in order to give their children the needed opportunity?
    Major TRYON: I think the hon. Member is aware of the fact that only last night the House agreed to a Supplementary Estimate for the Special Grants Committee.
    Mr. HUDSON: May I ask if the money is to be devoted to cases where under ordinary circumstances the death of the father—although the child may have secured a scholarship—and the circumstances of the widowed mother may prevent it?
    Major TRYON: I think I appreciate the point of view that my hon. Friend put in Debate yesterday. I am going into this matter with the new Central Advisory Committee very shortly, but I cannot anticipate what may be done.

    ADMINISTRATION (COSTS).
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Pensions what is the percentage cost of administration to pensions awarded for the current year; and what variation this figure shows from similar figures for previous years since the formation of the Ministry?
    Major TRYON: Since 1918, when a reliable comparison of cost of administration to the expenditure on pensions and other benefits could first be made, the figures desired by my hon. Friend are as follow:

    Financial year.

    Percentage cost of Administration to Benefit Expenditure.

    1919–20

    …

    …

    …

    5·2

    1920–21

    …

    …

    …

    6·3

    1921–22

    …

    …

    …

    6·1

    1922–23

    …

    …

    …

    5·5

    1923–24

    …

    …

    …

    5·0

    1924–25

    …

    …

    …

    4·5

    1925–26

    …

    …

    …

    3·7

    TIME LIMITS AND FINAL AWARDS.
    Mr. POTTSasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a Select Committee of the House to investigate the general complaints throughout the country against the regulations of time limit and final awards, with a view to recommending adequate pensions and fixture of tenure to ex-service men and their dependants, whose health has been broken through or as a result of military or naval service on behalf of the country?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. The Government have fully considered the matter, and are satisfied, from all the information in their possession, that there are no grounds on which they would be justified in modifying their previous decision.
    Mr. POTTS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the action taken is harassing boards of guardians in all parts of the country, and, in addition, is starving war widows and their children?
    The PRIME MINISTER: This subject was very fully debated quite recently, when the House took the opposite view.

    TAXI-CABS.
    Mr. ERSKINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the objections raised by the residents in Eccleston Square to the cab-rank which has been formed there for the service of Victoria Station; whether he has received a communication, addressed on behalf of the residents to the Westminster City Council, protesting against the infringement of the amenities of the square which it occasions, and calling attention to the depreciation in the value of the houses in the square and in the rateable value to which it is likely to give rise; and whether, as the Southern Railway Company has space on its own premises for cabs needed by its passengers, he will withdraw permission for a cab-rank in Eccleston Square?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have received the re-

    681
    presentations referred to, and I am giving them my careful consideration. I have personally seen the chief protester, and hope to visit the ground, but up to the present I have been unable to find any practicable alternative to the present arrangements.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Can I show the right hon. Gentleman a practical alternative, which I have shown to the police, but they do not think much about it, although residents and my humble self think a great deal of it?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I need hardly say that I shall be delighted to receive any suggestion from the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the bad testimonial he has mentioned.
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that no motor chassis fitted with a self-starting device is licensed to ply for hire as a taxi-cab under present police regulations in the Metropolitan area; and what is the reason for this regulation, in view of the fact that almost all other motor vehicles of similar horse power to that of taximeter-cabs are now fitted with self-starters?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There is no such police regulation. The Commissioner informs me that there are no self-starters on the taxi-cabs at present licensed, but this is understood to be due to the reluctance of proprietors to provide the extra current required.
    Brigadier-General WARNERasked the Home Secretary whether, with a view to avoiding congestion in the London streets, he is prepared to arrange for the provision of more cab ranks, and to issue regulations that all cabs, after depositing their fares, shall at once proceed to the nearest cab rank instead of crawling along the streets and obstructing traffic?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid the provision of additional cab ranks is very difficult, and would not afford a complete remedy. I understand the various causes contributing to the congestion of many of the streets, including the particular problem to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, are under review by the London Traffic Advisory Committee.

    INDECENT LITERATURE.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions for the publication or sale of indecent books and literature have been instituted during the last three years; how many were successful; and how many prosecutions for this offence have been instituted during his present term of office?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that I cannot give complete information for the whole country. This could only be obtained by inquiry of all the police forces. But during the years 1923–4–5 there have been 46 prosecutions in connection with obscene literature, etc., of which there is a record in the Home Office, and nine of these have been instituted during my present term of office. Thirty-three of the prosecutions were in respect of the use of the Post Office for the transmission of indecent books, etc., and 13 in respect of publishing, selling, exposing or advertising indecent books, pictures or articles in this country. Only three of the prosecutions were unsuccessful.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can we rely upon the right hon. Gentleman vigorously pursuing these prosecutions wherever it is necessary?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. and gallant Friend can rely upon me doing my very best in all circumstances.

    METROPOLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATES.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the Home Secretary in how many cases the prolonged services of a Metropolitan police magistrate have been specially recognised; and whether he will give consideration to their claims?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It has been usual for many years past for the Chief Magistrate of the Metropolitan Police Courts as the head of the Metropolitan Bench to be raised to the degree of knighthood. I cannot recall any case in which other Metropolitan magistrates have individually received special recognition. I do not think I can properly discuss by way of question and answer the considerations which govern Ministers in tendering advice to the Sovereign in the matter of honours.

    AUCTIONEERS' LICENCES.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Home Secretary whether, having in mind the interests both of the general public and of the auctioneering profession, he will take steps to ensure that auctioneers' licences are only granted after some inquiry as to the professional standing of the proposed licensee; whether, in view of the repeated complaints against frauds committed by the class known as mock auctioneers, he will take steps to see that licences are inspected at more frequent intervals than has hitherto been the case; and whether he will also consider the desirability of giving to the police powers of inspection of licences?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The proposals contained in the first and last parts of the question would require legislation. I am afraid I can hold out no hope of this at present. As regards the second part of the question, the Board of Customs and Excise are fully alive to the necessity of preventing evasion of auctioneers' licence duty.

    FACTORY ACCIDENTS.
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on 9th February, Annie Knapton, aged 14, had her arm and hand caught in machinery at Whetley Mills, Bradford; that on 10th February, Robert Maloney, aged 16, suffered serious injuries to both arms and the right foot through being caught up and taken round the shafting at Messrs. Blair and Sumner's Mill Hill Bleach Works; that on 15th February, Arthur Saville had his right arm torn off in the machinery at which he was working in Messrs. Hathorn Davey's works at Leeds; and that Harold Wyke, employed at the Leeds and Bradford Boiler Company, was taken to the infirmary suffering from a smashed thumb and a broken arm; and whether he will introduce legislation to strengthen existing regulations for the safeguarding of the workers from unnecessary accidents?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen reports on these four accidents. It appears that in one case proceedings are being taken against the occupier for a breach of the Act; in another, the question of a prosecution is under consideration; in the ether two cases the
    684
    accident seems to have been entirely due to the action of the injured person himself and could not have been prevented by any Regulation. I am advised that none of these cases reveals any weakness in the existing Regulations; but there are various points on which the law ought to be strengthened, and I would propose to deal with these in the Factories Bill.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: When is my right hon. Friend going to introduce the Factories Bill? If he cannot find either the time or the courage to introduce a Bill himself, will he give a Second Reading to the Bill of the Labour party?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am sorry my hon. Friend accuses me of lack of courage—
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: We know better.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am going to show my courage by asking my Noble Friend to vote against the Labour party's Bill, and to wait for the better Bill of His Majesty's Government.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Does the Home Secretary realise that the present Bill of the Labour party is an old Conservative Bill revived?

    STAGE PLAYS.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the production of undesirable stage plays which have failed to pass the Lord Chamberlain but which are produced on Sunday nights by various associations; that reports of these plays appear in the Press; and whether he will take power to prohibit such production?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Lord Chamberlain has communicated with me on the subject of performances of stage plays on Sundays in theatres licensed by him, and the matter is at present under consideration.
    Sir F. MEYER: Is the public itself not the best judge of these plays?
    An HON. MEMBER: No, the law!

    METROPOLITAN POLICE (RECRUITING).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether he can state the condition of recruiting for the Metropolitan Police; whether a sufficient number of candidates are presenting themselves; whether the standard of physique is being maintained; and can he give the approximate figures of those who are London-born and those who are drawn from outside the Metropolitan area?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: On the 21st instant the Force was 229 under strength. I am advised that there is a sufficiency of candidates, and that the standard of physique is being maintained. I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the last part of the question.

    COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the appointment by the conference of the Communist International of a committee to work out a programme with the object of bringing about a Communist revolution in this country; if he can state whether the person named Sambri, who is on this committee, is of British nationality; and, if not, whether action will be taken to prevent his entering this country?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen a statement in the Press to this effect, but I have no information about the person named, nor can I say what action it might be necessary to take should he seek to enter this country.
    Sir F. HALL: Has my right hon. Friend considered the statement that was made by M. Zinovieff, and will he endeavour to find out the country of origin of Sambri; does he not think we are just as well without people of that nature in this country?

    BANKRUPTCY ACTS (OFFENCES).
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Home Secretary the number of foreign subjects and naturalised British subjects who have been convicted during the past four years for offences against the Bankruptcy Acts?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret that this information is not available. I can only say that, according to the published criminal statistics for the years 1922, 1923 and 1924, the number of persons received into prison during those years on conviction for certain kinds of fraud, including bankruptcy offences, was 1,100; and of these, 48 (or 4.3 per cent.) were born in foreign countries. Corresponding figures for 1925 are not yet available.

    TEXTILES (LIFTING OF HEAVY WEIGHTS).
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Woollen and Worsted Textiles (Lifting of Heavy Weights) Regulations, dated 27th July, 1925, require that the maximum weight to be lifted by any one man shall not exceed 150 pounds and that beams of 360 and 460 pounds weight which, by the nature of the narrow space between the looms, can only be lifted into the looms by two men are still being used at certain mills in Huddersfield; and whether he is prepared to insist that the Regulations of the Home Office, which were arrived at after agreement between employers and employed, be henceforth carried out at these mills?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir; I am advised that the Regulations do not fix any maximum limits for weights lifted jointly by two or more workers. All they require is that no worker shall, by himself, lift by hand any weight exceeding the prescribed limit, and this requirement is enforced at all the mills. I have not as yet received any representations from the Joint Industrial Council, at whose instance the Regulations were made, for an extension to weights lifted by more than one worker.
    Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases it is impossible, in the narrow space between the looms, to have more than two men to lift these beams, and that as they are frequently more than 300 lb. in weight, the Regulations, which specify not more than 150 lb. per man, are, therefore, broken?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will do me the favour of reading my answer to-morrow, and reading the

    687
    Regulations, he will find that the Regulations have not been broken. The Regulations apply to one man lifting a certain weight by himself, and the Joint Industrial Council—I do not know whether the hon. Member is a member of it—has not asked me to make Regulations which prevent the lifting of these very beams to which he refers.
    Mr. HUDSON: Is it not the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, when Regulations have been made by his Department, to see that they are carried out irrespective of the Joint Industrial Council?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have told the hon. Member the Regulations made by my Department have been and are being carried out.
    Captain MACMILLAN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this case shows a weakness in the Regulations, and will he ask the Joint Industrial Council whether, in their opinion, this unthought-of weakness could not be remedied?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite prepared to communicate with the Joint Industrial Council, and ask them whether, in their opinion, it is a flaw in the Regulations, and, if so, I will consider their recommendations.
    Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, also, that when two men endeavour to lift a beam of 400 lbs., rupture and other injuries are a frequent result, and will he help to prevent that?

  EDUCATION.

    STAFFORDSHIRE (NEW SCHOOLS).
    Mr. SHORTasked the President of the Board of Education whether he has been informed what proposed new schools and additions to existing schools nave been placed upon the postponed list by the Staffordshire County Educational Authority since the issue of Circular 1371 and Memorandum 44?
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the President of the Board of Education whether the application to extend the Newcastle-under-Lyme High School has been postponed as a result of the issue of Memorandum 44?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): With the permission of the hon. Members, I will answer these two questions together. The authority have informed me that they do not propose to proceed, during 1926–27, with the alterations at the Wordsley Council School, Kingswin-ford, the new premises for the Bilston High School (except the purchase of Brueton House and a caretaker's house), the extensions at the Newcastle, Stafford and Wednesbury High Schools, and the completion of the Wolverhampton Technical Institute. On the other hand, I understand that they propose to proceed with the provision of 10 new elementary schools or departments and the enlargement of two others, with new buildings for two secondary schools at Lichfield and Stafford, and with a new building for the Dudley Technical College.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from the Noble Lord that a very necessary extension to the first and oldest educational institution in North Staffordshire has been postponed on account of his Circular?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am afraid I do not understand to what institution the right hon. Gentleman refers.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: To the Newcastle High School, of course.
    Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the Noble Lord whether, if a local authority sends in a request to build a new school, he has the power to turn it down?
    Lord E. PERCY: Certainly, I have always the power to approve or disapprove of any expenditure. There always has been that power.

    SCHOOL (STOCKSBRIDGE).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education if he has reached a decision with regard to the final plan and estimates submitted to him for a school in Stocksbridge by the West Riding of Yorkshire?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir; I am approving this project.

    TEACHERS' SALARIES (CROYDON).
    Sir F. HALLasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state the reasons which have led the Board of

    689
    Education to make a special Regulation dealing with expenditure by the Croydon Corporation on elementary education?
    Lord E. PERCY: If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the Salaries of Teachers (Public Elementary Schools) Regulation of 2nd February last, he is under a misapprehension. This Regulation applies to all local education authorities, not to Croydon alone.
    Sir F. HALL: But does not Croydon come under the 3½ basis schedule, and does not the Noble Lord now insist on Croydon coming under No. 4, and is that part of the policy of economy of the Government?
    Lord E. PERCY: The position is that Croydon put itself some years ago under a scale which it called 3½, which was not one of the award scales; and in accordance with Lord Burnham's award I have now suggested to them that they should adopt the appropriate scale under Lord Burnham's award.

    PLAYING FIELDS.
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that his officials are objecting to one or more schemes for playing fields in Bristol on the ground that the money cannot now be spent in view of Memorandum 44; and whether, having regard to the long standing need for such playing fields, he will cancel the instructions?
    Lord E. PERCY: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the Authority's proposals for the acquisition of playing fields at Gordon Road and Filton. The former proposal was approved by my Department on 10th February; as regards the latter, I am in communication with the authority.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Tottenham Education Authority will be allowed to acquire two playing fields of five and nine acres which it was intending to purchase prior to Memorandum No. 44?
    Lord E. PERCY: The proposal for the acquisition of the nine-acre site is under consideration in connection with the authority's revised estimates. In the
    690
    case of the other site I understand that legal difficulties have arisen as regards its acquisition by the urban district council, and it is therefore premature to consider the question of the appropriation of part of it for educational purposes.
    Mr. W. THORNE: In consequence of the universal dissatisfaction with Memorandum 44, does not the Noble Lord think it is time that he withdrew it?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Luton education authority will be permitted to prepare, by fencing or otherwise, two playing fields which have been purchased for the school children of the town?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir; I am approving the authority's proposal.

    SHIREHAMPTON (INFANTS' SCHOOL).
    Mr. W. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the plans for a new infants' school, which is urgently needed, in Bristol, have been returned by his officials with a request that the matter may be reconsidered in the light of Memorandum 44; and whether he will state the number of schools being held up under that instruction?
    Lord E. PERCY: The plans of the new infants' school at Shirehampton, to which I assume the hon. Member is referring, were approved on 3rd February.

    UNSUITABLE SCHOOLS (LIST A).
    Mr. HARRISasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give the accommodation provided by the 665 schools, in List A of Schools, which appear to be unsuitable for continued recognition and incapable of improvement, and the number of children in attendance at those schools; and whether he will give the number of such schools under each education authority?
    Lord E. PERCY: The total number of children on the books of the departments affected in these schools is 166,804. To give the total accommodation which these departments are at present recognised as providing would be misleading, as it would include a quantity of nominal, as

    691
    opposed to effective, accommodation. As regards the second part of the question, I should prefer not to publish a list by areas until I can also give information as to the steps which authorities propose to take during the next four years to deal with these schools. Proposals in regard to a number of them are already included in the revised forecasts.
    Mr. HARRIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this problem is urgent, and that the injury to the children concerned can never be made up in their future life?
    Lord E. PERCY: It is so urgent that I have suggested to the authorities that they should go ahead at once.

    HUDDERSFIELD (OPEN AIR SCHOOL).
    Mr. J. HUDSONasked the President of the Board of Education whether the open-air school intended to be pro vided by the Huddersfield education authority before the issue of Memorandum 44 will be allowed to proceed?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the authority desire to undertake this project they will, no doubt, communicate with me. I have not heard from them about it since September last, and I have received neither plans nor estimates.

    SECONDARY SCHOOL, NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE.
    Mr. TREVELYANasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of Memorandum 44, he intends to allow the Newcastle-upon-Tyne education authority to proceed with the pro vision of a new secondary school at Heaton for which the site has been purchased, although the actual contract has not been signed?
    Lord E. PERCY: The matter is receiving careful consideration. I understand that the authority are anxious to have a decision by 8th March, and I will see that a decision is announced by that date.

    CENTRAL SCHOOL, RICHMOND.
    Mr. DALTONasked the President of the Board of Education whether the Richmond Education Authority are to be permitted to proceed with the provision of the proposed new central school at
    692
    Richmond for which final plans have been passed by the Board of Education?
    Lord E. PERCY: I informed the authority on 22nd January that I was prepared to regard this proposal as falling within the exceptions specified in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Administrative Memorandum No. 44.

    REDUCTION OF CLASSES, HESTON AND ISLEWORTH.
    Mr. DALTONasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, in consequence of Memorandum 44, the Heston and Isleworth Education Authority has decided not to reduce the classes for Standard 5 and upwards to 40; and whether, in view of the policy of the Board as expressed in Circular No. 1,325, he will still press for the suggested reduction?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, Sir, I am not aware of this.

    DEATH GRATUITY (MR. C. NICHOLS, UNSTONE).
    Mr. LEEasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that Mr. Charles Nichols, certificated and uncertificated teacher for upwards of 41 years, thought it in the interests of the scholars of the Unstone School, Derbyshire, that he should retire because his health had been such for 12 months that it was impossible to do his duty to them; that he died on 6th October, 1925, six days after leaving service and seven weeks short of 60 years of age; that death gratuity had been refused to his widow, and that the amended Superannuation Act of 1926 gives gratuity if death takes place within a year of retirement; and whether, under the exceptional circumstances, he is prepared to deal with this case as if it was under the Act of 1926 or to make some special grant in view of the long service of Mr. Nichols?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the facts of this case, but fear I am unable to deal with it under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1925, which does not come into operation until 1st April next; nor have I any power to make a special grant in cases where, as in this, the conditions for the award of a death gratuity under the School Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918, are not satisfied.

    RURAL EDUCATION.
    Mr. HURDasked the President of the Board of Education what progress is being made in the closer adjustment of rural education to the needs of rural districts?
    Lord E. PERCY: My hon. Friend will find a survey of the present position in a pamphlet recently issued by my Department, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: May I ask the Noble Lord whether the Joint Committee of his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture on Education meets regularly?
    Lord E. PERCY: I believe so, but I should like to have notice of that question.

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. RILEYasked the President of the Board of Education if the Depart mental Committee appointed in 1924 to consider the work of public libraries has completed its work; and, if so, whether it has made any Report?
    Lord E. PERCY: I have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave the hon. Member on 17th December last.
    Mr. RILEY: Has the Noble Lord any idea of when we may expect this Report?
    Lord E. PERCY: No, I have no idea. I have no wish to hasten this Committee, which has got a very difficult and important task to consider, and I have not the power.

    PEMBROKESHIRE EDUCATION AUTHORITY.
    Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Pembrokeshire Local Education Authority has decided that, as a result of Memorandum 44, it can do nothing to deal with the schools condemned by the Board of Education, and has decided to give up its plans for orthopœdic treatment and to cut down the supply of evening technical education and university tutorial classes, for which there was a remarkable increase of demand during the last winter; and whether, in view of this, he will withdraw the memorandum referred to?
    Lord E. PERCY: My information does not coincide with that of the hon. Member. The authority's revised estimates for 1926–27, received on 8th February, make provision, amongst other things, for the replacement of the Charles Street Council School, Milford, increased expenditure on the treatment of orthopœdic cases, and an increase in the amount allotted for evening and technical classes.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is in Order for hon. Members to put down a large number of questions containing information which proves to be inaccurate?
    Mr. SPEAKER: This gives me an opportunity of saying that I declined a number of questions rather similar to this on the ground that they appear to be merely giving an opinion. I think hon. Members should satisfy themselves, as far as is reasonably possible, as to the accuracy of the facts alleged in their questions.
    Mr. JONES: May I say that I put down this question in the profound belief that the information given to me was accurate, and given in good faith.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure that is so, but hon. Members should be careful and, if possible, verify their information.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increase in the unemployment figures for Devonport; and whether, in view of the Government's policy of bringing into the town the personnel from Rosyth and Pembroke dockyards, the Government have any special proposals to make for the alleviation of the distress in the town?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The recent increase in unemployment amongst men in Devonport has not been considerable. The average percentage of unemployment for 12 months to the end of November, 1925, was 10·5. On the 14th December, 1925, it was 9·6 and on the 15th February,

    695
    1926, 10·4. I am not aware that there has been any increase in unemployment in consequence of transfers from Pembroke and Rosyth, and I would point out further that owing to the new arrangements certain work has been done at Devonport which otherwise would have been done elsewhere. In these circumstances the need for special measures does not appear to arise.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: According to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me, unemployment has increased every month during the last six months, and if more personnel are brought from Rosyth the unemployment problem will be even greater; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Prime Minister to show the same solicitude for this town as he does for Scotland?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will do my best to watch the figures and find out if there is an increase, but as I have said work is being done at Devonport now which I hope will obviate any such result. On the figures, as I have shown, comparing November with last year unemployment is slightly less.

    TRAINEES (MAINTENANCE).
    Mr. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the training for employment, here and overseas, now being provided at Claydon and elsewhere, he will consider the desirability of sanctioning outdoor relief for maintenance purposes at such training centres?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sending my hon. Friend copies of leaflets issued by the Ministry of Labour in relation to the provision of training for employment here and overseas. I am not clear in what circumstances any question of out-door relief for persons in training would arise, but I should be prepared to consider any further representations which my hon. Friend may think it desirable to make to me. I may add that the accommodation provided at Claydon and elsewhere by the Ministry of Labour is, as I am informed, already fully occupied.

    TRADE FACILITIES AND EXPORT CREDITS.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the
    696
    existing legislation with regard to trade facilities and export credits adequately meets the requirements either of industry or of the taxpayer; and, if it is considered desirable to introduce further legislation of this nature, whether he will set up a Committee to inquire into the whole question of State assistance to industry and to make recommendations as to the direction and form it should take?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of any further proposed legislation on this subject, beyond the temporary renewal of the Trade Facilities Act now before the House, and I see no reason for the proposed inquiry.
    Mr. BOOTHBY: Does the Prime Minister not consider the question of holding some such inquiry between now and this time next year in the event of its being considered desirable to adopt the temporary measure which was proposed in the House the other day?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Naturally one watches the situation very carefully, and I am sure there is a general desire not so much in regard to the Export Credits scheme, but in regard to Trade Facilities, that the proceedings under that Act should be brought gradually and as occasion may offer to a conclusion.

    RENT RESTRICTIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Sir ALEXANDER SPROTasked the Prime Minister when the Rent Restrictions (Scotland) Bill will be presented; and will this Measure receive facilities to be passed into law without delay?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): I have been asked to reply. A Rent Restriction Bill applying to Scotland only is under consideration, but I can give no undertaking in regard to its introduction.
    Sir A. SPROT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if a special effort is not made to pass this Measure quickly into law there will be further difficulties with regard to the collection of rates and that it is very desirable to avoid such a thing happening?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, I am aware of that.

    IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make with regard to the proposed Imperial Conference; and whether it is definitely to take place during the current year?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad to announce that a meeting of the Imperial Conference has been arranged for October of this year. I hope that all the Dominion Prime Ministers will be able to be present, as well as representatives of India.

    MILK.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of producers holding licences to sell certified grade A (tuberculin tested) and grade A milk, respectively; and the number of cows whose product is sold under each designation, respectively?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that owing to loss of voice my right hon. Friend is unable to answer his questions to-day. The numbers of producers' licences for certified and grade A (tuberculin tested) milk in operation in England and Wales at the present time are 96 and 97 respectively. The number of such licences for grade A milk on the 31st March, 1925 (the latest date for which figures are available) was returned at 110. The numbers of cows in the herds producing the first two grades of milk are approximately 3,500 and 3,800 respectively. No precise information is available as to grade A herds, but I am advised that the number of cows in such herds may be roughly estimated at 2,000 to 2,500.
    Mr. MARCH: Is it a fact that the Ministry of Health are discouraging the using of grade A milk in any way?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I have no knowledge of that.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health the number of firms or persons licensed to sell pasteurised milk and the estimated quantity sold annually of such milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: Licences for the sale of pasteurised milk are issued by local
    698
    authorities. The latest available returns are those of licences in force on the 31st March, 1925, and they give the number of pasteurising establishments as 62 and of other premises licensed to distribute as 370. I have not complete information as to the total quantity of milk which is being sold in England and Wales at the present time as pasteurised, but I am advised that, on a rough estimate, it may be taken to be between 15 and 20 million gallons per annum.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: How often are the premises of these firms inspected by the representatives of the Ministry of Health?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question.

    BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS.
    Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLEasked the Minister of Health if he has evidence that bovine tuberculosis is communicable to man by the consumption of tuberculous milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, Sir. I am advised that the positive conclusions of the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis on this subject have been confirmed by the subsequent work of many investigators, at home and abroad.
    Mr. ERSKINE: Is not the moral to be drawn that people should drink orange juice, and not milk?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think the answer contains its own moral.

  HOUSING.

    ELLAND DIVISION, WEST RIDING.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health how many houses have been erected in the Elland Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire under the Housing Acts; how many are available for letting; and what is the number of houses approved, but not yet erected?
    Sir K. WOOD: 410 houses have been erected under the various Acts in the districts of the local authorities in question; the 174 houses erected by the local authorities are available for letting, but I am not in a position to say how many

    699
    of the 236 houses erected by private enterprise are available in addition. Approval has been given to the erection of a further 423 houses which have not yet been completed.

    SLUMS AND INSANITARY DWELLINGS.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health when it is proposed to introduce the Bill dealing with slums in towns and insanitary dwellings in country areas; and whether any proposals are under consideration for the erection of houses for agricultural labourers at the expense of the State to be let at rents within their capacity to pay?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not at present in a position to make a statement with regard to the matter referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's question. As regards the second part of the question in order to meet the peculiar conditions as to rents paid by agricultural workers provision was made under the Housing Act, 1924, for the grant of a special subsidy in respect of houses built in agricultural parishes.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Ministry of Health bringing any pressure to bear in urging rural councils to erect houses in agricultural areas?
    Sir K. WOOD: We are doing our best, as I stated in answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question, and the whole matter is under consideration by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that rural councils are doing their duty to agricultural labourers with regard to housing?
    Sir K. WOOD: I suppose we should have various opinions as to what their duty is and how far they are carrying it out.
    Mr. PALING: Has it not been admitted time after time from the Government Bench that there is a shortage of houses in rural areas, and has not the Minister of Health time after time, in reply to various questions in this House, promised to try to speed up the building of these houses, and they have promised to do something? I want to know if they have done anything.
    Sir K. WOOD: That may well be so, but I would remind the hon. Member that there are difficulties, such as the shortage of labour, which have also to be considered.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The latter part of this question has not been answered, and we are very much interested in it. It reads, "at the expense of the State to be let at rents within their capacity to pay." Will the Parliamentary Secretary answer that part of the question?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That has been answered. I do not think the hon. Member was listening.

    CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the Co-operative Building Society formed by employés of British Insulated Cables, Limited, for mutual help in building their own houses in their spare time; and whether his Department will take steps to encourage similar efforts in other parts of the country?
    Sir K. WOOD: I have no particulars of the society to which my hon. Friend refers, but I should welcome proposals of this nature for the co-operative building of houses. Assistance may be given by local authorities under existing powers.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that contracts for a great deal of this kind of work have been undertaken by co-operative organisations, and that this is not a new thing, but that it is quite open to anyone to incorporate under the Companies Acts?
    Sir K. WOOD: That may be, but I have every wish to encourage them to continue in their work.

    COWES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.
    Mr. CHARLES EDWARDSasked the Minister of Health why the result of the conference between one of his inspectors and the Urban District Council of Cowes on the subject of housing has not been communicated to the two complainant justices; whether he now will state the result; whether the Department's inspector found, as respects the houses complained of and other houses,

    701
    the same state of things as existed on the occasion of his visit in March, 1925; and whether, if the Cowes Urban District Council have not satisfied the district inspector as to their future administration, he will without further delay take steps to enforce the due discharge by that local authority of their duties under Parts I and II of the Housing Act, 1925?
    Sir K. WOOD: One of my inspectors, in accordance with the promise which I gave to the hon. Member on 17th December last, visited Cowes and conferred with the council and with the complainants. The council are now reconsidering the question, but I have not yet received the result of their further consideration. I shall keep in close touch with the matter, and hope to receive satisfactory proposals from the council at any early date.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: What does the hon. Gentleman do in these cases, if the local authority does not do its duty? Has he ever taken any action?
    Sir K. WOOD: We use what powers we have.

    PROSECUTION, SHEFFIELD.
    Mr. LEEasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Bertram Kirk, of Meadowhead, Woodseats, Sheffield, was in January last given notice to leave a wooden building in which he was living with his wife and child; that Kirk cannot find a house; that he has applied to the Sheffield City Council, but understands that his number on the waiting list is 6,600; that the council on Monday last prosecuted Kirk for remaining in the building, and that the magistrate gave him 14 days in which to appeal; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
    Sir K. WOOD: I received a communication with regard to this case on 30th December last, and in reply drew the writer's attention to his power of appeal under the Housing Acts. No appeal has been made to me, and I have no further information. I am, however, making inquiries with regard to the circumstances of the case.

    LODGING-HOUSES (BY-LAWS).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Minister of Health, with regard to the by-laws submitted to him by the London County Council as to houses let in lodgings, if
    702
    he will suggest to the London County Council that these by-laws should be modified in accordance with the suggestions of the conference of representatives of borough councils which have already been forwarded to his Department?
    Sir K. WOOD: Before I confirm the proposed by-laws, any objections will be carefully considered. But I have already informed some of the borough councils concerned that there are some suggestions which I cannot see my way to support.

  NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

    PRACTITIONERS' REMUNERATION (SUMS WITHHELD).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Health whether the remuneration withheld from insurance practitioners under the powers in that behalf contained in the National Health Insurance (Medical Benefit) Regulations, remains in the central fund for eventual distribution amongst insurance practitioners, or whether it is applied in any other direction; and, in the latter case, how it is dealt with?
    Sir K. WOOD: Sums withheld from insurance practitioners in the circumstances referred to are not returned to the central pool for distribution among practitioners, but are carried to a special fund from which, under Article 21 (2) of the Regulations cited, payments are made to insurance committees towards meeting exceptional expenses incurred by them in the administration of medical benefit.

    OPTICAL BENEFITS.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Health if he has received a deputation of qualified opticians and has he received their observations in regard to the administration of optical benefits under the National Health Insurance Act?
    Sir K. WOOD: Before the commencement of the new schemes of ophthalmic benefit in July last, representations from bodies of opticians were made both to my right hon. Friend and to the Royal Commission on National Health Insurance. My right hon. Friend has not since received any deputation or general observations from them with regard to the

    703
    administration of the schemes, but is arranging to receive a deputation at an early date.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing dissatisfaction in connection with the administration of these benefits, and, in view of this, will he look into the subject?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of that, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Health Insurance Commission's Report is expected shortly, and no doubt it will deal with this matter.
    Mr. VIANTasked the Minister of Health (1), if he is aware that; the proportion of refraction cases referred by some panel practitioners to ophthalmic surgeons is extraordinarily high, whilst the number so, referred by other panel practitioners is exceedingly low; and whether he will issue instructions to such practitioners' which will ensure greater uniformity;
    (2) if he is aware that many cases of refraction, where no ocular disease exists, are being referred to ophthalmic surgeons, thereby seriously depleting the surplus funds of approved societies unnecessarily; and if he will make Regulations limiting the cases in which reference to ophthalmic surgeons is permitted?
    Sir K. WOOD: It is no part of the duty of an insurance practitioner to refer applicants for ophthalmic benefit to ophthalmic surgeons, but, where the practitioner is of opinion that a patient is in need of ophthalmic treatment or optical appliances, he gives him, if desired, a written recommendation to be forwarded to his approved society. It then rests with the society to decide whether the application for ophthalmic benefit is to be granted, and, if so, whether the payment that they will make is to cover the cost of examination or treatment by an ophthalmic surgeon. I know of no good reason for seeking to limit the discretion of societies in the manner suggested, and, in any event, I have at present no power to make Regulations for such a purpose.
    Colonel DAY: Will the hon. Gentleman seek those powers, which are so necessary?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I have just stated that it is better, at any rate at present, to keep the matter in the discretion of the approved societies.
    Mr. R. DAVIES: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the approved societies have no power to act in the way he suggests, and, in view of the fact that the Ministry of Health has no power to deal with this difficulty, will he seek powers to deal with it?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am sorry I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. He, of course, has a great deal of knowledge of this matter, but we are certainly advised that the approved societies themselves can come to a determination on the matter, and they are constantly doing so.
    Mr. COMPTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the State auditors—the auditors of the Department—refuse to sanction payment in these cases unless the medical certificate is there in the first place, and that the approved society has no discretion in the matter?
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are we to understand that it is the approved society who decide that the ophthalmic surgeon shall be consulted, or is it the doctor in charge of the case?
    Sir K. WOOD: I think it is generally done by consultation between the approved society and the doctor on the panel.

    BLIND PERSONS.
    Mr. LEEasked the Minister of Health the number of blind persons in England, Scotland and Wales; how many of these are between the ages of 50 and 70 years and receiving State pensions; how many councils, county or borough, have established workshops for the blind in their area; and how many persons are being trained or being found work therein?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The number of blind persons in England and Wales on 31st March, 1925, was returned as 42,140. Of these, 15,048 were between the ages of 50 and 70, of whom

    705
    12,872 were on 30th September last in receipt of pensions under Section 1 of the Blind Persons Act, 1920. Only three local authorities in England and Wales have found it necessary to establish workshops under this Act, providing employment for 22 blind persons, while the remainder of the local authorities contribute towards the workshops established by voluntary agencies, which provide employment for 2,200 blind persons. Any questions relating to Scotland should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  POOR LAW.

    OUT-RELIEF (EXPENDITURE, 1925).
    Mr. RENNIE SMITHasked the Minister of Health if he can give the amount of relief expended by boards of guardians for each of the three months' periods for the year ending 31st December, 1925?
    Sir K. WOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. SMITH: Can we have the total for the last three months?
    Sir K. WOOD: For the last quarter of 1925 the figure was £4,243,566.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not that many thousand pounds more than for the first quarter, and can the hon. Gentleman give any explanation of the increase?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not due to the fact of a Conservative Government being in power?
    Following is the answer:
    The amounts expended on out-relief in money and kind by boards of guardians in England and Wales during each quarter of the year ending 31st December, 1925, were as follow:

    Quarter ending—

    £

    March

    …

    …

    3,347,352

    June

    …

    …

    3,339,348

    September

    …

    …

    3,620,090

    December

    …

    …

    4,243,566

    Information as to the other expenditure by boards of guardians during the periods mentioned is not available.

    GUARDIANS' OVERDRAFTS.
    Sir F. HALLasked the Minister of Health whether the sanction of the Ministry is required to overdrafts by boards of guardians; what was the amount of debt on account of revenue expenditure incurred by boards of guardians in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1919 to 1924, inclusive; what is the present total debt outstanding; and what arrangements will be made to bring these liabilities within reasonable limits?
    Sir K. WOOD: Boards of guardians were authorised by an Act of 1921 to borrow, with the sanction of my right hon. Friend, by way of loan or overdraft in respect of current expenses. I will send my hon. and gallant Friend a statement of the debt actually incurred under this head at the end of each half-year since the passing of that Act. As regards the last part of the question, every effort is being made to secure the liquidation of the debt as circumstances permit, and, as he will see, the debt has already been completely repaid by the majority of boards of guardians who have been forced to borrow.
    Mr. HARRIS: Has the hon. Gentleman's Department considered bringing in early legislation to deal with the whole problem, so that it may be dealt with on national lines?
    Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better put that question down.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman any idea how long it will take the West Ham Board of Guardians to pay their debt?
    Sir F. HALL: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the amount borrowed by the West Ham Guardians will ever be repaid?
    Sir K. WOOD: We certainly expect it.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will not the hon. Gentleman consider the wisdom of cancelling all these debts?

    EX-SERVICE MEN, NOTTINGHAM.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the Minister of Health how many ex-service men in Nottingham are> now drawing Poor Law relief who were formerly in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my Noble Friend.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: May I inform my hon. Friend that there are over 100.
    Mr. SPEAKER: If the Noble Lord knew the answer, his question was unnecessary.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the figures, when provided, be placed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
    Sir K. WOOD: Yes, I see no reason why that should not be done.

    CARDIFF BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    Mr. R. MORRISONasked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the Report made to the Cardiff Board of Guardians for the week ending 19th February, which showed that 10,696 persons were in receipt of relief against 8,641 for the corresponding week a year ago, an increase of 2,055; and if he can give any explanation of this increase?
    Sir K. WOOD: My attention has not previously been drawn to this Report, and I am unable to say what is the explanation of the increase.

    COLD STORAGE.
    Mr. CAMPBELLasked the Minister of Health whether he is calling attention to the need for the adoption by private people of improved methods of cold storage in view of the new Regulations against the use of preservatives in food?
    Mr. SPOORasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the situation about to be created by the prohibition of food preservatives, he will call for a Return from medical officers of health indicating the extent, adequacy, or otherwise of cold storage in their respective areas; and what steps the Ministry pro pose to take to encourage the use of refrigerators in the homes of consumers?
    Sir K. WOOD: I do not think it necessary to call for such a return as the hon. Member suggests, since information as to the cold storage accommodation of the country is already in the possession of
    708
    the Government. As regards the second part of the question, I think that the hon. Member probably over-estimates the extent to which the Preservatives Regulations will necessitate any increase in the facilities for domestic refrigeration in the home, and I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Did not the Minister of Health definitely promise last year that there should be a Debate on this question before the regulations became operative, and, if that be so, can he tell us when we shall have that Debate?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is not a question that should be put to me.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when he is going into cold storage himself?
    Mr. SPEAKER: That might apply to some other hon. Members.

    CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce an amendment to the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act enabling single women who have paid contributions to the scheme for a term of years to receive a pension based upon the contributions made if unable through poverty to continue as voluntary contributors?
    Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid that I cannot adopt this suggestion. The matter was fully discussed on the Committee stage of the Bill and certain Amendments were introduced, the effect of which is to provide exceptionally favourable terms of voluntary insurance for women who on attaining the age of 55 have been Compulsorily insured for 10 years.
    Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: I realise the difficulties, but does not the Minister of Health think it would be at least fair that single women who have by misfortune lost their employment, and cannot continue as voluntary contributors, should be treated at least in the same way as they would be in ordinary commercial insurance practice, and have the benefit of the surrender value?
    Sir K. WOOD: My hon. Friend is now stating what was offered in debate on this matter. It is true that certain suggestions were made, but even now, under the Act, very favourable terms are given in the circumstances.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a number of women in this category in the Government industrial establishments were Compulsorily retired at the age of 60, and, although they continued to pay contributions up to that time, they will get no benefit unless they continue until they reach the age of 63?
    Sir K. WOOD: If the hon. Member can give me any cases, I will look into them.
    Mr. MAXTON: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be better, in view of these difficulties, to adopt a non-contributory basis?
    Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

    SMALL-POX.
    Mr. WHITELEYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the small pox epidemic in the County of Durham, he is now prepared to allow the payment of outdoor relief to insured persons not in receipt of unemployment benefit?
    Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to his questions of the 5th instant.
    Mr. WHITELEYalso asked the number of notifications of small-pox in Durham county during the last four weeks; whether the necessary loans applied for have been granted in order to provide the essential equipment and staff to deal effectively with the cases; and whether there is any abatement of the epidemic?
    Sir K. WOOD: 665 cases of small-pox were notified in the county of Durham during the four weeks ended the 20th February. The application received from the county council for sanction to a loan is now under consideration. Fewer cases were notified last week than in any of the previous six weeks, but I am afraid that at present there are no signs of any substantial abatement of the epidemic.
    Mr. WHITELEY: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to spreading the loan over a longer period than the Department has previously given?
    Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that, but we only received notification of the epidemic in this county five or six days ago, and a representative of the Ministry was immedaitely despatched to the district.
    Mr. HARRIS: Would it not be a very serious epidemic if it spread to the neighbouring counties? Is it not the worst we have had for many years?
    Sir K. WOOD: That is a difficult question. It has certain features about it from which it would appear that as regards the severity of the disease itself it is not so serious, but as regards the neighbouring counties I shall be glad if the hon. Member will put a question down.
    Commander WILLIAMS: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to let the local authorities know that a great deal of this epidemic could be checked by increased vaccination?
    Sir K. WOOD: We have already communicated with the local authorities in the matter and are constantly urging them to take this precaution.
    Mr. SCRYMGEOURasked the Minister of Health how many cases of small-pox have been notified in the country for the year 1925; how many deaths from small-pox have been registered; and whether any other cause of disease helped to cause the death in the fatal cases?
    Sir K. WOOD: 5,365 cases of small-pox were notified in England and Wales during 1925, but this figure is subject to revision. Of the nine deaths registered in which small-pox was entered on the death certificates, death was attributed solely to small-pox in three instances, while in the remaining six cases other causes were also entered on the death certificates.

    LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES (RATEABLE VALUES).
    Mr. OTHO NICHOLSONasked the Minister of Health if figures are avail-

    711
    able showing the rateable value of properties owned by limited liability companies in Great Britain?
    Sir K. WOOD: The returns received by my Department as to valuation in England and Wales do not distinguish properties owned by limited liability companies. As regards Scotland I would suggest that the question might be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LOANS).
    Mr. HARMSWORTHasked the Minister of Health whether he will give figures showing the total amounts of loans sanctioned by the Ministry on the application of local authorities, including boards of guardians, since His Majesty's Government came into office?
    Sir K. WOOD: The total amount of loans for capital expenditure sanctioned from the 5th November, 1924, to the 23rd February, 1926, is £109,675,288, of which £70,859,536 is for housing.
    Mr. ALEXANDER: Have any loans to boards of guardians been written off, or are the Government considering writing them off?
    Sir K. WOOD: We discussed that just now. None of these loans, so far as I am aware, has been written off.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. HURDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what statutory authority Income Tax at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the pound was deducted from the dividends payable on the 1st May last on 4 per cent. funding stock and Western Australia 4 per cent. inscribed stock; and by what statutory authority the Board of Inland Revenue, having retained money belonging to the stockholders, now declines to pay it to them except upon their first making an elaborate return as to their income from every source?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The shortness of the interval between the date of the Budget Resolution and the date for payment of this interest precluded correction of the interest warrants, which had
    712
    already been prepared with a deduction at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the £. The warrants were, therefore, issued accompanied by a paper explaining the matter. The contingency which arose is not specifically provided for by law, but the procedure followed accords with Section 2 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913, in relation to deductions made before the passing of the Budget Resolution. As regards the latter part of the question, my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Where a claim relates solely to this over-deduction of tax, the claimant is asked to complete only a simple declaration and statement of particulars.
    Mr. HURD: Does that declaration require a return as to income from every source?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.
    Mr. W. THORNEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the public examination in bankruptcy of a cotton broker in Liverpool, who stated in his evidence that he put £80,000 in his safe, which he had not shown in his Income Tax returns, with a view to evading Income Tax payment; and if he intends taking any action in the matter?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This case is at present under consideration.
    Mr. THORNE: On the termination of this case, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the matter and see whether this man should not be prosecuted for doing what he has already done?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said this case is at present under consideration.
    Mr. THORNE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the man admitted that he put £80,000 away in his safe for the purpose of evading the capital levy tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: This is a matter of an alleged offence against the law. As a responsible Minister, it would not be proper for me to say anything on the subject beyond that the case is under consideration, which means that if there is anything like a primâ facie case that the law has been broken, certain consequences which are right and proper would follow.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that cases of this sort are numerous, and what step is he taking to prevent this form of evasion of payment of tax?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that these cases are numerous, and nothing in the increasing yield of our revenue from practically all sources of taxation would justify such a conclusion.
    Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of communicating with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) for information on this subject?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I should be very glad to receive any information.

    IMPORTED MOTOR-CAR LININGS.
    Mr. RAMSDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that motor-car linings are being imported free of duty; and whether he will consider the advisability of including these under articles subject to the McKenna Duties?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. Friend refers to material, such as cloth or leather imported in the piece, for use in the upholstery of motor cars, I may say that such material would not be charged with motor-car duty, as it is not identifiable on importation as a component part of a motor car. If, however, the material were cut to shape for use in a motor car or had otherwise reached a stage of manufacture which rendered it identifiable as intended to form part of a motor car it would be subject to tax.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that timber is also being imported duty free for making motor car bodies?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: That, again, I think, would fall very readily within the definition I have given.

    SILK DUTY.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what period is required to elapse between the payment
    714
    of the duty on silk, or goods containing silk, and the obtaining possession of the goods?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: In normal circumstances, not more than a few hours need elapse, so far as the Customs Department is concerned, between the time when the duty is paid to the Customs and the time when the goods may be taken away.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is reported that a week at the very least elapses before they get the goods after paying the tax, and will he inquire into it?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The reports I receive do not bear that out.
    Mr. MACKINDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the period allowed to elapse after export before drawback is repaid on goods containing silk?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: On the average about three weeks elapse between date of shipment and payment of drawback.
    Mr. MACKINDER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that is rather too long, and that the people ought to have the money rather than the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As a matter of fact, it is believed that as the system gets more firmly rooted, the rate will be speeded up.
    Mr. HARRIS: Is not this one of the weaknesses of having a tariff?
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not put debating questions.

    NATIONAL DEBT AND TAXATION (COLWYN COMMITTEE).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the Colwyn Committee on National Debt and Taxation was appointed; how many members it comprises; how many meetings have taken place since its appointment; at what intervals its recent meetings have been held and by how many members they have been attended; and whether, in order to assist him in formulating a policy for the reduction of the National Debt, he will invite the Committee to furnish an early Report?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The Committee was appointed on the 20th March, 1924, and

    715
    now consists of 12 members. I understand that 40 meetings have been held, but I am not in a position to give particulars of the attendance of members. The Committee completed the taking of evidence in December and is now engaged in drawing up a comprehensive Report. In view of the wide scope of the inquiry this must necessarily be a task of some magnitude. I can only add that I am assured that the Committee is proceeding with all possible expedition.
    Mr. DALTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Committee is only meeting two days a month, that only four or five members have been attending recent meetings and that the proceedings are in danger of becoming as great a farce as the proceedings of the Meston Committee?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I have had some inquiry made. It is true that the Chairman of the Committee, Lord Colwyn, has been charged by the Government, with the full assent of the House with further heavy public work in connection with economy. It is possible that that may have tended to reduce the number of meetings, but the rate at which the progress of an inquiry of this kind is continued does not necessarily depend upon frequent meetings, but on the continuous study of a very complicated subject by the members of the Committee.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has it never dawned on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mentality [HON. MEMBERS: "Order !"]—to apply the same rule to the National Debt. [Interruption.] You must protect me, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I will protect the hon. Member quite well if he will give me a chance.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am giving you every chance now.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it right and correct for a Member of Parliament to refer to his colleagues as hyenas?
    Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear such a remark.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The question I was about to put when I was interrupted was, whether it has never dawned on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apply the same
    716
    conditions to the individuals to whom we owe the National Debt that have been applied to the Italians and the French? I think that is a question which deserves his serious consideration.
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question for Debate, and not for question now.
    Mr. MAXTON: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us whether the Committee has considered the advantage that would accrue to the nation in this respect from the nationalisation of the Bank of England?
    Mr. CHURCHILL rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

    INLAND REVENUE (SPECIAL INQUIRY BRANCH).
    Major GLYNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to decentralise the special inquiry branch of the Inland Revenue; what is the cost of the establishment now; and what additional cost will be involved should decentralisation take place?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My hon. and gallant Friend refers to a comparatively small section of the taxes establishment, which lends assistance with cases of special intricacy. It is the consistent policy of the Department to locate officers in convenient proximity to business, and this policy is not a cause of increased expenditure. At the present time the annual cost of staff, including qualified accountants, who are employed in this special work is about £49,000.

    FOREIGN FILMS (TAXATION).
    Captain FAIRFAXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the system by which American film production houses register their distributors here as separate companies, show no profits, and pay no tax; if he will inquire into this and consider providing that copies of all contracts between exhibitor and renter should be sent to the Revenue Department so that earnings of foreign films could be calculated and taxed; and, failing this, if he will take other steps to tap this source of revenue?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the provisions of Rules 7 and 8 of the General Rules of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which provide against such an abuse. I will consider the suggestion contained in the latter part of the question as my hon. and gallant Friend desires.
    Sir F. MEYER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to consent to such a course would be contrary to the commercial treaty?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to the matter, and I have said that I am considering the whole subject.

    FRENCH DEBT TO GREAT BRITAIN.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the bargain he made with M. Caillaux as to the payment of the French debt is regarded by His Majesty's Government as still binding on both parties?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

    SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRY.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will issue a statement showing the total expenditure of public money in the form of subsidies to industry since 31st December, 1918?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I will circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as it can be prepared. In the meantime, I would refer the hon. Member to the particulars for the year ended 31st March, 1924, given in a reply (of which I am sending him a copy) to a question by the hon. Member for the Western Isles Division on the 10th March last.

    LAND TAX REVENUE.
    Captain WATERHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the revenue derived from the Land Tax in the last completed financial year and the cost of collection?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The net receipt of the Land Tax for the year 1924–25 was £721,706. I regret that it is not possible to distinguish the cost of collection of
    718
    this tax from the cost of the duties of the Inland Revenue Department generally, as the administration of the Land Tax is inseparably bound up with that of other duties. The amount of fiscal machinery maintained for the special purpose of the Land Tax and involving expenditure is, however, very small.
    Captain WATERHOUSE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of doing away with this tax, which falls chiefly upon the occupiers as distinct from the owners?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am informed that this tax has operated since 1590. I should, therefore, approach any question of changing it with a proper sense of reverence.

    IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECT (ITALY).
    Mr. CAPE(by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that William Ellison, a British subject, employed as a chemist in Italy, has been sentenced by a Florence tribunal to eight months' imprisonment and fined £15 under a new law for using offensive words about the Italian Prime Minister; whether Ellison was defended by counsel commissioned by the British Consulate; and whether representations to mitigate this sentence can be made to the Italian authorities in view of the fact that this appears to have been the first case since the passing of the new Act?
    Mr. DIXEY: I should also like to ask the same question, and as this man is a very reputable constituent of mine I would like to know whether the Under-Secretary has already taken any steps to deal with the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson): My information on the subject is at present confined to accounts contained in the Press, but His Majesty's Ambassador at Rome has been instructed by telegraph to furnish a report. Until that report is received it is impossible for me to reply to the further points raised in the hon. Members' questions.

  IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

    THREE CO-EQUAL SERVICES.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House, before to-day's Debate, on the Air Service, whether the Government have any intention of raising afresh, by inquiry or otherwise, the question of the independent status of the Air Force and Air Ministry?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I think it essential to announce that, in accordance with the policy of successive Administrations, the Government have no intention of re-opening the question of a separate Air arm and Air Ministry. We intend to pursue the organisation of Imperial Defence on the existing basis of three co-equal Services. It is in the interests of the Fighting Services that controversy upon this subject should now cease.
    We are convinced that the way to secure the higher co-ordination in our Defence machinery, indispensable to full efficiency and, indeed, to economy, lies not in the abolition of any one of the three established arms of His Majesty's Forces, but in combined action between all three through the machinery of the Committee of Imperial Defence and the agency of the recently instituted Committee of Chiefs of Staff. We are sure that we can rely upon all concerned to devote themselves loyally and wholeheartedly to this end.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the feasibility of a Ministry of Defence for the co-ordination of the three Services on better lines in view of the economies that would result?
    The PRIME MINISTER: That raises an entirely different question.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Oh, no.
    Mr. BASIL PETO: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that he recently asked Members of this House to make suggestions for economy, and therefore, on the ground of economy alone, is it not desirable that the question referred to in his answer should at least be debated, and that Members should not be understood to be muzzled and not to raise questions of this sort because it has been announced that it is not the policy of His Majesty's Government?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The thought of muzzling never entered my head. A statement on somewhat similar lines has been made by each successive Government. I think it is the appropriate time, when these Estimates come before the House, to make such a statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MacDONALD: Before I ask the Minister about the Business for next week, may I inquire what business he proposes to take to-night?
The PRIME MINISTER: I think I told the House which Votes we wish to pass. The only other business which is exempted business over which the Government have no control, is the Shrewsbury Bishopric Motion, which the promoters desire to bring forward.
Mr. MacDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what business he proposes to take next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday we propose to consider the following Supplementary Estimates in Committee: Royal Commissions; National Library (Scotland); Imperial War Graves Commission; Export Credits; Board of Education; Public Education (Scotland); Board of Control (England); Ministry of Labour; and other business on the Paper. I may say that the Supplementary Estimates for three of these items, a small amount for the Ministry of Labour Export Credits and War Graves Commission, will be available in the Vote Office to-morrow. All the others are in the possession of hon. Members.
Tuesday: The Second Reading of the Trade Facilities Bill and the Public Works Loan Bill; and other business.
Wednesday: The Report Stages of Supplementary Estimates, commencing with the Estimate for the Scottish Board of Health; and other Business on the Paper.
The Business for Thursday I hope to announce on Monday next.
Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking these Votes in the order in which he has read them?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is our intention.
Mr. MAXTON: In arranging the order of the Business next week, will the Prime Minister have regard to the fact that the every-day suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule withdraws from back benches the opportunity of the short Adjournment Debate from 11 to 11.30, which is a very valuable right of the back benches of this House, and will he consider the desirability of leaving us perhaps one night per week for that Adjournment Debate?
The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to that, as hon. Members know, is that always, from now till Easter, more time is allowed to private Members than at any other period of the year. Therefore, it does reduce that hardship to a certain extent. I am aware of the inconvenience of suspending the Eleven o'Clock Rule, and I dislike doing it. But the only alternative at this time of the year is taking all private Members' time. If that were done, instead of suspending the Rule, it would leave the half-hour for the Adjournment Debate, but I do not think such a step would be any more popular. It is a disability under which we all labour between now and Easter—the amount of financial business that must be got through by a certain date—and it has been found
that Members do suffer under that disability, whatever Government is in power.
Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is it not a fact that a great deal of private Members' time is taken up with the discussion of Private Bills, and that it frequently happens that Motions put down have sometimes only half-an-hour or three-quarters-of-an-hour for discussion?
The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad my right hon. Friend has mentioned that, because it aggravates the position. It is peculiarly unfortunate, for just at this time of the Session there does seem to be a larger number of Private Bills than usual, and over the disposition of those Bills, as my right hon. Friend knows, the Leader of the House has no authority.
Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Will my right hon. Friend fix Easter a little later?
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, 246; Noes, 106.

Division No. 49.]

AYES.

[3.52 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Finburgh, S.

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

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Forestler-Walker, Sir L.

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

Forrest, W.

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

Charteris, Brigadler-General J.

Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Ganzonl, Sir John

Apsley, Lord

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Gates, Percy

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

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)

Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.

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

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Cooper, A. Duff

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Balniel, Lord

Cope, Major William

Goff, Sir Park

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Couper, J. B.

Gower, Sir Robert

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-

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

Grace, John

Berry, Sir George

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Gretton, Colonel John

Betterton, Henry B.

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

Grotrian, H. Brent

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Cainsbro)

Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

Blades, Sir George Rowland

Curtis-Bennett, Sir Henry

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Blundeil, F. N.

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

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

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

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

Brass, Captain W.

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

Henbury, C.

Brassey, Sir Leonard

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

Harland, A.

Briggs, J. Harold

Dawson, Sir Philip

Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)

Briscoe, Richard George

Dean, Arthur Wellesley

Harrison, G. J. C.

Brittain, Sir Harry

Dixey, A. C.

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Edwards, John H. (Accrington)

Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

Buckingham, Sir H.

Elliot, Captain Walter E.

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

Bullock, Captain M.

Elveden, Viscount

Haslam, Henry C.

Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s,-M.)

Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.

Butler, Sir Geoffrey

Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith

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

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Campbell, E. T.

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)

Fermoy, Lord

Hills, Major John Waller

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

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard

Margesson, Capt. D.

Savery, S. S.

Holland, Sir Arthur

Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

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

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

Meller, R. J.

Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Merriman, F. B.

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

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Meyer, Sir Frank

Skelton, A. N.

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

Milen, J. S. Wardlaw-

Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

Smithers, Waldron

Hume, Sir G. H.

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Huntingfield, Lord

Moore, Sir Newton J.

Sport, Sir Alexander

Hurd, Percy A.

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

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

lliffe, Sir Edward M.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Stanley, Lord (Fylde)

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Murchison, C. K.

Storry-Deans, R.

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

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

Jacob, A. E.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

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

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

Jephcott, A. R.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.

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

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Tasker, Major R. Inigo

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Nuttail, Ellis

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)

Oakley, T.

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

King, Captain Henry Douglas

O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh

Thomson, Rt. Hon. St. W. Mitchell-

Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Tinne, J. A.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Pennefather, Sir John

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Lamb, J. Q.

Penny, Frederick George

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

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

Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Warner, Brigdler-General W. W.

Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)

Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Warrender, Sir Victor

Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)

Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

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

Preston, William

Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

Loder, J. de V.

Price, Major C. W. M.

Watts, Dr. T.

Looker, Herbert William

Radford, E. A.

Wells, S. R.

Lougher, L.

Raine, W.

Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

Ramsden, E.

Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Rawson, Sir Alfred Cooper

Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

Lumley, L. R.

Rees, Sir Beddoe

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Lynn, Sir Robert J.

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

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

MacAndrew, Charles Glen

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Macintyre, Ian

Ropner, Major L.

Wise, Sir Fredric

McLean, Major A.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

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

Macmillan, Captain H.

Rye, F. G.

Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)

Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

Salmon, Major I.

Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)

McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Maitland. Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Makins, Brigadier-General E.

Sanderson, Sir Frank

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Sir H. Barnston and Major Hennessy.

Malone, Major P. B.

Sandon, Lord

NOES.

Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

Paling, W.

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

Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)

Pethick-Lawrence, F W.

Ammon, Charles George

Hardie, George D.

Ponsonby, Arthur

Attlee, Clement Richard

Harris, Percy A.

Potts, John S.

Baker, Walter

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

Riley, Ben

Barnes, A.

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

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

Barr, J.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Rose, Frank H.

Batey, Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Beckett. John (Gateshead)

Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

Saklatavala, Shapurji

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

John, William (Rhondda, West)

Salter, Dr. Alfred

Broad, F. A.

Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Scrymgeour, E.

Bromley, J.

Jones, Morgan (Caerpnilly)

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Sexton, James

Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

Kennedy, T.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Cape, Thomas

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

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Charleton, H. C.

Kirkwood, D.

Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)

Cluse, W. S.

Lansbury, George

Sitch, Charles H.

Clynes, Right Hon. John R.

Lee, F.

Smith, H. B. Lees-(Keighley)

Compton, Joseph

Livingstone, A. M.

Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

Connolly, M.

Lowth, T.

Snell, Harry

Dalton, Hugh

Lunn, William

Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

Stamford, T. W.

Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)

Mackinder, W.

Stephen, Campbell

Day, Colonel Harry

MacNeill-Weir, L.

Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

Dennison, R.

March, S.

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

Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

Maxton, James

Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)

Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

Montague, Frederick

Thurtie, E.

Gillett, George M.

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

Townend, A. E.

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Naylor, T. E.

Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Groves, T.

Oilver, George Harold

Viant, S. P.

Grundy, T. W.

Palin, John Henry

Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

724

725

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.

Welsh, J. C.

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Whiteley, W.

Windsor, Walter

Williams, David (Swansea, E.)

Wright, W.

Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the execution of diligence in Scotland." [Execution of Diligence (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]
MERCHANDISE MARKS ACTS (1887 TO 1911) AMENDMENT BILL,
"to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1911, in their application to certain articles dealt with in the fancy jewellery and allied trades," presented by Mr. HANNON; supported by Sir Evelyn Cecil, Sir Francis Lowe, Sir Edward Iliffe, Sir Philip Dawson, Mr. Burman, Mr. Jephcott, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Commander Oliver Locker-Lampson, and Mr. Preston; to be read a Second time upon Monday, 15th March, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

SELECTION (UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES (PANEL))
Mr. "WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Panel appointed to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees: Major Birchall; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Bertram Falle.
Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

  STANDING COMMITTEE A.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee A: Mr. Barclay-Harvey, Captain Bourne, Mr. Broad, Mr. Cape, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Duff Cooper, Major Crawfurd, Captain Crookshank, Dr. Vernon Davies, Mr. Everard, Mr. Griffiths, Sir Robert Hamilton, Major Harvey, Captain Robert Henderson, Lieut.-Colonel Vivian Henderson, Captain Austin Hudson, Mr. James Hudson, Lord Huntingfield, Mr. Jacob, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Brigadier-General Makins, Mr. Paling, Mr. Basil Peto, Mr. Sandeman,
  726
  Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Townend, Mr. Wall-head, Lieut.-Colonel Dalrymple White, Mr. Herbert Williams, and Major Yerburgh.
  Mr. WILLIAM. NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had nominated Standing Committee A as the Committee on which Government Bills shall not have precedence.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following twenty-five Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Re-election of Ministers Bill): Major Attlee, Captain Bullock, Mr. Connolly, Sir Martin Conway, Mr. Evan Davies, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Dunnico, Lord Erskine, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Grotrian, Captain Hacking, Mr. Hurst, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Macquisten, Sir John Marriott, Lieut.-Colonel Mason, Mr. Murchison, Mr. Nuttall, Mr. O Neill, Sir John Simon, Major Oliver Stanley, Mr. Roy Wilson, Mr. Crompton Wood, and Colonel Vaughan-Morgan.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty-five Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Criminal Justice (Increase of Penalties) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Captain Ainsworth, Mr. Albery, Mr. Batey, Mr. Beckett, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Dennison, Mr. Hugh Edwards, Lord Erskine, Captain. Fairfax, Mr. Greaves-Lord, Mr. Grotrian, Captain Hacking, Mr. Harney, Mr. Hawke, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. William Hirst, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Lee, Mr. Merriman, Mr. Oakley, Captain O'Connor, Colonel Perkins, Mr. Rye, and Sir Henry Slesser.

  SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That the following Members representing Scottish constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee:—Mr. William Adamson, Sir William Alexander, the Duchess of Atholl, Mr. Barclay-Harvey,

  727
  Mr. Barr, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Sir George Berry, Mr. Boothby, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Brigadier-General Charteris, Commander Cochrane, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Couper, Mr. Cowan, Sir Henry Craik, Colonel Crookshank, the Earl of Dalkeith, Captain Elliot, Commander Fanshawe, Sir Patrick Ford, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Sir Harry Hope, Sir Robert Home, Lieut. - General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Clark Hutchison, Sir Robert Hutchison, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Mr. Kidd, Mr. Kirkwood, Major Lindsay, Mr. Livingstone, Major MacAndrew, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Robert MacDonald, Mr. Maclntyre, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Macquisten, Mr. MacRobert, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Rosslyn Mitchell, Mr. Stephen Mitchell, Lieut.-Colonel Moore, Mr. Murnin, Mr. Rose, Mr. Scrymgeour, Colonel Mclnnes Shaw, Dr. Shiels, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Skelton, Mr. Robert Smith, Sir Alexander Sprot, Mr. Stephen, Mr. James Stewart, Captain Streatfeild, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Templeton, Colonel Thorn, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. McLean Watson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Welsh, Mr. Westwood, Mr. Wheatley, and Mr. Wright.
  Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Allotments (Scotland) Bill): The Lord Advocate, Lord Balniel, Captain Bourne, Mr. Crawfurd, Major George Davies, Lord Fermoy, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. Harmsworth, Colonel James, Mr. March, Mr. Ritson, Mr. Robinson, Major Steel, Mr. Whiteley, and Mr. Charles Williams.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.
    AIR ESTIMATES, 1926–7.
    Order for Committee read.

    SIR SAMUEL HOARE'S STATEMENT.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The Prime Minister, in answer to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, made it quite clear that the existence of an independent Air Ministry and an independent Air Force to carry out the air needs of the country is an established part of the programme of every party. I am glad that a statement of that kind should have been made, because I am quite sure that the longer the idea remains in existence that the question is an open one the worse it is for the relations between the three Services and the more difficult it is for the Air Ministry and the Air Force to carry out their already difficult duties. I propose to say a word or two about the relations between the Forces at the end of my speech, but I think the House would wish me, at the very opening of this Debate, to emphasise the importance of the statement just made by the Prime Minister.
    The House will see that the Estimates of this year do not differ substantially from the Estimates of last year. On the one hand, there is a gross reduction of about £500,000, and on the other hand, there is a net increase of about the same amount. I think the House will be glad to know that the greater part of the gross reduction of £500,000 is due to a reduction upon the Middle East Vote. It was one of the objects of the flying visit that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and I made to Iraq last year to reduce Imperial expenditure upon the defence of Iraq. The reduction will show that we were successful to some extent, but Sir John Higgins, the Air Vice-Marshal in command, and Sir Henry Dobbs, the High Commissioner, have been even more successful in enabling a reduction in the Imperial Forces to take
    766
    place at a time when there has been a very difficult international situation and when many people would have thought that an increase rather than a reduction of garrison would have been needed. So far as the net Estimates are concerned, the increase is mainly due to the larger number of squadrons formed under the Home Defence scheme. That increase would have been considerably greater if we had not had the loyal co-operation of the officers of the Air Ministry and Air Force generally and the advice of the Colwyn Committee, which has enabled me to make numerous economies over the whole field of Air administration.
    I maintain—this is the question which the House will consider to-day—that upon the whole we have maintained in these Estimates a balance between two needs, the one the need for a stronger Air Force, and the other the need for reducing expenditure at this moment to the lowest possible point, and I am here to-day to ask hon. Members to test the strength of that claim by examining the policy of which these Esitmates are the outward expression. I am glad to think that I need not delay to describe in great detail the main outlines of our Air policy. Upon the whole, they have remained substantially the same for the last three years: First of all, the duty of providing a Home Defence Force against possible air attack; secondly, the duty of carrying out the air work for the Navy and the Army; thirdly, the duty of providing air garrisons in such parts of the Empire as are suited to them; and, lastly, the duty of developing Empire air communications, and, generally, of expanding the knowledge and the practice of air into all sections of the community in this country.
    I think those broad outlines of air policy are accepted generally by all parties in the House, and it is for the House to-day to ask themselves these two questions: First of all, are these broad outlines of air policy being carried out in the proposals which I am making to the House this afternoon; and, secondly, are they being carried out in an economical manner and without waste of money? I propose, in these opening remarks, to devote myself to the first of these two questions, the question of air policy, and to await the criticisms and suggestions of hon. Members before I

    767
    deal with the second question, the question of economy and expenditure. For the moment, I should only like to say that I have been amazed by some of the wild statements that have been made about Air Force administration in the last few weeks, and that I shall hope, before the end of these Debates, to give a full and, I believe, a convincing answer to all these charges.

    HOME DEFENCE.
    The first duty of the Air Force, and by far the most important, is to provide air defence against possible air attack, a duty that has been admitted by successive Governments and by all parties in the House, and consisting in its concrete form in the provision of a force of 52 squadrons. Three years ago, when I had the privilege of being Secretary of State for Air before, there were only three squadrons allocated to home defence. There are now 25, and at the end of the financial year there will be 28. To-day we are in the position of being the second greatest air Power in the world, leaving out of account for the moment the Air Force of Russia, about which I have no official knowledge. But, even so, we are still in an inferiority of rather less than one to two as compared with our nearest neighbour.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: One to three.
    Sir S. HOARE: No, one to two, compared with the strength of our nearest neighbour. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is comparing our Home Defence Force with the Metropolitan Air Force of our nearest neighbour. I am comparing total strengths.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Might I make this point clear? The right hon. Gentleman cannot count our squadrons on the North-west Frontier of India and in Iraq in comparing our Home Defence Force with the forces of France.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am not making the comparison with our Horn© Defence Force. I said specifically that I am comparing the total forces. Comparing total forces with total forces, we are in an inferiority of rather less than one to two. I do not want to modify or to withdraw any single
    768
    statement that I have ever made in this House or outside as to the weakness of that position, however friendly may be our relations with our nearest neighbour; and there is no question to-day of underrating this weakness or of scrapping in any detail our programme of Air Force expansion.
    The only question before the House—and I draw the attention of hon. Members to it as strongly as I can—is whether, as a result of the events of the last 12 months, it is justifiable for the Government and the country to take a somewhat longer period for the completion of their programme, than they would otherwise have taken. The question was a difficult one for the Government to decide. On the one hand, there was the urgent need of a stronger Air Force. On the other hand, there was the admitted need of keeping down public expenditure to the lowest possible limit, and over and above these two domestic questions, there was the new situation created in the field of international politics by the signing of the Locarno Treaty. Every hon. Member has an equal right to form his own opinion as to whether or not the signing of the Locarno Treaty is going to bring about a new phase in European politics, as a result of which it will be possible to make great reductions in national armaments. I am not so rash as to make any prophecy on the subject, but I do say, and I believe it is a view shared by many hon. Members in all parts of the House, that at the very lowest estimate, the signing of the Treaty, under which the great Powers of Europe guarantee each other against unwarranted aggression, makes the risk of war in the near future less than it was before. To that extent, it surely justifies us in taking a somewhat longer period than we should otherwise have taken, for the completion of our expansion programme.
    Hon. Members whilst, possibly, following me so far, may say "That is all very well, but supposing the international situation grew worse, would not this slowing down make it more difficult for us to expand our programme again at a quicker rate? Again, would not this slowing down injure the aircraft industry which, after all, is the basis of aircraft expansion in time of war, and to that extent may it not be more difficult in the future to meet the international situation

    769
    should the international situation, contrary to our expectations, become worse." Let me deal with these two questions First let me say that whilst I do not deny for a moment that a slowing down of the programme will make it more difficult and probably more expensive, to carry out that programme in the long run, there are reasons why the Air Force do not altogether regret a slight slowing down in the pace of our expansion. It will give us an opportunity, a breathing space, for more intensive training. It will give us an opportunity, when we are not overwhelmed with problems of quantitative expansion, for raising the already high standard of the quality of the Force. Suppose, for instance, during this breathing space we can improve the fighting efficiency of the squadrons by—to take two or three examples—increasing their bombing accuracy, developing the tactics of flying in formation, and enabling them to get more quickly off the ground than they do at present, then I think the House will agree, that whilst our expansion so far as quantity goes may not be great in the ensuing year, yet we may make a substantial addition to the quality and fighting strength of the Force.
    Let me give the House another example. During last year we started upon a programme of long-distance flights for the purpose of testing the range and endurance of Air Force units. We propose to develop this policy still further during the next 12 months. Last year the Air Force carried out a series of remarkable long-distance flights in the neighbourhood of the British Isles. Here are one or two of them. On 24th September, five Vickers' Virginias, from No. 9 Bombing Squadron, flew from Manston, in Kent, to Leuchars, the most northerly air station in the British Isles, and back to Manston in a day, a distance of 870 miles. A second flight was undertaken by eight Vickers' Virginias from Worthy Down, in Hampshire, again to Leuchars, on 3rd September. Although the weather was very bad three of the machines flew from Hampshire to Edinburgh and back without landing.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: With full service load?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, with full service load, and as an ordinary service exercise, and not in any way as a stunt. They flew
    770
    a distance of about 800 miles, spending as much as 12¼ hours continuously in the air. Here is a third example, in an exercise carried out by a flight of Southampton flying boats—the new type of flying boats—which flew, in September, from Calshot, on the Solent, to Carrickfergus, on Belfast Lough, spent several days in manœuvring off the coasts of Scotland and Ireland, carried out exercises with the Fleet in a period of such bad weather that it almost brought the Army manœuvres to an end, and at the end of this period came back to Calshot without any mishap after flying a total distance of 10,000 miles. I quote those examples to show the House the kind of intensive training which we have already commenced and the kind of training which we shall carry out during the next 12 months—during this breathing space, if I may so term it, in our expansion programme.

    AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY.
    There is another question, and a difficult one, connected with the proposal for slowing down the programme. That is the problem of the aircraft industry. Obviously, the aircraft idustry is essential to the expansion of the Force in any time of emergency. It is no good denying the fact that the aircraft industry has many difficult problems to face. It is in a peculiarly difficult position through the fact that, unlike any other great industry in this or any other country, it is almost entirely dependent on the orders of a single Government Department. In the case of other great industries, there are private customers who give orders, and the industry is not entirely dependent on one Government Department. This means that in the case of the aircraft industry a change in Government policy reacts with particular force upon the industry because it has no other customer. I do not under-rate the fact that the slowing down of the programme means fewer orders for the aircraft industry. At the same time, I ask the House not to be carried away by the alarmist statements that have been made in certain quarters to the effect that this slowing down will mean ruin and disaster to the industry as a whole.
    The House may be interested to note that, even with this slowing down, the orders that the industry will receive and the payments that will be made to it

    771
    during the 12 months 1926–27 will represent the third largest amount paid to it since the War. I admit there will be a reduction upon the figures of last year, but the total will be the third largest which the industry has received since the war, and, comparing the figures for 1926–27 with the figures for the period when I previously held this office, it will be found that the amount to be paid out to the industry will be no less than £3,500,000 more than it was in 1922. That shows that whilst there is no denying the fact that the industry will be the weaker for this slowing down of the expansion programme, there is not, in my view, any cause for extreme alarm or for anticipation of impending disaster. Naturally, I shall make it my business, by spreading the orders as far as possible, to keep together as many key men as I can in the various firms. Naturally, also, I shall adopt every legitimate expedient to make it as easy as possible for the staffs of the firms to remain with them.
    There is another way in which I think I shall be able to help the industry to some extent in tiding over this difficult period. It has been urged, time after time, upon me as upon my predecessors, that one of the difficulties under which the industry has laboured has been that owing to restrictions—which were necessary, no doubt, in the period immediately after the War—it has been impossible for British aircraft firms and engine firms to sell anything but obsolescent types in foreign markets. I have been considering the position with my advisers, and have come to the conclusion that it is now safe and legitimate to withdraw many of those restrictions and, by this means, to enable British firms to sell their newer types in foreign markets a great deal sooner than they would be able to do without the withdrawal of the restrictions. I hope, as a result, it will be possible for the British firms to be less exclusively dependent on a single Government Department here and that it will help them to build up for themselves markets abroad for British machines and British engines—than which there are no better anywhere in the world. I have put these facts before the House, as I wish to make it clear at the outset of my speech that the Government did not ignore the diffi-
    772
    cult position of the industry when they decided on the temporary slowing down of the expansion programme.
    If I may sum up this part of my observations, I would say that the position is as follows: The Government have decided that the expansion programme should remain intact. Their decision means nothing more nor less than that the programme will be eventually carried out, but that, as a result of the signing of the Locarno Treaty, it is possible to take a longer period for carrying it out than would have been the case if no Treaty had been signed. I contend that that is a justifiable position, and I cannot but believe that it is a position that will have the support of the great majority of the Members of the House.

    CO-OPERATION WITH NAVY AND ARMY.
    Now I come to the second objective of air policy—namely, the creation of Empire air communications, but before I say a word or two about that objective, I should like to mention in passing the excellent work that the Air Force is carrying out for the Navy, the Army, and the Empire garrisons overseas. So far as the Fleet Air Arm is concerned, it is now equipped entirely with post-War types, and I can say, without fear of contradiction, that its flying personnel is the most efficient of any similar flying personnel anywhere in the world. So far as the Army squadrons are concerned, there again we have been maintaining the system of the closest possible co-operation with the Army, and I think I may say, certainly on behalf of the Air Force, and probably on behalf of the Army as well, that we learned very valuable lessons at the Army Manœuvres on Salisbury Plain last autumn. As far as the Empire garrisons are concerned, I will not say anything to-day about the work of the Air Force in Iraq, because the House has already had its attention called to the excellence of that work on several occasions lately. I would only, in passing, allude to a remarkable air operation that was recently carried out on the north-west frontier of India, an operation that was interesting for this reason, that it was the first occasion upon which the Air Force in India has been allowed to operate independently of the support of any ground forces. The experiment was altogether successful. The

    773
    operation was carried out in a very few weeks, and it was carried out with practically no casualties at all.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Not to the other side?
    Sir S. HOARE: With very small casualties indeed to the other side—much smaller casualties than would have been the case with a long-drawn-out campaign. I do not linger upon this part of the subject, for the good reason that our policy with the Fleet and the Army and the garrisons overseas remains the same, and the House already understands it.

    EMPIRE AIR ROUTES.
    I pass at once to the question of Empire air communications, a question which is just as important upon the military side as upon the civil side, for, obviously, if we can develop over the Empire a system of air communications, it will make it much easier to develop a more mobile Empire defence, a subject upon which I ventured to speak at some length in my Estimates speech of last year. Upon the civil side, it seems to me that the development of Empire air communications should be the very basis of our civil flying policy. As far as the military side of the question goes, we have carried out during the last 12 months one remarkable long-distance flight within the Empire, and we propose to carry out more flights in the immediate future and in the 12 months 1926–27.
    The flight that we carried out in the autumn was a flight from Cairo to Nigeria, a flight carried out by one of the units on the spot in Egypt, without any special preparations and with ordinary service machines. The flight was over some very difficult country, a distance of 6,268 miles, and it was completed without any mishap of any kind in 80 flying hours. From the flying point of view, it was an unqualified success, hut I am informed that from the political point of view, the broader Empire point of view, it was just as great a success. The amount of interest that was taken in it over this route between Egypt and Nigeria is almost incredible. Hundreds of thousands of natives gathered to see the arrival of the machines, and Emirs in considerable numbers were taken up for joy-rides,
    774
    some of them with so many clothes that the pilots had to tie rope round them for fear of some of the articles falling off into the tailplane. One of them, after he had got into the aeroplane, became so nervous that he lay on his face for the whole period of the flight, and when he was safely deposited upon the aerodrome, at the end of the flight, he could not believe that he had been up in the air at all. The pilots were generally addressed as "bird-masters." One of the Emirs said to one of them that "the English had brought trains, then motor cars, and then the wind train, and there was only Allah left to see." The flight showed that it was possible to bring Nigeria and Egypt within a week by air, whereas by motor car it would have taken a month, and by primitive native transport more than six months.
    We propose to continue these Empire flights during the next 12 months, and next week there is to begin another service flight from Cairo to Cape Town, to be carried out by four Fairey 3D machines, with Napier Lion engines, over a distance of 5,289 miles. This flight, again, is to be carried out as an ordinary service exercise with a number of machines flying in formation. It is important from the serivce point of view, but important also from the point of view that it is blazing the trail of future Imperial air routes. Then, in the ensuing year, we propose to carry out a long distance flight with service flying boats. There has been a marked development with flying boats in recent times. I, myself, had the pleasure of making a flight in one of them over the North Sea last year, and we intend during next year to make a long-distance flying boat flight with a formation of flying boats, probably to Egypt. I quote these instances to show the House how important upon the military side are these long-distance flights, and how important they are also from the point of view of laying the foundations for future civil Empire air routes.
    Now I come to the civil policy. Upon the civil side, we hope, during the next 12 months, to make a definite start with the aeroplane route to India. I have kept hon. Members informed as to the progress of the negotiations for the start of an aeroplane route to India, and not later than next January the first section of this route will actually be started,

    775
    between Egypt and Karachi. An important point for the House to note to-day is that the route will be started with the most up-to-date machines that can possibly be obtained—up-to-date machines with three engines. Hon. Members who know anything of that route will realise the importance of starting it with machines and engines that will not run the risk of a forced landing, and I have every hope that, not only will this section of the route be started satisfactorily next year, but that it will stimulate so great a demand for extensions of it that at no distant date we shall have a through aeroplane route, not only from Egypt to India, but from London to India, and possibly, when we have got to India, to Rangoon and even to Singapore. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah, Singapore!"] No, I have no military objective in mind when I speak of a possible extension of the India route, and I feel—and I think hon. Members opposite will agree with this—that the longer an aeroplane route is to be extended, the greater is the advantage over other means of transport, and the more likely it is, therefore, to succeed.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why not go on to Sydney, to Australia?
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir S. HOARE: I should hope eventually to go on to Australia as well, but that question brings me to the other side of the civil Empire air route question.

    AIRSHIPS.
    I refer to airships. There, as the House knows, we are engaged upon a policy of building two great airships which, we believe, will lessen the journey between London and the various capitals of the Dominions by two-thirds of the time that is now taken. We have had an eventful year during the last 12 months with our airship programme. Hon. Members will no doubt at once remember the fine achievement of the R.33 last spring. They will also be interested to know that we obtained from that flight, and from subsequent flights that were made by the R.33, much valuable experience and data for the construction of the two big airships. Indeed, I go so far as to say that the Government have never entered upon a great experiment with more caution and with more desire to avail
    776
    themselves to the full of the experience of the past and of the lessons of science than we have shown in developing this airship programme.
    To-day I will not be so bold as to make a prophecy as to when the programme will be completed, or when the two airships will be regularly flying between London and distant parts, but I do think I am not over-sanguine when I tell the House that I see no reason at present why, before this Parliament comes to an end, these two airships should not be flying regularly between London and distant parts of the Empire, and saving two-thirds of the time that is now taken by other methods of transport. In any case, I think these observations upon our Empire air communications policy will at least show the House that the Air Ministry and I attach enormous importance to it, and that we regard it as one of the basic foundations of any national air policy.

    TRAINING OF AN AIR PEOPLE.
    I now come to the third and last principal objective of our national air policy, the creation of an instructed public opinion upon air questions, and an expansion of air knowledge and air practice in a much wider circle than at present exists. Year after year hon. Members during these Debates have pressed upon the House the necessity of stimulating the air sense of the nation. This is a fine-sounding phrase, but I feel sure hon. Members to-day will desire to know, not what we are saying about the creation of an air sense for the nation, but what we are actually doing, and, with the approval of the House, I will point to one or two directions in which we have tried in a concrete way to get more people to understand about the importance of air defence and flying generally, and to teach more people a knowledge of practical flying in the country.
    First of all, there is the attempt that we are making by the creation of auxiliary and special reserve squadrons to interest more people in the problems of air defence. The experiment was started last year. We are not forcing the pace. We think it is much better to build our foundations securely, and not, at the very outset, to try to get in large numbers of officers and men, and rear too quickly an excessively big structure. But

    777
    the experiment has developed sufficiently for me to say that, in my view, it looks like developing into a big movement. I have visited the great industrial centres in which we have started these squadrons—Glasgow and Edinburgh, for instance; I have also seen some of the squadrons in London, and I have been much impressed by the great interest of these cities, and particularly the industrial communities, in the development of these squadrons. I believe they will be the means not only of strengthening our air defence, and of strengthening it in a much cheaper way than would be the case if we were depending entirely on regular squadrons, but, perhaps more important than that, of bringing the industrial life of our great cities into much closer and direct connection with the problem of air defence.
    There is another direction in which we are attempting to develop this air sense. We are attempting to bring air development into much closer connection than it has ever been before with the scientific life of the country. We feel we have got so many difficult problems to solve that we need not only the Research Department of the Air Ministry, but the wider world of science outside to help. In the last few weeks, as an outward expression of this policy, we have brought into being two organisations called "Squadrons" at Oxford and Cambridge, for the purpose of bringing air development into much closer connection with the scientific life of the universities. We have also reorganised the Department of Research at the Air Ministry, and there is now a director of scientific research, whose special duty it is to keep in touch with the scientific development of aviation, not only under the Air Ministry, but in the country at large. I think I can claim that, as a result of this policy, there is already a closer connection between the scientific work of the Air Ministry and the scientific life of the nation outside than there has been in any year since the War. I hope, during the next 12 months, we shall see this close connection even closer, for, after all, we are faced at the Air Ministry with many very difficult problems. Indeed, my advisers tell me that we have reached a turning-point—and a very important turning-point—in the development of aeronautical flying science. There is the problem, for instance, of the control and the stability
    778
    of the aeroplane—a problem which, every hon. Member will see, is vital in the development of flying, and it is a problem upon which we have reached a very important point. Much theoretical and experimental work has been done upon it, and a great advance has been made. We look forward in the near future to advancing still further, and going far to solve one of the root problems—perhaps the root problem—of flying altogether.
    There is another problem which has reached a very interesting stage—the problem of the substitution of metal for wood in machines. It is a problem that is of great importance to a country like ours, which has hitherto had to import so much of its wood from foreign countries, but which has always held a foremost place in the world as a metal-producing country. Then there is the problem connected with what is called the "boosting" and "super-charging" of engines, that is to say, the attempt to get out of an engine a much greater horsepower in proportion to its weight. That is a problem, again, in regard to which we have reached a very important point. Lastly—if I may mention another very important series of aeronautical problems—there are the problems connected with the invention of what is called the "autogiro," which, perhaps, I may describe in rather commoner language as the "flapper" of the air. It is satisfactory to know that the Research officials of the Air Ministry were the first to realise the importance of this invention. We made the first experiment, during the autumn, and without any delay we have given orders for the construction of a number of machines to test fully what may be a really important development in the history of flying.
    I have ventured to put before the House these examples of the research problems with which we are immediately faced, to emphasise the importance of the attempt we are making to bring the scientific world and the country outside into much closer connection with the departmental work of the Air Ministry. I pass from that to our attempts to bring flying more within the reach of the ordinary citizen. I would remind the House of the fact that now, at last, we have started the experiment of light aeroplane clubs. I spoke of them in my Estimates speech last year, and I am glad to-day to be able to inform the

    779
    House that there are now several of these clubs in existence, with a membership already of about 1,000. I can say from my own personal experience that the greatest interest is being taken in them in the various centres in which we have formed them.
    The last example with which I will trouble the House in connection with our attempts to create an air sense in the country, is the attempt that we are making to bring the Air Force itself into closer connection with industry. As hon. Members know, a large number of our officers are short-service officers, and, obviously, it would be greatly to the advantage of these officers if we could find careers for them when they leave the Force, just as it would be of the greatest importance to industry as a whole if we did bring into it this new strain of practical experience from the Air Force. We are trying—and I hope hon. Members will help us in this attempt—to make the bridge as broad as we can between the Air Force and the great industries like the engineering industry. I am glad to think that the Institute of Mechanical Engineers has already substantially helped us by counting the training in the Air Force as a part of the training that is necessary for the entrants and associates in the Institute, and I would appeal to-day, if I may, not only to employers, but also to hon. Members opposite, who have great influence with the unions, to help us in making this bridge as broad as we can between the Air Force and industry as a whole. From the point of view of the Service it will be a great help to us and from the point of view of the nation generally. I am sure it will go far to extending the air sense through the country as a whole if we can base this problem of air defence as broadly as we can on the industrial life of the nation as a whole.
    5.0 P.M.
    That, in broad outline, is the problem upon which we are engaged to-day. Those are the main objectives of our Air programme. Those are the main reasons for the £16,000,000 for which I come to ask the House this afternoon. I think hon. Members will agree that it is a very big programme, and one upon which we need the concentrated efforts of everyone concerned. I say, specially, the concentrated
    780
    efforts of everyone concerned for this reason, that during the last five or six years—I am not imputing blame to anybody—a great part of the time of the Air Ministry staff and its officials has been taken up with meeting the situation created by sudden changes of Government policy, and also with controversies over our Air organisation. I hope that these sudden changes of policy will now cease; the slowing down of our expansion programme means no change in our policy and nothing more than I told the House it meant at the opening of my speech. So far as the controversies are concerned, I hope that they are ended by the statement that the Prime Minister—I understand with the acceptance of the Leader of the Opposition—made at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon. From the point of view of the Air Force it would make it far less difficult for us if we could concentrate our undivided attention on the tasks that we still need to complete. The Air Force has now an established place in the life of the nation, an established place in defence—an established place to meet an urgent national need.
    We shall welcome the opportunity of devoting our undivided attention to this task, and it will enable us to carry it out much more satisfactorily if we can really do so without much of our time being spent in controversies or attempts to meet changes in policy. May I go further and say, as one of the Service Ministers, from the point of the three Services generally, I am quite sure that when once all this controversy is cut out of the picture, the relations between the three Services will be much closer than ever before. Certainly so far as my advisers and I are concerned, we shall do everything in our power to make this co-operation as close as ever we can, and to apply our policy in such a way as to secure the greatest possible amount of unity of outlook between the three Services as a whole, and by that means combine the keenness of those in the Air Service with the fine traditions and varied experience of the two older forces.
    Major ATTLEE: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the very illuminating and interesting account he has given us of his Air Estimates. He has provided us with many points of interest in relating the various incidents in the life of the Air Force. I

    781
    think the most interesting thing of all, to me at all events, was the revelation that his speech gave of his own outlook and point of view with regard to the whole question of defence. In the remarks I propose to address to the House I want to deal first of all with the broad questions of policy that these Estimates raise and later with certain specific points on the matter of economy.
    The first question one has to take note of in dealing with the Estimates is, What is the function of this Service for which we are asked to provide £16,000,000? The Minister gave us four objectives of the Air Force, and he said—and I think we shall all agree with him—that by far the most important was its position as a home defence force, but I think Members will have noticed that throughout his speech he said very little indeed about defence. He did not indicate either what he meant by air defence or against what particular menace we required to be defended. The only reference I found at all with regard to the functions of the force for defence was a rather haphazard reference to bombs. I have always considered bombs to be a very offensive method—I have always found them extremely offensive myself when I have met them—and it seemed to me that what he really meant by a home defence force was a counterattacking force of such size as would counterbalance some hostile attacking force, for an Air Force is not really a defence force at all.
    We have here an actual increase in strength, a real increase in expenditure on this Air Force, an expenditure of £16,000,000 on this arm alone, and nearly £20,000,000 when we consider the Middle East Service and the Naval Service. This is a defence force, but a defence scheme, of which we have heard a good deal this afternoon, cannot be considered in vacuo. It must have reference to some apprehended danger. It is obviously necessary from the strategical point of view. Any man, whether he be a military or naval man or an air man, in considering defence questions, must consider what is the menace against which we are to be defended, where it is coming from, and so forth. Any consideration of past controversies with regard to the disposition of our defences will show that they always have reference
    782
    to the particular international position in which we find ourselves at the time. An obvious instance was the new assemblage of our Fleet which followed on the Entente with France, at the beginning of the present century.
    The first question I find myself moved to ask the Government is "What is the potential menace against which you are arming yourselves, and against which you have this defence?" What we are asked to provide in this Estimate is a continuation of a policy laid down in 1923 by the right hon. Gentleman himself, a scheme of development, as he said, starting from a quite small force, and working up, I think he said, to 54 squadrons eventually. He took this to be something that was entirely an agreed policy. He said we had agreed to work up to 1928 on a certain curve of increasing strength, and the only thing he said about these Estimates was that we were continuing that same policy, only we had slightly retarded it. When we look at this bill for defence, we want to have regard to the difference between the position in 1923 and the position to-day. In 1923 we were in a position of considerable international tension. Let me recall it to hon. Members. The French were in the Ruhr. We had had repeated conferences and repeated breakdowns of conferences, and the situation was difficult. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing his Estimates in 1923, said:
    "The simple fact that one of the Great Powers should attach such importance to the air arms forces the question upon us whether we, the other Great European Power, are giving the British air arm sufficient support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1923; cols. 1609–10, Vol. 161.]
    We cannot get away from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman at that time was thinking of France. He said he was not arming against France, but merely thinking of France. To-day, when he sought for some instances to compute our strength, he again thought of France, and his whole speech was informed with the war mind all through. The most he thought we had at the moment was a breathing space—a breathing space, I suppose, in between the periods in which we were always to live with the menace of imminent war! But what has happened since 1923? After all we are supposed to be living in the Locarno spirit to-day. When we came into office, we had

    783
    only a month's notice to present Air Estimates, and we found a position of nearly the same state of difficulty as it was in 1923. It has been suggested that we, as a Government, approved of this scheme as something set and fixed, without reference to the international situation at all. Nothing of the sort. We had to take things as we found them, and having to present our Estimates, as we did within a month of taking office, we were unable to anticipate the future successes on the field of peace of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald); we were unable to foresee Geneva, and we were certainly unable to foresee Locarno. I am bound to say that the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put his case for these Estimates is the greatest belittling of the work of the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Minister (Sir A. Chamberlain), that I have ever heard in this House.
    It is a very different story from what we heard when the right hon. Gentleman came back from Locarno. Now we are promised, as I understand it, that we are going to seal our friendship anew with the Powers on the Continent who are strongest in the air. Yet hon. Members and newspaper writers are constantly urging us to look at our strength, and compare it with France, or even to compare it with Italy. The general outlook is that we have to work to some sort of a parity with these two powers. But if they are our allies, surely there is less than ever the need that we should be stronger in the air, because we are standing in with them. I am bound to say that I was rather shocked at the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion on this point. Surely we ought to have something better from the Locarno spirit than this estimate of £16,000,000 There is no echo of the Locarno spirit in these Estimates. Apparently, right hon. Gentlemen opposite are now pursuing precisely the same policy in the air as the others. But we have been told that we have got a Pact that is going to lead to conferences on the subject of disarmament. I say, at the present time, that £16,000,000 of Air Estimates' shows to the world the value that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite place on the efforts of their own Foreign Secretary.
    We believe that it is absolutely necessary that we should work for disarma
    784
    ment. We know that we are pledged by the Covenant of the Leagues of Nations to work for disarmament, and that the lead, where we could be extremely influential, is specially given by Section 8 of the Covenant—the right to direct the nations on the road to disarmament, having regard to their particular circumstances. These Estimates are not presented with any regard whatever to this international situation. The position is taken up that someone else has got an Air Force and, therefore, we must have one. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That is a matter of international snobbery. That is the position hon. Gentlemen opposite are taking up. After all the talk of Locarno, the only thing that counts in diplomacy is the strong hand, so that our voice may be heard in the counsels of Europe. That is not our view of foreign policy. It is our view of the practice of foreign policy by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The remarkable thing about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that he seemed to suggest to the friends on his own side: "Do not blame me if I am not going so far as you would like in increasing armaments.
    Doubtless hon. Members have received, as I have received, a little communication from a new league, the Air League of the British Empire. We have known something of the work of these leagues in the past. We knew something of the work of the German Navy League. We know something of the work of the Navy League over here. I looked with very great interest at this document when I got it, because I wanted to see the personnel of those people who were so immensely interested in the air. I found there was Lord Cowdray. He brought oil to my mind. I noticed the name of the ubiquitous Lord Weir, a successful man in bringing forward interesting new developments of policy which, somehow or other always bring grist to this mill; I find on the list, too, those who as directors or shareholders can supply all metals, dope engines, and every other sort of material; the only name that puzzled me was that of the Home Secretary—I suppose he supplies the air. I have a very great suspicion in looking over these concerns unless I see very clearly who is behind them.
    The Secretary of State for Air is very careful of the munition makers. He said something in regard the export of

    785
    munitions. Yes, I gather now we hope to make munitions for the whole of the world. We hope to be able to supply the very best aeroplanes and the very best bombs to other nations. That will be a great satisfaction to us. Many years ago I remember when my parents were burgled, we were assured for our satisfaction that it had been done by experts and now I suppose we ought to be satisfied, if we are knocked to pieces by bombs, to know that we are supporting home industries. We stand against this policy of air expansion, and we are entitled when Estimates of this kind are brought before us to demand what is the policy of the Government? We want to know whether this policy is at all related to the policy of the Foreign Secretary, about which we have heard a great deal since Locarno. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has been very carefully laying the foundations of peace, and, as far as I perceive, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air is very carefully laying the foundation for future wars. I want to see how closely these policies can be co-ordinated. We want to know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are in earnest, and whether they really stand by their Treaty obligations to work with all their power on the League of Nations for a general disarmament conference. After all, that is for what we are supposed to be standing. We want to know whether instructions have been given to our Air staff, to the staff of the War Office, and the staff of the Admiralty to prepare for disarmament, because, after Locarno. I should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have devoted most of his speech to disarmament and to have told us that what we are doing in regard to the Air Force is being done in the interim, while we are waiting for disarmament.
    A further question arises on these Estimates, a question again of policy in regard to the Middle East Services. We have heard—it was somewhat hinted at in the discussion on Iraq—that the Air Force in the Middle East was only kept there because it was such an excellent place in which to keep an air force. It had all the necessary advantages of good landing places, good targets, and so on. I want to know if the Middle Eastern Services are part of our home defence forces merely detached there for training purposes, or are
    786
    they not really there because of our policy in the Middle East—a policy of which we on this side of the House disapprove? We look to these Estimates, and we say that what the right hon. Gentleman has put forward in justification of this very heavy expenditure is not related at all to the foreign policy of the Government—is not related to any possible menace. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us very much about our Home Defence Force or scheme. There is expenditure in these Estimates and some expenditure, I know, in the Army Estimates for a ring of defences round the South of England. As I have already expressed, however, I am profoundly sceptical as to the value of what is called air defence. I have always understood that the only satisfaction we could have in the matter of danger from the air would be the satisfaction of knowing that someone else was getting it in the neck at the same time as we were. I am profoundly sceptical of this elaborate building up of these defences in the country.
    I pass from the question of policy to a further point in the actual Estimates, for the House is concerned to look into the question of economy. At a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has brought down his heavy hand upon the Education Minister, has brought down his heavy hand on the Minister of Labour, and is pressing for economy all round, it is right that this House should scan these Estimates very closely to see whether the expenditure is or is not properly incurred. Let us look at the Estimates, and see whether the Government are carrying out this programme economically. Is there not some unjustifiable expenditure here? It is very unfortunate that this House is presented with the Estimates of the three Fighting Services entirely separately, and entirely unco-ordinated, because there is always a tendency to think that an attack on the Air Estimates is made because one wants a bit more for the Navy, or that an attack upon the Navy is due to the fact that one wants a bit more for the Army. I have been very temporarily connected with the Army, but I have no sort of prejudice for or against any of the Fighting Forces. I am not prejudiced against the Air Force, and I was extremely glad to hear the Prime Minister declare to-day that there was no intention in the mind

    787
    of the Government to put the Air Force under either of the other Services, or to split it up.
    I look upon the Air Force as the youngest of three sisters. All these sisters have to be looked after. What I am questioning is whether all the sisters ought to have separate establishments. We should keep this co-ordination of the arms clearly in our minds, and consider how much can be spent on this and how much on that. We should consider how much should be allocated to each. This seems to depend very largely on which Minister happens to be the stronger at the moment. It may depend in a sense on which of the Services happens to be the most popular, or is the best known, or if I may use a technicality which the right hon. Gentleman has used—which has the best "booster." When I look at these Estimates, they appear to bear a very, very strong family resemblance to the Army Estimates, which I had to consider very carefully a couple of years ago. It is the recurrence of these same items in the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates and the Navy Estimates that I want to criticise to-day. If I criticise them on the Air Estimates, it is not from hostility to the Air Estimates, but because the duplications to which we had grown accustomed formerly have now become triplications, owing to the growth of the Air Service.
    On page 95 of these Estimates we find a "Directorate of Operations and Intelligence," at a cost of some £24,000 a year, and with 44 persons on its staff. If we turn to last year's Army Estimates, we find a "Directorate of Operations and Intelligence," costing £54,000, and with 64 persons. In the Navy, for a similar section, there are 125 persons, and the cost is £100,000. As far as the "G" staff is concerned, the problems of defence are not three, but one; therefore there ought to be only one co-ordinated general staff dealing with them. We find in these Estimates provision for a recruiting staff of 34, costing £18,000. The recruiting staff for the Army has a personnel of 386, and costs £130,000. In the Navy the personnel is 65, and the cost £24,000. Can anyone say that we want three separate recruiting staffs? I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite are deeply in love with competition, but is it a satisfactory thing to have competition
    788
    between your recruiting staffs? In the Army to-day there is a great demand for technical men and technical boys, and there is the same demand in the Air Force. We have these two Forces going into the market trying to get the same class of recruits. I say that there in another Department, the "A" branch, we have three separate organisations where we ought to have only one.
    There are separate staff colleges for the Air and the other Services. Staff work means that we ought to co-ordinate all the various fighting arms. Is it not absurd to have separate staff colleges? Finally, there is the case of the medical services. I find in these Estimates £209,000 for the medical service; I find £2,500,000 in the Army Estimate for the Army Medical Ser vice; and I find a great deal more for the medical service in the Navy, but owing to my unfamiliarity with the Navy Estimates and to the way in which they serve up their accounts, I cannot get it out in detail. We want one Medical Service for the three; one united hospital service for the three.
    These four examples, which I have taken out of many, show the need for coordination. Why should we have eight Ministers of the Crown representing the fighting Services? The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say, "My motto is, Divide et impera. If I have three heads of the fighting Services, I can set them against each other, and, while they are fighting, I may run off with the bone." I do not believe that is a satisfactory way of dealing with the question of how much we ought to spend on our defence Services.
    I am of opinion with, I am glad to see, certain other Members of the House, that what we want is one Ministry of Defence. I have read a very great deal on that subject, and I know there are arguments for and against it. It is suggested that if we had one Minister of Defence, he might be so strong that he would be too strong for anybody. I do not think so. Now is the time to tackle the question and see. I should like this Government to take in hand this question of the co-ordination of the Services, because they are peculiarly well situated to do it. Surely, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have the very man for the job. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of war from his

    789
    youth up. He is accustomed to direct warlike preparations and operations in all three elements. If I may vary the words of Rudyard Kipling, he is
    "A sort of a giddy harumfrodite
    Soldier, sailor and airman, too."
    He is a man who has sown his wild oats in all the Services, and is now getting more mature; he has exchanged the sword for the purse; and surely he is just the man to take up this job. It would be a job more worthy of his abilities than cutting down education expenditure, cutting down the Ministry of Labour Estimates, and so on, or even than playing about with Silk Duties. He could make a great name if he gave us a co-ordinated Defence Service.
    There is one further reason why I specially raise this matter of the coordination of the Services on the Air Force Estimates, and that is because of the enormous difficulty, already hinted at, of dealing with the personnel of the Air Force. The right hon. Gentleman has said, quite rightly, that the Air Force is a short service force, and we have the problem of what to do with the members of it when they are too old. I do not think we have got that seriously at the moment, be cause the Air Force is a young force, but the doctors say we live longer now or they keep us young longer—the doctors, at least, claim they do—and in all the Services we find more and more difficult the problem of what to do with those who grow too old. In the Air Service that problem comes on a good deal earlier than on any other Service. I do not think the right way of dealing with it is to try to get jobs for them in all sorts of engineering establishments I am not very much in favour of people who have been in the service of the Crown moving afterwards into private enterprises, which, perhaps, supply the State. By co-ordination of the Services we should get a better transfer between the three Services, and. not have people tied down to one all the time. That applies to the officers; I think it applies also to the men; and, as I have said, it applies to the recruiting of boy artificers. If we are to get some reduction of the enormous sum we are paying for armaments we must move on the lines of co-ordination, otherwise we shall inevitably have vested interests growing up in each of these Services, and when
    790
    any changes come there will be an enormous difficulty in shifting the personnel as well as an enormous difficulty in changing the materiel. There would be, for instance, the question of accommodation, of barracks and training grounds, for the three Services in case of co-ordination. I hope the economists are looking very closely at a large amount being provided for building development in these Estimates.
    Finally, I would say a word on these Estimates as a whole. We must not look at these Estimates by themselves. The £16,000,000 for the Air Force is expanded to £20,000,000 by the Middle East Services. To that we have to add the expenditure on the Army and the Navy, and the total is unlikely to be less than £115,000,000 a year. I wonder if that is going to pass our economists without a word? A Ministry of Defence could take the whole of that expenditure into consideration, and ought to bo able to make very considerable savings without loss of efficiency. I say, further, that a Ministry of Defence ought to be in the closest possible touch with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affaire and with our representatives on the League of Nations. All our Estimates for armaments must be co-ordinated with our foreign policy, which is bound up with the League of Nations, which itself, we are told, has been strengthened by the Pact of Locarno, and which should, if words mean anything, be directed to a general programme of universal disarmament by consent.
    Captain GUEST: The list you have beside you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is so long that I will undertake to be extremely brief, but it is impossible to get into less than 10 minutes the observations I wish to make on a subject of such enormous importance as this. I had no intention of referring to the speech from the Front Bench of the Opposition had it not left me in a complete whirl as to what the attitude of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party really is, with the exception of his approval of a Ministry of Defence. There was one sentence in which he completely contradicted himself. He said his party is against fixed defences, and almost in the same breath he said he liked to feel that if an enemy were dropping bombs on us somebody else was drop ping bombs on the enemy at the same time.
    Major ATTLEE: I never said that. I said that what was put forward as our only satisfaction—the feeling that when bombs were being dropped on us, we were dropping bombs on somebody else. I did not say I enjoyed it.
    Captain GUEST: I do not suggest the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he enjoyed it, but I did think he had said that he liked to feel that the other fellow was being hit in the neck at the same time. If I am wrong, obviously I withdraw.
    To turn to the Estimates, I would like at once to congratulate the Secretary of State for Air on the admirable Paper which he supplied to Members at the same time as the Estimates were sent out. It is a model of what a Memorandum should be, particularly in its frankness and complete absence of camouflage. It has enabled most of us who attend this Debate to-day to come with a knowledge of the subject. In that Memorandum there is one underlying strain of thought—that the Government have decided to call a halt in the speed at which the development programme was progressing. I welcome that very much indeed, though perhaps not quite from the same point of view as other hon. Members. In a minute or two I will give my reasons. The attacks upon the Ministry in the last few weeks have been really, I think, disgraceful in their manner, and show disrespect for one of the great Services of the Crown. It is very insulting to a force that it should be the subject of terms such as we have seen in some leading newspapers in the last few days, and it is something which we ought severely to reprobate and reprimand in the House.
    Apart from that consideration, these criticisms are very ill-informed, and unless they are contradicted by somebody, they undoubtedly are misleading. I propose, therefore, in two or three minutes to contradict some of the most noticeable and glaring statements. First of all the Force is contemptuously called a "ground force." May I ask those amateur critics whether they have the slightest idea of the number of duties which, in the last ten years, have been imposed upon and have been carried out by this little Air Force? It has not only to fly. Do they think it would be possible for the taxpayer to have been relieved of many millions of money by the services they are
    792
    performing in Iraq unless the members of that Force could do a great many more things than fly machines in the air? Not only there, but in other parts of the Empire, they are undertaking garrison duties, as well as police and flying duties, and I submit that unless we have a well-organised and well-trained force—no doubt it does occasionally march past on barrack squares—they will not be able to save us money in the way they are doing to-day.
    Before the War, no criticisms were passed in regard to the training on foot of the cavalry, but nevertheless in the War they were called upon to assist in the trenches. I think that completely answers the criticism that this is a ground force, and not an air force, and I am sure that all hon. Members who heard to-day of the astounding performances of flying during the last two years by the Air Force will go away greatly pleased. These critics have attacked the Ministry in a very indirect and subtle way with which I hope the Secretary of State for Air will specifically deal. It is the old line of argument that there are too many men per machine, and they do not suggest exactly how many men per machine there should be.
    I submit that when you have got the lives of the men to consider at every minute, and at every point, the best judges of how many men are necessary are the experts who are responsible for the lives of the men who fly. As the machines become more reliable it may be that fewer men will be necessary, but to take up now the line of argument that you must not have so many men per machine shows not only malice, but ignorance as well. In the artillery you find that it takes 44 men to put a gun in the field, and I would like to ask them Is that an inaccurate or an improper figure? Why should a newspaper say-that 50 men per flying machine is too many?
    Another line of attack is in regard to the provision of buildings for the Air Force. I have seen a good many of these buildings, and I would ask those who feel inclined to complain of the Vote for buildings to go and see the old war huts in which the men are living before they make such criticisms. The Army and the Navy have had magnificent buildings for many generations, and if the Air Force has come to stay, it must be properly

    793
    housed. That is only common sense, and you cannot expect a force co-equal with our other fighting Services to be housed in their present buildings, many of which are quite uninhabitable.
    We have heard a good deal of the argument that it is now time to call a halt. I submit that the atmosphere created by Locarno might have been a little more stressed, because I am hopeful, if that line of pacification in Europe is followed, that a great deal more may come of it than at present would appear. But to my mind the advantage of the pause is this. Many of the problems which so far have remained unsolved may be studied in the interval, and you can only study these problems clamly when you are not being rushed. I read a statement the other day issued by the Chairman of the Air League of the British Empire, in which he states on behalf of his organisation that "England is undefended." Is that so, or is it not? Time is necessary for the study of these questions in order that the public may be informed as to whether they may sleep safely in their beds or not.
    There are other problems which need most careful consideration. In an atmosphere of contradictory chorus, it is very-hard to arrive at a decision as to whether the country is safe under the present programme, or whether the programme is extravagant and unnecessary. These questions cannot be answered by amateurs like the editorial staff of the "Daily Mail," or by hon. Members who sit on my right, because when they held the reins of office they carried out the policy handed down to them by their predecessors, and they did this because they said that they did not know sufficient about it to alter it. I submit, therefore, that they also come under the head of amateurs.
    If good can come from this period of cessation of intense activity, I think two essential considerations must be borne in mind. The first is that, unless you get continuity of policy, there is really no hope for the solution of the problems which lie in front of us. Changing Governments seem to feel free to alter the main policy. I will give an instance where, in less than six months, the Air Force was almost destroyed, and then immediately revived. In the days of the Geddes Committee it was whittled down
    794
    to almost nothing, and within six months of that time the present programme of creating between 25 to 30 squadrons for home defence was adopted. A policy is needed that will outlast the precarious life of any one Parliament, and it must be consistently pursued.
    Who is there that can lay it down? What authority is in the land whose opinion would be more or less conclusive in this matter? I submit that the body which is most suitable for the purpose is known to the country as the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I make this submission for the following reason. It is the only body where the political and the expert mind comes together. The best political and civilian minds are brought against the details which lie only within the knowledge of the experts, and the advantage gained on both sides is very great. If we submit to that body the whole problem of the continuity of air policy, and the nation is kept informed of the results, then we should have a sound foundation on which we can build for a generation to come. Unless, also, the international consideration of air matters is attended to, we are running the risk of wandering into fields which may lead us into a dreadful disaster.
    We are told that the Locarno spirit is abroad, but more can be made of it if we are practical, and do not merely talk about it. How can we be practical? I suggest that the Air Ministers of allied countries and of all countries, if possible, should meet and pool their thoughts as to the international danger of the air arm. One country may say, "We cannot disarm unless you do." At any rate, someone must take the lead, and suggest getting round an international table, warning each other and the world that dynamite is in their hands. In no other period of history has anything so dangerous been so lightly considered. The warnings which came before previous wars cannot be expected in the next war. The attacks will be so rapid, the machines used so easily put together, and so cheaply produced, that before the countries of the world know where they are, they may find their towns in ruins, and war starting in all directions. There may be suggested something practical that will control this tremendous weapon which the world has learned to use. Let us take advantage

    795
    of the pause in the programme, hoping that some practical step and example will be set by the Government in this direction.
    Major-General Sir F. SYKES: First of all, I should like to say that I do think it is unfortunate that the Economy Bill was not issued and taken before the discussion of the individual Service Estimates. In the second place, I agree entirely with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said in regard to the necessity of having the three Estimates in front of us before dealing with one of them. It is quite impossible to make a reliable comparison between the three Services unless you have before you the Estimates for the three Services, and even then it is very difficult. I have been at great pains to try and arrive at some comparative figures, and I have found some of interest which I propose to place before the House. At the outset, I should like to say that I think it is important that the three Service Estimates should be drawn up in a similar form. As I have already said, it is very difficult, even with the three Estimates before you, to arrive at any general conclusion as to how far they overlap, what Services are being catered for in one set of Estimates, or in the other.
    6.0 P.M.
    Before dealing with the general survey of these Estimates as far as one can go, there are a few points which I want to bring before the House in regard to the general policy upon which the services must be based. I mean, of course, as has already been brought out, a reduction of armaments, the necessity for stringent national economy, and the fundamental changes wrought in defence from the air. The reduction of armaments with the con-commitant problem of Imperial foreign policy, and economy in defence is in my view the greatest problem now before the country. Locarno and financial stringency and the air are forcing what has hitherto been a somewhat academic seclusion into the glaring light of necessity. A future war is in my opinion inevitable if armaments continue to be piled up, nation against nation, and, though that war may-have small initial beginnings, it is almost, hound to spread to world dimensions, and as the last speaker said, it will cause unparalleled horror and misery, and
    796
    probably cause the destruction of the civilised world. Passing from that meanwhile, there is also the question of economy. If you maintain great forces in peace as I see it, that expenditure is weighing upon industry to such an extent that you practically cannot recuperate your national services.
    You have the extraordinary fact that disarmed nations are really favoured in this matter, and successful armed nations handicapped as trade competitors. This is not the time to develop that aspect of the problem, though I should like to do so, but I do want to say how imperative I think it is that reasonable world opinion should give its verdict upon the whole of this question, and see that its views are enforced, while yet there is time, through the forthcoming Conference on reduction of armaments. In the meantime, I think the reduction of armaments must be very gradual, and the point I want to make is that, alike for the promotion of the reduction of armaments and for the safeguarding of national integrity, there should be a reexamination and re-modelling of our Imperial foreign policy, and a reform of our defence instrument to carry it into effect. It is quite impossible, unless you have a policy to carry out, for your defence instrument to be properly formed. You either have, on the one hand, completely inadequate forces provided for, or, on the other, much too large a margin, and, therefore, great waste.
    First, then, there must be a policy, and, secondly, the machinery to carry it into effect should he of the smallest possible size and cost, and of the greatest possible efficiency. The air helps in this question because it really necessitates a greater cohesion of planning for defence than has ever hitherto been the case. Neither the Navy nor the Army, nowadays, is self-dependent, and, on the other hand, those who claim that the Navy and Army are obsolete are, I think, very far from the mark. In any specific problem there is a ratio between the three arms which predominates, but all three arms are directly or indirectly concerned, and the only way that I can see in which a proportioned picture of the whole question can be arrived at is by means of a joint executive General Staff to plan out

    797
    what is required. I would join issue with the last speaker when he adumbrated the desirability of retaining the Committee of Imperial Defence for this purpose. I think that, while the Committee of Imperial Defence has done excellent work, it is not constituted to carry out this particular function. To be of any use, as I see it, the General Staff necessitates executive power. Without executive power, it is very much what the Supreme War Council was at Versailles; it worked out admirable schemes, which were of the greatest possible value, but, as it had no executive power, it was quite unable to enforce those schemes upon commanders in the field. It would be very much the same if the Committee of Imperial Defence were retained for this purpose.
    Turning to the Air Estimates themselves, quite frankly I am afraid I must say I disagree with the policy entirely. The policy in force, as I see it, gives a minute number of skilled men in the air and practically no reserve. Nor, really, as far as I can see, does it stand the test in any direction of fulfilling the functions for which it is in being. Probably other Members will be speaking for the Navy and the Army, but, as far as I know—and I get constant views from both those Services—their requirements are very ill filled by the Air Force. On the other hand, the strategical long-range striking force lags, if that is not too gentle a word to use for it. Then, in regard to true aerial development, upon which, as we all know, the soundness of the structure must depend, we are, in experiment, research and civil aviation, dropping further and further behind other countries.
    Here are some figures. Out of a force, including civilians, of some 45,000, we have only 2,200 qualified pilots, and some 1,000 to 1,200 man-hours of work are required per hour of flying. Again, there are three officials at the Air Ministry for every aeroplane in the Service squadrons. Secretarial services cost 3½ times, per head of personnel, more than those of the War Office. Expenditure at Halton is on a grandiose scale, and, while cadets and apprentices at Cranwell are reduced by 33 per cent., the administrative staff is only reduced by 7½ per
    798
    cent. The hospital staff, per patient, costs in the Air Force double what it costs in either the Army or the Navy; and 3s. in every £ is spent by the Air Force on works and buildings.
    The amount spent, on the other hand, on reserves is £406,000, or, say, 2½ per cent. of the total. Research, which should receive, and certainly is entitled to, the greatest assistance, gets £1,266,000, or 8 per cent., and even this includes all airship expenditure, and, I presume, the American engines which were bought—as I personally think, quite wrongly. Civil aviation—the mercantile air service of the future—upon which, with research, the Air Force must ultimately rest, gets £476,500, or 3 per cent. of the total. In regard to reserves, the already almost negligible figure, which was 8,033, shows a decline to 7,830 in pilots and airmen. Last year I criticised the Auxiliary Special Reserves on the ground that they were an unnecessary complication in organisation, and in this regard I should be inclined to say that there are too many packs hunting over the same ground. I have only tried to get at what the Air Force should do and how it is trying to do it, and these figures, if they are correct, as I am afraid they are, are very disturbing.
    The best form of reserve is commercial operations, official and unofficial research, and highly skilled men in factories. I think there is a welcome light, in this regard, in the conversion of the Middle East from a military route to a commercial route. It is certainly pleasant to see a gleam of sunshine in that direction. Information on the whole question of commercial operations is, however, very difficult to get, and I hope the Minister will give us more details as to what actually is being done and what it is proposed to do.
    The air routes of which he spoke, with the exception of the one to Nigeria, which was flown over the other day, were laid down several years ago, and have not been flown upon recently. I sincerely hope that now, at least, those routes are going to be used again, and I welcome the Minister's statement. I hope that flights, then squadrons, and then wings will fly along those routes. That will be of the greatest possible benefit, not only to the countries to and over which they fly, but also in the actual training of the

    799
    squadrons themselves. One of the best values, I remember, before the War, was obtained by the Royal Flying Corps from frequent flights between Farnborough and Montrose. I had those flights carried out especially because I thought that combined training would be of immense value in war. That was on a diminutive scale. A squadron flew from Farnborough to Montrose at the end of 1913. This, however, is the same principle, and I hope that the Minister will press the Air Force from the point of view of carrying it into effect. As far as commercial development is concerned, I hope that the comparatively small effort of linking up Egypt, Bagdad and India, will be only the beginning of what we should, in my opinion, try to bring about with the utmost des-patch, that is to say, the development of the commercial aspect of the great routes of the world.
    I touched a moment ago upon the question of American engines, and that brings forward the question of research as a whole, and also the question of parachutes, which I do not think has been referred to yet. In regard to engines, I think we can gather that, while engine production is the limiting factor in war expansion, and skilled labour is the limiting factor in production, engine provision is selected for the largest cut in these Estimates. I feel that that is very unfortunate. It is reduced, I think, by one-third, and skilled production labour, the nucleus of war strength, is, in the result, already being dispersed in about the same proportion. Then again, though there is no actual reduction in the provision for research, the Estimates suggest no improvement in the policy and administration which has compelled us to revert to a dependence upon foreign design as exemplified in the purchase of Curtis engines and Irving parachutes, both of which are to me quite inexplicable. After closing down the Parachute Research Section of the Air Ministry for two or three years, the order for parachutes was placed in America, without so far as I can find out, any endeavour to learn the progress of British design and the possibilities of British productions.
    I certainly cannot support an Amendment which goes to show that the Air Ministry is redundant, for the reasons I have given. I want one Department for
    800
    the three Services, and for this reason I could support another Amendment which has been put down to the effect that there should be an inquiry into how best this could be carried into effect. I have been trying to work on these lines since the last year of the War, during which year I wrote a paper trying to arrive at some such solution as is now being talked about. It was at the time of the Haldane Committee on co-ordination. I only hope the work of these years will have the utility of impressing upon everyone that this step is not only inevitable, but is the most useful that could be taken. I should like to impress upon the Government that they should, from the disarmament point of view, set in hand a thorough reconsideration of defence policy and administration as a whole and remodel the machine. They should investigate the subject and do what they can to help it forward. I ask all parties in the House to study it and to give it the greatest possible publicity that they can, because it is only by public opinion that it can be carried out.
    I would plead with the Services themselves, recognising that owing to economy, and owing to other factors, they will inevitably be very heavily pressed very shortly and may have to make plans which will be most ill-advised simply owing to lack of funds, and consequently that the security of the country will be in danger. I plead with them to go into the matter and see what together they can arrive at in order to put forward a joint scheme to secure a joint staff with executive powers, a joint administration of the Service for all three Services, leaving the three fighting Services independent within themselves but under that joint staff executive control and, as such, able between themselves to utilise the personnel within their Services to the greatest possible advantage.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: I should like to join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Air Minister on his very able statement in presenting these Estimates. I agree with nine-tenths of what he has said, but I think he is making a retrograde step in delaying the expansion of the Air Service. I expect I am one of the few Members who think he does not take sufficient money for that Service. The hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench made a much

    801
    clearer speech on Iraq than I thought he made to-day. In the Iraq Debate, he said:
    "What I see to-day as the great danger of the world is this, the danger of a clash between Asia and Europe. What I see to-day, right the way round, through China, India, the Near East, and right up to Egypt, is a great awakening of the Asiatic peoples. We see everywhere, especially in these great river valleys, populations which are pressing up and are held in check by a line of white hosts round the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th (February, 1926; col. 228, Vol. 191.]
    When I heard that said, I thought we we quite wrong in cutting down the Air Services, as we are doing in these Estimates. I think they ought to be kept up to the standard laid down by four consecutive Governments. If you look at the figures of last year, £120,000,000 was taken for the defence forces of the country. The Navy took £60,00,000, the Army, £44,000,000, and the Air Service, £16,000,000. A great service like the Air Service should have more than a seventh of the total money provided for the defence of the country. The only way we can get these Estimates right is to have a Ministry of Defence, or a controlling body over these Fighting Services. A few months after I entered this House, I introduced, under the Ten Minute Rule, a Ministry of Defence Creation Bill. I do not believe we will ever have these Estimates right until we have a control over these Fighting Services. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Bristol (Captain Guest) said he believed in a Committee of Imperial Defence. The Committee of Imperial Defence have done well in the past, but now they are getting rather out of date. They have no executive power, and I feel certain that men who study these finances, like the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), are not satisfied with the way the money is allotted to the different Services. Therefore, I submit that we have a duty before us. In former days Members of the House forced the Government to introduce submarines into the Service and also helped us in the early days of the air development. Every Member has the responsibility before him of trying to get these Estimates in a more satisfactory condition than they are now.
    I am against the retardation of this expansion. You can look at it from two points of view. The first is the Air Force
    802
    point of view. People who want to enter the Air Force say, "It is a little unstable. We cannot put our youngsters into it," or they do not feel inclined to go into it. I think it is very bad for the Air Service to have a fluctuating policy. In regard to the industry, it is worse still. Four Governments have promised the industry stability by this expansion, and what has happened this year? You are going to cut them down. You cannot get the best in the industry if they cannot offer inducements to men to come from the Universities and to train as aeronautical engineers, or get the best apprentices. I think the industry has been very badly hit over this. They have had difficulty in getting their nucleus together, and we give them another slap in the face. I ask the Under-Secretary to give this industry as much work as he possibly can and cut out some of the work at Farnborough and give it to the industry. I do not believe we get anything out of Farnborough but a large expenditure. I think there is some confusion about the number of machines that we are told other countries possess. The Under-Secretary, speaking at Brussels the other day, gave a very large figure of the number of our machines, if the report in "The Times" is correct. I think we ought to get a clear statement of our machines and the machines that foreign countries possess.
    I think the explanatory statement is the best we have had, and I congratulate the Minister on presenting it in this way. Ft shows the value of the little criticism which we made last year. There is a point in the memorandum about the Fleet Air Arm. Do I understand that the Fleet Air Arm are going to live on their resources, because you made a great reduction in the money allowed to the Fleet Air Arm. I should like an assurance that the Reserve will be kept up and will be at the right amount at the end of the financial year. I see, on page 3, that Iraq is allowed eight squadrons. Over the page, there is a note to this effect:
    "Following upon the settlement by the League of Nations of the northern boundary of Iraq, it is proposed to proceed with the scheme for the progressive reduction of the Imperial garrison in that country."
    Does that mean that those eight squadrons are to be reduced, or are you going to train Arabs to take the place

    803
    of our pilots, because it is not quite clear what you are going to do. I think it is most important that we should have more trained and skilled engineers in the Air Force. When I raised that question last year, the Under-Secretary said they did not have any accidents to engines. That may be so, but we want a higher training for our engineers in the Air Force. if you talk about engine accidents, that is merely mechanics. Any lad who has a motor bicycle is a mechanical engineer. You want to train engineers as really good aeronautical engineers. In support of that statement, may I refer to a paper produced by the Aeronautical Research Committee. The Air Minister, in 1925, set up this Committee, which was to advise the Secretary of State on scientific problems relating to aeronautics. Some of the best brains in the country are on this Committee. There is Professor Glazebrook, Professor Petavel, Professor Bairstow, who have been connected with air development from the first, and are very capable scientific men. There are other representatives of firms, Mr. Fairey and Mr. Wimperis, and Sir Henry White Smith, all well-informed men, also Colonel O'Gorman and Mr. Ogilvie. They are all men I know, very highly trained scientific men, and this is what they say on the subject:
    "The Committee call attention to the need of officers with more technical knowledge, and to the hope expressed in their last Report that it will not be impossible to provide for highly-skilled persons to make a direct technical diagnosis of each plant failure immediately it occurs, and to report it in a manner which will enable the Ministry to take measures to prevent recurrence. They consider it desirable to utilise to the full the knowledge of such officers as possess the necessary technical qualifications."
    I ask you to reconsider this. See if you cannot build up in your Air Service a really fine corps of scientific aeronautical engineers. That is one of the weak spots in the Air Service.
    With respect to helicopters, a question was asked in the House yesterday over the expenditure of £55,000, and hon. Members laughed. I know Mr. Louis Brennan, who is a fine inventor. He was brought to this country by the late Lieut.-General Sir Andrew Clark, then Director of Fortifications. He invented the Brennan torpedo, which was one of the best ever produced. He also invented
    804
    the Mono rail. If anyone could have brought the helicopter to success, it would have been Mr. Brennan. It is a very difficult matter. It is an almost insoluable task. I am certain that his scientific investigations will be of value, even in connection with the Auto-Gyro machine. It is wrong for hon. Members to think that the money has been entirely thrown away. It is nothing of the kind. I associate myself with what was said by the Air Minister about that great inventor, Mr. Louis Brennan.
    Is the Minister for Air satisfied that when he has his two large airships in commission he will have his crews properly trained? There is only R 33, and you can only do a limited amount of training in that. Would it not be possible to have two flexible airships of 400,000 cubic feet capacity, simply to get the men into the air? Such airships are not very costly. That would enable the Ministry to get the men into the air and give them a good training. With respect to cultivating the air sense of the country, is the right hon. Gentleman thinking of having any small airship clubs? I think that is a good point. You can have small airships like the old S.S. airships, which are very useful for getting people into the air for a joy ride.
    A few words respecting works. The right hon. and gallant Member for Bristol North (Captain Guest), with whom I should like to associate myself on this point, emphasised the importance of having proper buildings for housing our airmen. When we started the Naval Air Service we had very poor buildings. I said at that time that we must house our men better and give them better recreation, and after a lot of trouble with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, I managed to get billiard rooms for them and also some tennis courts. This recreation helped to make our airmen very much fitter. We want good buildings in order to keep our airmen fit, and we want good recreations for them. It is disgraceful to take up the newspapers and see the bricks that are being hurled at the Air Ministry for housing the men properly. We house our men properly in the Navy; we have good barracks at Chatham, Portsmouth, Sheerness and Devonport. Why should not the airmen be housed properly, as well as the seamen, and why not as well as the guardsmen? It is a difficult job to keep these youngsters fit.

    805
    They have to go into the air, and there is a certain amount of nerve strain connected with it. The Chief of the Air Staff understands this matter from A to Z, and he is to be congratulated on insisting that the men should be properly housed and given proper recreation.
    Another point on which the Air Ministry is being attacked is that they have too many men on the ground. You cannot have all the men in the air every minute. You cannot have them always receiving instruction round the machine, or at their books. They must put in a certain amount of drill. The Air Ministry are to be congratulated on having a very fine, upstanding lot of young fellows in the Air Force. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) says, "What about the engine-room artificers?" We put all these people through a certain amount of drill, and the hon. and gallant Member knows it. It is no use the hon. and gallant Member shaking his head.
    On the Order Paper there is an Amendment standing in the name of a gallant general opposite, and other hon. Members. They want to break up the Air Force again. I would say to the gallant general, that he is looking through the wrong end of the telescope. One does not look through the big end but through the small end of a telescope.
    Mr. BASIL PETO: To whom was the hon. and gallant Member referring when he said that hon. Members opposite desire to break up the Air Force?
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: I referred to the gallant general.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS rose—
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: I was referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris). I do not think the hon. Members who put down this Motion know anything about the air; they are not airmen. I doubt whether any of them have been up in the air. I would advise them to study what has happened in the United States. I will read one or two extracts from a report of an inquiry by a Select Committee into the United States Air Service. They examined a lot of young flyers of all the eminence they could get. One young officer said:
    806
    "Although an aviation officer, I was obliged to wear spurs. After a while they reversed that order, and aviation officers were not required to wear spurs; but when I came back from abroad I found that they had gone to the old order again and aviation officers wearing boots were once more required to wear spurs."
    That is in the Military Air Service in the United States. Hon. Members opposite would like us to copy them. Just fancy, if you had to dive out of an aeroplane with a parachute and you were wearing spurs! Hon. Members opposite want us to break up the present efficient Air Service and to run it on United States lines. Further, in the Report, the Committee say:
    "A careful reading of the evidence taken before our Committee convinces us that (outside of the Air Services themselves) there is not in the Army and Navy a proper appreciation of the importance of air power as a combatant arm."
    This is the most illuminating document I have ever read on an Air Service, and I ask hon. Members who have the leisure to look into it and consider whether we should break up the efficient Air Service that we have now and follow the example of the United States. Take the case of France. France has a separate Naval Air Service, and they had a Committee which went into the question and reported on 12th July, 1925. It may interest the Committee to know that the Finance Commission of the Chamber, which examined the French Naval Budget, passed scathing criticism on the deplorable state of the French Naval Air Service as a result of the mal-administration of the Ministry of Marine. They found much overlapping and waste in various directions, and summed up the position with this caustic comment:
    "Painful as it may be, we do not hesitate to make this criticism, albeit with the full measure of reticence necessary in dealing with a subject of this character, for if there is not energetic action in the early future, the naval aviation will continue to vegetate, and will end by disappearing altogether."
    Yet we are asked by the "Daily Mall," the "Morning Post" and my hon. Friends opposite to copy France and the United States by splitting up our Air Service again.
    I congratulate the Air Minister on having one of the finest and most efficient Air Forces in the world, and I am confident that any people with

    807
    brains who study the question will not agree to smashing up our Air Service into two wings like we had before the War which proved very difficult to run by the officer who was in charge of the military wing, and myself who was in charge of the naval wing. I hope that nobody will ever have such a difficult time as we had. I shall always back up our having a unified Air Service.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: In the days long ago before the War when we were discussing the Naval Estimates, it was possible to determine whether this country was being made safe or not. We had the question of the two-power standard or the two-to-one standard. We knew what ships could beat what, and there was reality about the discussion of safety then which now is entirely lacking. To-day we are discussing Air Estimates when we are completely uncertain whether the 25 squadrons that the Air Service is providing can be regarded as providing safety for the people of this country. There is an air of unreality about these Debates. We do not know—no man knows—whether 25 squadrons or 125 squadrons can possibly (make us safe in the next war. We are, therefore, speaking to-day in an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty. There is probably no man in this House, not even the Minister himself, who can say that it is possible by any expenditure of public money upon the Air Service to make this country safe from air attack in the next war.
    The Air Minister knows the uncertainty of the present position and the risks which this country is running, even under his efficient management. He knows that the only chance of real safety for this country is a reduction in armaments and not in a possible increase of our armaments. The only salvation is that we may induce the nations of the world to do away with a large proportion of the air services which they are maintaining at the present time. What step is the right hon. Gentleman taking to bring about the disarmament conference? He talked about the Locarno Treaty, the Locarno Pact, and the Locarno spirit, and how in view of that he had been enabled to spread out
    808
    over a longer period his reconstruction of the Air Arm, but he did not mention what we on these benches believe to be of value in the Locarno Pact, namely, the possibility of a disarmament conference. What I want to know is, is he taking any steps to bring about that disarmament conference and to apply it to the Air Forces throughout the world? It is all very well to wait for President Coolidge or someone else, but what steps are we taking, we who for the first time are in real danger of invasion in case of war—an invasion against which it is impossible to protect ourselves?
    The second point I want to make is this. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) rightly laid great emphasis on the possibility of economy in the three services by proper co-ordination. What steps is the Air arm taking, in view of the fact that it is superseding various branches of the older service? What steps is it taking to see that the development of the Air arm is accompanied, pari passu, with the reduction of the expenditure on the atrophied branches of the older services? I think particularly of the cavalry. In the old days the cavalry were the eyes of the Army; the cavalry screen pushed ahead and found out where the enemy were. Nowadays that work is done entirely by the Air Force. I will not dwell on the fact that the cavalry itself has become really obsolete in warfare, and that the only time in the Great War when the cavalryman was employed was when he got off his horse. Cavalry are as obsolete as the Beefeaters at the Tower. The Air Force and the armoured car are doing the work of the old cavalry. Does the Secretary for Air make it clear to the Committee of Imperial Defence that certain branches of work, which it was necessary should be done By the Army, are now being done by his Department? Is the co-ordination such that the additional expenditure thrown upon the Air arm, not only for that, but for naval scouting as well, and in a hundred other ways, is resulting in an equivalent reduction of expenditure on other arms? We heard at Question Time the other day that £1,750,000 was still being spent on cavalry. That does not look as if there had been the reduction in the expenditure on cavalry which we have a right to expect.

    809
    There is a third question which I want to ask. We have seen in the last few days that the Defence Force in Palestine has been very largely reduced. The 9th Lancers have been recalled, the gendarmerie has been disbanded, and only the Eastern Palestinian gendarmerie continues to exist. I presume that the situation in Palestine is now absolutely secure, that there are no reasons to anticipate another Arab rising like that of 1920. I presume that the defence of Palestine, just as the defence of Iraq, rests with the Air Force, that the Air Force is in control so far as defence is concerned. What I want to find out is whether we are going on spending more money on the Air Service and on other Services in Egypt, or whether we are developing, as the protection for the Suez Canal, rather that part of the country which is in our own hands. I put in a word of caution about the perpetual investment of our money in works of capital importance in Egypt. Our position there is not so secure and so definite, and not so legally happy, as it is in Palestine, and I would like to know that the reduction of the Forces in Palestine is a real reduction in the Forces in that neighbourhood, and not merely a transference from where we ought to be to. where we ought not to be—in Egypt.
    There is one other point in connection with this Palestinian Force. Where are they? Are they in Trans-Jordania or in Palestine? Is it possible to enlist as mechanics in that country, and to train so that they may become efficient ultimately, the Jews who are now settled in Palestine? I am particularly anxious to get that element of the population of Palestine accustomed to defending their own country, so that they may be able ultimately to take the place of the British defensive forces when we are in a position to surrender our mandate and hand over the country to the people. The gradual association, not only in Palestine but in Iraq, of the people of the country in the Air Force and in the defence forces generally, training them to become capable of self-defence, is an essential preliminary of our getting out of those countries and reducing armaments, and it is a perfectly sound way of doing our duty by those lands, and, at the same time, I hope, economising on the expense in which we are necessarily involved.
    810
    These are the three questions that I wish to ask: What steps are being taken to call a conference which will deal with the reduction of Air armaments all round and give us the only security possible? What steps are being taken to reduce the obsolescent services of the other two arms, the duties of which are now done by the Air Ministry? What steps are being taken to see that Palestine rather thn Egypt shall be the place d'armes for our troops in the protection of the Suez Canal; and how far can that Force be assisted by Jewish enlistments in that country?
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: We are this evening discussing one aspect of the problem of Imperial Defence, but I do not think that we can deal with the subject adequately unless we take into consideration the other two arms of the Service. What I shall have to say will affect probably the Cabinet in general, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in particular, more than it will affect the Secretary of State for Air. I agree with what has been said by other speakers, that it is a great pity that the Estimates for the three fighting Services could not be presented simultaneously. One realises—it is almost notorious—that when Estimates are being framed by the three Services, each of them looks upon a foreign competitor in calculating what it wishes to obtain in the way of funds. You have the Army regarding one foreign power, the Navy another, and the Air Force a third. You have, therefore, no proper co-relation between the three Services. I know that it is understood that these Estimates are co-related and gone into by the Committee of Imperial Defence, but I have never heard it said that the present system was entirely satisfactory, and I cannot help thinking that the Secretary of State for Air must have considerable difficulty in obtaining the funds that he requires in competition with the two older Services. A good deal of the blame for this is perhaps due to the Government itself—not only this Government, but every Government which has been in power since the Armistice. No Government has laid down a definite policy; everything has been left to fate. The only pronouncement which any Government has made is that about seven or eight years ago we were told that we

    811
    need not expect war for another 10 years. That time is rapidly elapsing, and it is necessary that the Government of the day should give a definite lead to the Committee of Imperial Defence as it is constituted to-day, as to what is expected of the three arms of the Service.
    What I want to do more particularly this evening is to focus the attention of the Committee on the desirability of merging the Air Ministry within a Ministry of Defence. I think it is very striking how, almost with unanimity, every Member who has spoken this evening has been in favour of that policy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for Limehouse (Major Attlee) and the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) were in favour of that policy, as well as Members on this side of the House. It is a difficult problem. It is obviously difficult to start a Ministry of Defence in view of the vested interests and other pitfalls which occur to the mind. Therefore, it is only in the broadest outline that I venture to make any suggestions on this problem. We as a country have a knack of surmounting difficulties, and I do not think it is beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme for compromising with these difficulties and vested interests, and arriving at a sound system of unity, with the three fighting Services under one head.
    This year it is necessary that there should be drastic economy in every direction. I cannot help feeling that the effect of the cut made in the three Services must have a corresponding effect on efficiency, and the margin of their efficiency is so slight that if we can find a means of economising in any other direction we should certainly adopt it and not spend money on the triplication of Services which are common to all three of the fighting Services. Quite apart from the larger question of the Ministry of Defence, I cannot understand why it should be necessary to have three Departments for purchasing stores. I cannot understand why there should be three Departments for dealing with Chaplains or Medical Services, or land for the erection of buildings. All these Services, which are common to all three, could, even without a Ministry of Defence, be co-related, and a considerable, indeed a very large sum of money, might be saved
    812
    and might be spent on the fighting Services. I feel that we are not getting full value for our money. I do not see how we can still further cut down expenditure under the existing system.
    7.0 P.M.
    The hon. Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) dealt at considerable length and with great force with the expenditure of the three forces. I do not know whether Members of the House would notice the statement which has been prepared and which was in one of this morning's papers showing the enormous cost of the Air Service and some comparative expenditures. I see from that statement that whereas the staff of hospital services abroad in the Navy cost £128 and in the Army £174, that in the Air Force cost £340. I am sure we should like to hear some explanation as to why these costs are so much greater in one force than another. I want to plead for the establishment of a Ministry of Defence. I want to see the establishment of a supreme general staff which would be in a position to consider and correlate those problems of defence, operations, intelligence, provisions of supply, and organisation generally. It would obviate the necessity of having three Services each with the same end in view, the defence of this country, but looking at every problem from a different angle. I am sure we should avoid duplication of services and overlapping, and I am sure we should make considerable reduction in the size of our Estimates. The only way is to appoint a Royal Commission.
    I and a few of my friends have got an Amendment down which will not be reached this evening, but I think I can briefly allude to it. We cannot without due consideration avoid those pitfalls and vested interests which I have alluded to, but I think a Royal Commission would do so. Care must be exercised in the appointment of that Royal Commission. I do not myself believe any good will come by leaving it to the Committee of Imperial Defence. I think that would be to continue the state of affairs existing to-day without any advancement, and the whole matter would end in a deadlock. I should like appointed to a Royal Commission men who are not directly connected with either of the three great Forces at the present moment. I believe that they would report in favour of a Ministry of Defence. I

    813
    believe that it would be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a block grant—of which we hear so much nowadays—to the Ministry of Defence and that the staff under the Minister of Defence could work out where that money should go according to the needs of the moment. That will take time, but I think it is immediately possible to consolidate those Services which are common to all three and to avoid waste which is undoubtedly taking place to-day. It is all the more necessary to-day when we are obliged to cut down our Estimates. I hope the words spoken in this House will not fall on deaf ears, and that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will appreciate that there is a growing desire for the establishment of the Ministry of Defence.

    EFFECTIVE STRIKING STRENGTH.
    Mr. G. HARVEY: 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, either the effective striking strength of the Air Force should be increased or the ground personnel and Ministry staff should be reduced."
    I should like to take the first possible opportunity of congratulating the Minister on a very lucid and very outspoken speech. The point that I wish to take to-night is simply the point of view that concerns the taxpayer or the man in the street. Anyone can destroy. There are very few who think they can build who are able to do so. The Air Ministry is a War creation much in the same way as D.O.R.A. was a War creation. Dora is staying with us, and from what the Prime Minister said to-day, in spite of the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, the Air Ministry is going to stay with us. The only thing we want to do as members of the public, is to get the best possible value we can for the money we expend. I do not pretend in the least degree to know anything about the merits of unified control and cordiality between the Services. I quite agree with what the Minister said, that when it is definitely stated that something that is temporarily established is to be permanently established, it will find its place in the scheme of things. I would like to make a remark about a Motion made in this House by the Minister with regard
    814
    to the Air Force when the Opposition were in office. The Motion was made on 19th February, 1924, and it was as follows:
    "That this House, whilst earnestly desiring the further limitation of armaments, so far as is consistent with the safety and integrity of the Empire, affirms the principle laid down by the late Government and accepted by the Imperial Conference, that Great Britain must maintain a Home Air Defence of sufficient strength to give adequate protection against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance of her shores."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1924; col. 1660; Vol. 169.]
    Then, on 11th March, of the same year the present Under-Secretary went into some harrowing details of poison gas and incendiary bomb attacks and made the remark, in conclusion, that the ordinary elector was beginning to understand this new phase of war. The ordinary elector is the man for whom I am endeavouring to speak. The point is, what is our position at the present time? From what I can make of it, we are in a position of doing nothing in particular except to stand still. I am not a Jingo by any manner of means, but, with the spirit of Locarno abroad, I do think it is very evident that the only people who are studying the spirit of Locarno at the present time are the British people themselves. Other people do not seem to be taking the spirit of Locarno as it should be taken. What I have expected from the spirit of Locarno is much the same as that indicated in the remarks which have been made by other hon. Members this evening. I cannot understand why the resources of France, Italy, and Great Britain cannot be pooled. Both are considerable debtors to us, and, if we could be relieved of any portion of the expenses of the Air Force, or the £120,000,000 which the armed forces of the country will cost this year, it would be a considerable inducement to us perhaps to make some amelioration in the amount of the debt they owe to us. Perhaps that is a point of view which may be examined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he comes to make final arrangements.
    I am also one of those who do not believe excessive armaments are conducive to peace. I remember when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at the

    815
    Admiralty in pre-War days he made gestures to Germany, but Germany took no notice of them, and the consequence was that we were building one against the other right up to the outbreak of War My only fear is that we may be tempted to do the same thing in the air. From the taxpayers' point of view, I would like to point out the position we actually do stand in compared with the position we were led to expect when the Air Minister moved the Resolution which I read a minute or two ago. France is stated by competent authorities to have 1,542 active service machines. She is stated also by the same competent authority—it is not hearsay—to have a reserve of 4,000, not counting machines under construction. She also made up her mind that she was going to have as many as 2,500 first-class service machines in use by the end of 1925. They were all said to be of post-War design and construction. I daresay the figures are fairly well known. In the middle of June last year Italy was supposed to have 1,500 and was aiming at 2,000 by the end of the year. The United States are regarded as having 1,423, but, according to my hon. Friend behind me and the Report I saw upstairs yesterday, America seems to have a little trouble about the composition of her air force. Japan is regarded as having 1,300, but apparently have 1,053, including reserves.
    There is one thing I would like to ask the Minister, and that is how many of the machines that are on the active service list to-day are of pre-1919 design. Our position, therefore, is very evident. We are standing to-day in the position, according to the figures I have given, as a third-rate Power. I am very glad to hear the remark made to-day by the Minister that our position has vastly improved recently. I know that the new machines are very good. At least, I am told so by competent pilots, and I happen to be very intimately associated with one who piloted machines during the War. Our pilots are intrepid and are not bettered, even if they are matched by any other pilots in the world. I have no figures concerning Germany, but I know Germany was restricted by the Treaty of Versailles. She does a lot of good commercially with her small-powered machines. With regard to
    816
    Russia, I have no doubt that our Friends on the Opposition benches were shown everything there was to be seen with regard to the air service of Russia. The position in that country is doubtful.
    The Minister has declared that when he took office in 1922 there were only three home defence squadrons. To-day we are told there are 25 squadrons on the home service, and two or three more are in prospect this year. So I think we ought to be very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as taxpayers, for the fact that the country stands in a better position to-day in this respect than it did when he took office in 1922. The point of view which I take, however, is that to remain where we are is a practical impossibility. Either we ought to extend the striking force, or else we should have the courage to go to the other extreme and do away with it. If we are not competent to defend ourselves against a strong air Power situated within half-an-hour from the City of London, I cannot see how we could ever have the opportunity of building, when the other nation was being dominated in the air. Of course everybody hopes that such a thing as a war of that character will not happen, and God forbid that anything of the kind should occur in our lifetime! The alternative is to rely upon the civilians, with Departmental supervision. Everybody knows, however, that an Air Force cannot be built up and equipped in a day. Machines can be built quickly but engines cannot, and if we have to resort at any time to frenzied building we shall be again in the hands of the profiteer and burdened with extortionate costs.
    I should like to comment upon the question of personnel. The Estimates show that we are to have this year a total strength of 35,500, at a gross cost of £20,864,000. According to the figures given to me, the pilot strength on 1st February, 1925, was 2,099, and on 1st February this year it was 2,203. That appears to form rather a striking comparison from a civilian's point of view. There is practically no expansion in the number of pilots. We only seem to have an expansion in the numbers of the ground staff. There is another arresting comparison in these figures. The Directorate of Operations and Intelligence employs 44 people at a cost of £24,535. As a civilian I should pass that figure as very reasonable and proper, but

    817
    by comparison the Directorate of Works and Buildings employs 231 persons, and the cost is £94,089! The Directorate of Equipment takes 134 persons and costs £59,378. The Secretary's Department employs 282 persons, the Accounts Department 159 persons, and the typing staff is 155.
    There is another point which is rather striking to me. In connection with the Air Force in Egypt, Palestine and Iraq there is a statement regarding the Audit Department—a business about which I know something, from my experience. I find there is an audit staff of 67, at a cost of £32,636. I hope the Minister will not think I am cavilling in the least degree. I am examining these matters as a taxpayer, and I suggest it is all the better that they should be aired. There are 67 persons employed on this audit staff for 12 squadrons, and taking the squadrons at the usual standard of 12 machines each, I find that there is this audit staff for 144 machines—which is very nearly one audit employé to every two machines. It seems to be that each employé has a rather easy time. When I was engaged in that business, I should have considered myself as having a very easy time, if I had five or six times that amount of work to do, but in my time hours were of no consequence. I worked all the hours that God gave or I should not be here. The total Ministry list of employes is 2,085, and the cost is £751,000, an increase of £10,000. But in the serious item of planes, engines and spare parts there is a decrease of £513,000.
    I know it is an oft referred to subject, but I suggest that a remedy for our problem may very largely be found in connection with the effective use of civil aviation. The present Vote for civil aviation is £462,000 but nearly half of that sum—£216,500—is for building and lands. I understand there are only 20 firms left in the aeroplane business, and each one of them has its own drawing offices, and its own skilled designers. I am rather afraid that the official aim is to crab the efforts of the civilians. I see that at Farnborough there is employed a staff of 447, and my information is that it is very difficult to get designs passed and that very often the time occupied in passing them is such, that when the machine has been commented upon it is very nearly obsolete. I observe that France votes
    818
    approximately four times as much as we do to civil aviation, and Germany nearly as much as we do, but they both seem to go in for encouraging general business, and the export of machines. I was very glad to hear the Minister's remarks on that subject to-day. It has always seemed to me that we were rather hidebound in that respect and that the firms were simply being tied down to the Ministry, whether there was any work for them or not—which meant eventually that some of them would have to go out of business. I observe an article written on 20th February, 1924, in the "United Service Magazine" by Air-Commodore Clark Hall in which it is stated:
    "The published figures show that from the outbreak of War in 1914, it took us something like a year to work up from an output of practically nothing to 200 machines a month."
    We know to-day that we could not meet the necessities of our case even with our present resources under about six or seven months. The same officer used another remark which is rather striking:
    "Casualties to air-craft and their engines may be expected to be so heavy that only a strong and healthy aircraft industry will be able to cope with the problem of replacements. The building up of such an industry is, therefore, probably the greatest service which civil aviation can render to the fighting Service."
    We know that in peace time a machine lasts from three to five years, according to the care taken of it. From information received in my own family, I gather that a pilot, if he has good luck, may be of considerable service and perhaps at his best for only six years. The Minister will contradict me if I am wrong.
    Sir S. HOARE: Longer.
    Mr. HARVEY: In war time, however, I think a pilot is lucky if he can "stick it" for two years, and it is stated that the wastage of pilots in war amounts to 25 per cent. per month, while machines may be expected to disappear at the rate of 40 per cent. per month. I am very sorry to see that we have only 130 or 140 registered pilots outside the Royal Air Force, and we have therefore little or no reserve in that respect, while the number of outside machines available is something under 100. They are of a great variety of types and I think the Minister will agree they would be of no practical

    819
    use whatever. We devote for the benefit of civil aviation, something like £137,000 a year to the Imperial Airways, as a subsidy. Up to a little while ago, I think I am right in saying they were using nothing but old machines. I suggest that up to recently most of these machines were four years old or thereabouts. I see, however, in "The Aeroplane," that they are now using the new D.H.'s, which have a considerable reputation, and we may expect from now onwards some value for our money. It seems a reflection upon our business acumen that we have not had very much from our money so far, but perhaps the directors have been taking no fees during that time. Another phase of economy which I should like to see developed is the use of Army units, as in France, for ground work. This seems to involve a considerable saving of expense, and I notice that whereas the French air strength compared with ours is as three to one, the cost is very nearly in the inverse ratio. That seems to indicate a considerable amount of overlapping on our part and consequently needless expense.
    We seem to be sitting on the fence. How long we are going to sit there I do not know. We have a very costly insurance policy—it is costing us £20,000,000 a year—and yet we are not insured. Either we must have a stronger defensive Air Force, or we would be better without one, and in the latter alternative we would save a lot of money. My feeling is that we have not enough pilots or enough machines. It is no good talking about the spirit of Locarno to people who are not willing to listen, unless we are strong and determined enough to force your views upon them, and I do not think we shall get very much further than we are to-day until we are able to come into line with our Continental competitors. When they find that we are determined to come into line with them, we shall still sooner approach to a real Locarno agreement. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, that if we cannot bring ourselves into line with our Continental neighbours, it would be much better that we should make a drastic cut in our expenses, because, as matters stand, I consider we are wasting a considerable amount of money.
    Sir FRANK NELSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I shall do so with brevity and with some diffidence as I realise that the custom of this House is that 90 per cent. of the discussion of a subject like this shall be carried on by those who have the prerogative of expert knowledge. I was hoping the Minister would be in his place, because my chief reason for intervening in this Debate is that up and down the country in the last year or two there has undoubtedly been a most prevalent impression—whether right or wrong I have not yet made up my mind—that the Air Ministry is unduly extravagant. When I entered this House a short time ago I found two things. I found first, and very quickly, that a back bench Member had very little if anything to say or do with Money Resolutions, and, secondly, that it was impossible for him to make up his mind, by listening to Debates in this House, as to the merits of the question whether there was or was not extravagance in the Air Ministry. Therefore, in common with a few other Members of my seniority in this House, owing to the courtesy of the Air Minister, which I should like to take this opportunity of acknowledging, we decided to see what we could do, to the end that we might place ourselves in a position to decide for ourselves, as far as it was possible, whether or not there was extravagance in certain aspects of Air Force administration that were brought to our notice.
    I would like to express my thanks to the Air Minister, and also, through him, to the Air Vice-Marshal at Halton, both of whom extended to those of my party and myself who went down there the greatest courtesy when we examined that particular institution. When I visited Halton Camp, there were, I think, 1,781 apprentices. It is expected the numbers will rise in a short time to 3,000, and building is going on now, to be completed, I understand, in September, which will enable Halton Camp to take on to its establishment 3,000; but, taking the number as it is to-day, 1,781—the Under-Secretary,for the Air Ministry will correct me if I am wrong—the total staff of officers is 66, with 737 airmen, 106 civilians, and 31 educational staff, making a total staff of 940. It seems to me, and also to some of my hon. Friends in this House who have been looking into this ques-

    821
    tion, that with a roster of 1,781 apprentices, a staff of 940 requires, if I may say so with the greatest respect and deference, some explanation. The cost of an apprentice to the country is about £230 each per annum. I gather that the figures on which that estimate is based are such as to make it—and here again I put it with all deference—completely unreliable, but assuming that £230 per annum (and if incorrect this figure is likely to be more rather than less) is the cost to the country of an apprentice at Halton Camp, there again, I think, a certain amount of explanation might be forthcoming.
    I would ask hon. Members above the Gangway to believe me that I do not say this in any class sense, but £230 is probably more than it costs a parent to send a boy to any of the four or five leading public schools of England. I have personal knowledge of Winchester, and my bills for my son at that school there average £60 to £70 a term. In addition, these apprentices at Halton get 1s. a day pocket money, which, when they number 3,000 will cost the country £55,000 a year, and even now it costs between £30,000 and £35,000 a year. I submit, with all deference again, and putting forward the suggestion, I hope, in a constructive sense, that rather than pay 1s. a day to the apprentices, most, if not all, of which is spent in the canteen, a certain amount of pocket money per week, say, half-a-crown or a little more, for lads of from 15 to 18 would not only be sufficient, but better for their digestions as well. I am not telling the Under-Secretary anything that he does not know. He will know without my telling him that on Friday, which is pay day, the evening meal at Halton Park is completely knocked off, because there is so much pay received that they find that no meal is needed at all.
    Reverting for one moment to the question of the cost to the country of each apprentice, and the numbers of the staff, I have already compared the cost of an apprentice to the State with the cost to a parent of sending a boy to a public school, and on that analogy, if the Under-Secretary will go into the Establishment of any of the big public or private schools, he will see that the relationship between the pupils and the masters is nothing like in the same proportion as it
    822
    is at Halton, where, as I have indicated, it is one member of the staff to every two apprentices. I hope I am not drawing an unfair inference or criticism; I know, however, that the Minister or the Under-Secretary will tell me later on if I am, but if you take any ordinary school in England of, say, 100 boys, and allow six masters and a headmaster—I have gone into these figures very carefully—with five maidservants, a butler, a gardener, and a groundman, you will find that the average relationship between the pupils and the staff works out at about five to one. and in many cases at as many as 10 to 1. These lads at Halton do not do their own fatigues, and I do not see why it is necessary to employ there 737 airmen, who presumably, as far as we were able to understand, undertook fatigue work in dormitories, kitchens, post office, and so forth. I should have thought—and I put it forward with the greatest humility and deference—that those boys of from 15 to 18 years of age,. even if their course had to be extended for a month or two, should do their own fatigues, and that this would almost certainly be a great economy to the country.
    I freely admit that the finest technical education, I suppose, in the world is now given in the three years' course at Halton. There is no doubt about it, and my only doubt is whether the country is not paying too much for it, and whether we could not give just as good a technical education for a very much less cost. But, that being so, it is rather curious that still the number of recruits is below what is designedly aimed at. I understand the Government, as a recruiting measure, have what is known as a Parents' Day at Halton, and last year, I believe, through the generosity of the Government, no fewer than 7,000 parents received tea. It may be a most excellent recruiting measure, but will the Under-Secretary tell us why it should be necessary? There surely must be a tremendous class of boys in this country whose parents and themselves would jump at the finest technical education that I have ever seen given them for nothing plus 7s. per week pay, and yet, apparently, it is not possible to keep the numbers up to scratch. There is an aerodrome there, which, I think, has 15 aeroplanes. I understand that these apprentices are not compelled to go up, but can go up if they so desire for

    823
    what is known technically as a flip once a year. The flying staff have a number of regulation flying hours every year to do in accordance with Regulations. I should not have thought it was necessary, having regard to the fact that the apprentices are trained for a profession in which they will not normally have to do any flying at all to keep a large aerodrome there with 15 aeroplanes. I should have thought that the regular flying of the staff could be done at one of the neighbouring aerodromes, and if I am incorrect in stating that the apprentices do not have to do any compulsory flying, surely they could go also to a neighbouring aerodrome, and when they so desire do their one or two hours' flying there.
    In conclusion, I would ask the Air Minister to accept what I have said in the spirit of real, constructive criticism. My own personal predilection would be, not to vote £16,000,000 for the Air Force, hut anything that the Minister liked to put forward, provided he could satisfy me—and I should not be difficult to satisfy—that we should have, in return what I hope we shall eventually have, the finest Air Force in the world. I am only concerned in seeing that, whether we spend £16,000,000 or £60,000,000, we spend it to the best advantage and do not waste it.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major Sir Philip Sassoon): I rise to reply to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. G. Harvey). The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson), who seconded the Amendment, did not quite, as far as I could gather, follow on the lines of the first part of the Amendment, so, if he will excuse me, I will not deal with his remarks at the same time as I do with those of the hon. Member who moved it, but when I have answered the Mover, I will, to the best of my ability, endeavour to answer the many conundrums which the Seconder has put to me as the result of that visit to Halton to which he referred. The first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kennington complains of the inadequate squadron strength of our Air Force compared with that of certain other countries. I should like to say that, if this branch of his Amendment means anything, it is a criticism, not so much of
    824
    the particular Estimates that are now before the House, but of the whole programme and policy adopted by the Government, after very careful investigation by the Committee of Imperial Defence, in 1923.
    That programme, which was carefully adopted by the Government and confirmed by this House, is the policy we are pursuing. As regards the second branch of his Amendment, that relating to the apparent inadequacy of our numerical flying strength compared with ground personnel, I should like gratefully to acknowledge the moderate and restrained terms that he used in support of it, but it would seem to be the same line of attack as we have seen lately occupying so much space in many sections of the Press.
    Mr. HARVEY: I did not mention—I did not dream of mentioning—anything connected with the Press.
    Sir P. SASSOON: Certainly, I quite realise that, only the hon. Member perhaps does not realise that behind the words of his Amendment there is a certain body of opinion which might not be put forward in the same straightforward manner as the hon. Member adopted, which is, perhaps, less enlightened than the hon. Member, but more vocal, vocal in different ways, vocal behind closed doors, vocal in anonymous pamphlets circulated around, or vocal in articles that bear no signatures. Still, that is the gravamen of the attack against us, and I should like the opportunity of dealing in a few words with it. inasmuch as the words of the Amendment imply that there is a disproportionate amount of ground personnel as compared with flying personnel.
    In so far as the second half of the Amendment can be taken to assert that the ground personnel is excessive as against the flying personnel, or that the number of available pilots is not adequate, having regard to the stage which our programme of expansion has, or should have, reached by now, or that the Air Force is controlled by, or consists of, men who do not fly, that is absolutely inaccurate. We are to-day about half-way through our expansion programme. We have 25 squadrons out of our allotted and authorised limit of 52. At the end of the current year we

    825
    shall have 28. We have a higher proportion of qualified pilots available than any other country in the world. The recent American official report—the Morrow Report—gives, with what I believe to be sufficient accuracy, the proportionate number of pilots of the five principal Air Powers. It shows that we have two-thirds as many pilots as France, half as many again as the United States, more than double as many as the Italians and, roughly, three times as many as the Japanese. It must not be supposed that these pilots do not get adequate flying experience. The amount of flying which is done by service machines in the first line does not by any means represent the sum total of the air activities of the Royal Air Force. The amount of flying done for testing and research work is very considerable indeed.
    My hon. Friend, perhaps, is convinced from what I have said that there is not a disproportionate number of ground personnel compared with flying personnel, but there are others who may not be so convinced, and I should like to put these facts before them. We are in the midst of a large programme of expansion. Where should that expansion begin? Should we buy engines and machines before we have sheds, hangars and depots in which to store them, or aerodromes from which to fly them? An aeroplane costs between £3,000 and £15,000. Some twin-engine bombing squadrons carry as much as £250,000 worth of technical equipment. Are we to sink that amount of capital on these machines unless we have mechanics and engineers to look after them, and unless we have pilots to take them into the air? Three years are required to train an aircraft apprentice, and even an enlisted man takes from 12 to 18 months to become fully qualified. Are we to start training apprentices and engaging mechanics and engineers until we have the schools and workshops in which they can learn and work? Some of the hon. Member's supporters are asking us to build a house by putting on the tiles before we have cut out the foundation. I do not think my hon. Friend would himself under-estimate the value of discipline in any walk of life, and least of all in the Services. Nor do I think he would under-estimate the importance
    826
    of drill as a means of inculcating discipline and of promoting physical efficiency. But I have seen in the papers lately large photographs, occupying much valuable advertisement space, of Air Force cadets marching past at a review, and being held up to ignominy as "The Royal Ground Force." Is it the considered opinion that discipline and physical fitness are unnecessary in an air force?
    I do not know whether hon. Members realise how little drill is done as a matter of fact. At Halton, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson) knows, there are only two and a half hours a week When they go out, and are posted to their squadrons, they do about half an hour a week, and that includes any ceremonial parades and inspections. Those who visited Wembley and saw the smartness, the discipline and the intelligence of the Air Force performance there last year must have thought it must have taken many months to accomplish. As a matter of fact, the men who took part in that were men who had only just enlisted at Uxbridge. They were doing their first three months' training there previously to being posted. None had been more than three months at Uxbridge, and some only a few days, and the fact that they were able to give such a good performance is only another example of the fact that the Air Force is able to attract to it such very intelligible types of men.
    If there is any hon. Member who thinks that the members of the Air Force, whether they are pilots or mechanics, lead a sedentary life, I should like him to visit some of these aerodromes or training establishments. There is no walk of life in the services or out of them where discipline and fitness are so essential as in the Air Force. We do all we can to develop the technical skill of our personnel, and to maintain the highest possible standard of discipline and fitness, for on our degree of success in these respects depends from day to day the lives of our pilots in peace time, and in time of war the safety of this country. The men who control our Air Force, the swollen staffs of whom we have heard so much, are not military autocrats. They are not sergeant-majors in brass hats. They are men who have flown and still fly regularly. They are men who have watched the development of the Air Force from its very earliest days, and are directing it to-day with the

    827
    whole experience of the War behind them. They are men who have learnt at least that you cannot build a new force, even though it be an air force, from the top downwards. In this connection I should like to mention that in the Report of the Finance Commission of the French Chamber of 25th July, they say that the object to aim at is the provision of aerodromes and the necessary buildings; because without properly equipped bases the technical equipment would be thrown away.
    The Army and Navy, as has been already said, have had their dockyards and barracks for generations. At the time of the Armistice, the Air Force had practically no permanent accommodation at all. The Air Force officers in the Middle East now live in huts made out of old packing eases and old petrol tins. In this country 80 per cent of our personnel, officers and men, even including the Staff College at Andover and the Cadet College at Cranwell, are still living in temporary buildings. In three years' time, about 50 per cent of them will still be living in that way. In these circumstances, I do not think the gibe is deserved that these men are pampered parasites, living in grandiose palaces and battening on an impoverished nation. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman said that or suggested it, I am only saying that it has been said. Statements that there has been extravagance in building for the Air Force are not accurate. Only half the sum on the Building Vote is to be spent on accommodation for personnel. The rest is for technical buildings, aerodromes, workshops and things of that kind.
    To judge from statements in the newspapers and elsewhere, many strange things are thought about airmen. Why should airmen need any facilities for sport or exercise upon the ground? Let them go into the air! They do not want to be physically fit. What does an airman want with bricks and mortar, with barracks, canteens and mess-rooms? If he is not in the air, he can roost. What does an airman want with any education or, for that matter, any intelligence at all? Even a goose can fly. It is no whit less ridiculous to condemn the present administration of the Air Force upon such bald statements as that
    828
    50 men are too big a number to keep one flying machine in the air. There is much more in it than that. At the end of the War 84 men were required to keep a machine in the air, and there was not very much criticism to be heard then. I think very few people realise how many things are necessary, and what a wide range of activities is needed to the fitting out of a military aeroplane station, apart from the engine and its various accessories, apart from its structure and fabric of the machine itself, there is a host of fittings and articles of equipment, varying according to the machine and the purposes of the aircraft. There are things like wireless, aerial guns, bombs, bomb-racks, parachutes, equipment for photography, oxygen apparatus, compasses, automatic or semi-automatic controls, and one hundred and one other articles which are needed, each one requiring its own special ground organisation.
    8.0 P.M.
    Further than that, elaborate arrangements have to be made at all the aerodromes to prevent fire. There is the provision of fuel, stores, the building of workshops, sheds, roads, etc.; so that a numerous, highly skilled and well equipped ground force is essential to maintain an effective fighting force in the air. It is just as absurd to complain that 50 men are needed to keep an aeroplane in the air, as to complain that 125 men, irrespective of dockyard personnel, are needed to bring one of the "Queen Elizabeth's" 15-inch guns into action. It is just as absurd to complain of the number of platelayers, porters and officials that are needed to keep a train running on the line, or to cavil at the number of messengers, officers, officials, stenographers, policemen, waiters and—last, but not least—of reporters that minister to the comfort, security and efficiency of a Member of this House.
    I ask the House not to be led astray by comparisons with foreign countries. Here in this country practically every man that has anything to do with the maintenance or the equipment of our Air Force is shown on the strength of the Royal Air Force, but abroad air organisation is interwoven with naval and military administration, and statements of personnel, no less than of cost, specifically assigned to the air arm, take no account of the men or money employed

    829
    on the air forces which are borne on naval and military votes. It would be merely deceiving the country if the Ministry were to lay down as a principle that the idea of reduction in the proportion of ground personnel to flying personnel, or of personnel to aircraft can be properly pursued as an end in itself. We would never get a home defence force on those lines. The people who cry out now, at this stage of our aerial development and of our home expansion schemes, for more aeroplanes and more flying and less ground personnel, without taking the trouble to find out what is actually being done, are doing a grave disservice to their country and, if their wishes were realised, would endanger the lives of our pilots. We have got pilots than whom there are none finer in the world and we have a good store of them. Thanks to our training schools we have got much promising material coming on. It would be a crime to do anything which would compel those fellows to take unnecessary risks, and it would be folly to do anything that would in any way undermine the confidence that they have either in their machines or in their equipment.
    The hon. Member for Stroud asked me a few questions about Halton. So far as I can remember, one of the questions was the disproportionate amount of staff as compared with air apprentices there. He will, of course, remember that Halton is a very special school. There are so many highly technical and various schemes of training going on at once that those can only be carried out by very small classes. It is also in process of expansion, and at the end of this year there will probably be 3,000 apprentices there. He will be the first to realise that it would not be fair to compare a school of that kind with an ordinary public school, where the curriculum is less variegated.
    Sir F. NELSON: When it rises to 3,000, will the staff remain at the present figure, or will it be increased?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I suppose it will rise to a certain extent, but the proportion will not be anything like what it is now. Then with regard to the shilling a day which the hon. Member said was spent week by week in the canteen, I believe it is not all spent in the canteen. At any rate, a certain amount of it is spent in paying for the tickets that the appren-
    830
    tices have to take when they go home. If they did not pay for them in that way, we would probably have to issue warrants.
    Sir FREDRIC WISE: That would be an extra expense to the country.
    Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, that certainly would be an extra expense.
    Sir F. NELSON: I hope he will not think me unduly factious. Does it not not strike him that a shilling a day or 7s. a week pocket money for a boy of 15 is very large?
    Sir P. SASSOON: It has been exhaustively gone into by people who are much more competent than myself. I do not think very much would be saved if that were taken away. We would probably have to pay for the warrants of these boys to their homes. As to the maintenance of an aerodrome there, it is not a very large aerodrome and the nearest aerodrome is 25 miles away. The officers on the staff have gone through a certain amount of flying, and if they had to go to an aerodrome 25 miles away there would be the expense in transport. Added to which, a very important side of the training of the apprentices is a certain period that is spent at the aerodrome learning to swing propellers, handle aeroplanes, and do all the duties which they must perform when posted to their various units. As regards fatigues, to which I think a hon. Member referred, if the apprentices themselves had to perform their fatigues, they could not, as a matter of fact, perform all their fatigues because certain orderlies have to remain all day in barracks. It would mean a certain amount of time taken away from training and probably me in an extension of their course.
    Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I only want to intervene for a short time in this Debate to point out one or two things which have been already dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes). On the whole he ought to be very pleased that economies in State financies have slowed down the expenditure on the Air Force because undoubtedly it is giving the staff time to digest what was, in some cases, being hurried on too quickly. It should not be forgotten that the Air Force is a young

    831
    force, has got a young staff and, if I may be forgiven for saying so, is a one-man show and that one man can only tackle a certain amount at once. Therefore a very rapid development is bound in the end to lead to advancing on lines which experience would probably show are not the correct lines. For that reason I am glad it has been necessary to slow down the expansion from the 25 squadrons up to the 50 squadrons.
    I was very glad indeed that the Prime Minister thought fit to make the statement he did in the House this afternoon, not because it is the right thing to say that the Air Force is a separate force-that I do not enter into at all—but it is undoubtedly true that the Air Force has suffered from the unsettling effect of a change of policy. They are never quite sure whether this service is going to continue as a separate service or not. Therefore this declaration by the Prime Minister is, I am sure, welcome by all who serve in that service and all who contemplate going into that service. I am one of those who think that possibly in a number of years the flying service may have to break up into its component parts. But at present, under the stress of developing our resources in the air, it is undoubtedly best to keep the service as a complete service, to develop to its completion as a unit.
    I am not at all satisfied that the personnel of the Air Service will be able to continue as airmen. You have officers going now into the Air Force, young officers, and there is such a thing as air fatigue, both physical and mental. Undoubtedly, over a period of a few years, perhaps six to ten years, an officer becomes worn out from the point of view of actual air work, taking his part in the medium of the air. I am not at all sure that a linking up with the other services, both Army and Navy, may not be necessary from that point alone, because an officer who enters with all the vitality of youth may, when he becomes a moderately old officer, find that his services in the particular arm in which he has engaged have failed and that his services are no longer required. Therefore, it is worthy of thought whether it would not be better to employ officers from the Army, such as artillery officers and cavalry officers, and naval officers to do so many years' service and then go back to their arm. I
    832
    am satisfied, from my experience, that officers in the artillery and cavalry, who did some years of service like that, would be of greater value to their units when they came back.
    This question of personnel is going to have a very serious effect on the entrants into the Air Force at present. If officers and men know, from the experience of those now serving, that their life in the Service is going to be a short one, there will be no encouragement for the best type of young man to go into the Service. The Ministry would be well advised to consult with the War Office and the Admiralty to see how far an interchange of officers could take place on a definite basis. We have all listened to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam about the co-ordination of staff. I am not at all sure that what he recommends, with regard to giving executive power to the Committee of Imperial Defence, is really practicable. It may be that we will arrive at a Ministry of Defence, in which all the Services are concentrated under one head, but I for one see no immediate chance of such a change. I do think that there is a great chance, not only of saving money but of getting greater efficiency by combining or pooling the Administrative Services. The Air Service at the present moment, being a young Service, is naturally jealous of its prestige, and undoubtedly, if the Army or the Navy have certain frills, the Air Service will also want them. The Air Service would feel that whatever was granted to the other Services should also be granted to them.
    For years, however, I have thought and have recommended, not only in this House, but outside to those people who have been in positions to listen, that administrative services like transport, clothing, the handling of food, the mobilisation of equipment, education, perhaps lands and buildings, which are common to the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, should be co-ordinated and so run much more cheaply than they are at present. Anyone who has had any experience of the services would admit that there is no reason why we should have different staffs for the transport branches of the three services: that is to say, different types of wagons, different personnel, and the duplication of various things connected with these. You have the same thing with

    833
    the supply services. You have there the necessary reserve of mobilisation equipment kept in the stores, and the thing is duplicated in the way I have suggested. But I do not require to elaborate once I name the matter. You have got hospitals and doctors, and you have a thousand and one things which are common to the services. Surely it is possible to institute what was instituted during the War on a sound and level basis, that is the position of a Surveyor-General of Supplies. Under him could be collected all the administrative services of the three arms, and there would be his representatives to which those concerned would apply from the various services for the necessary supplies. In that way this Surveyor-General of Supplies would be able, not only to co-ordinate supplies but to reduce the reserves, place contracts to the best advantage, standardise the various equipment, and thereby reduce the cost of production. The more different types you have in artillery wagons and things like that, the more costly they become. If you standardise them, as you could do under a single head, you would, I am sure, save a considerable sum of money—which we all want to save.
    I would suggest that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should pass on this idea to the Prime Minister and ask for some sort of Committee like we had after the South African War. When we came back from that war we realised that our Army system was wrong. We then formed what is known as the Esher Committee that went thoroughly into the matter, taking evidence from all sources and ultimately recommending the creation of a new form of control in the Army. It is time, I think, to form a similar Committee with wider terms of reference. It could inquire into how far they could co-ordinate and bring together the various administrative services of each arm at present duplicated. The Committee would see whether we could not get any advance towards co-ordination and so save money.
    I do not want to criticise these Estimates in the least, but if there is one part I would offer a word of criticism about, it is Vote 3, where you have £500,000 less for technical equipment. Here, I think, you are going on dangerous ground, because it is common knowledge that our equipment is not as good as it
    834
    might be. If there is one thing we have to do it is to provide the very best equipment possible for our Air Force. It is only fair that those who go into the air should have the very best equipment for flying. It is a bad policy to keep bad machines. I do suggest that this economy—which I hope is only a temporary one—may be—shall I say—supervised and possibly done away with next year? At any rate, I voice, I am sure, the opinion of these benches when I say that although we stand for economy we do think the Ministry would be well-advised to give the very best equipment to the men who risk their lives in the air. We should scrap all dud equipment as soon as possible. I shall only conclude by saying that I was delighted to hear that our Air Service as as efficient as it is. I believe, so far as the efficiency of officers and men are concerned, they are second to none in the world. I do, however, think, a good deal of money could be saved by the better application of the principle of coordination in the administrative services.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I want in a very few words to reinforce almost every word that has fallen from the last speaker. I do not know if the Ministry are aware of the practically universal feeling throughout all the Services that sooner or later a Ministry of Defence will be necessary, and the sooner it comes the better for the Services. Everyone who has heard the Debate realises and recognises the moderate tone with which it has been conducted. No Member who has spoken has failed to pay a tribute, in some form or another, to the efficiency of the Air Force. Everyone knows it contains many officers and men who have done their best, and continue to do their best, for the Service, and also that their efficiency in the air is second to none. At the same time the charge of extravagance has not been met by the Under-Secretary in the speech which he made, nor was it in any way touched upon by the Minister in his speech. There can be economy secured without any loss of efficiency. I believe it can be secured, and it is well that the attention of the House should be directed to this extravagance. To all who are serving the facts are, of course, perfectly well known.
    If you take the unit of a thousand men maintained and a £1,000,000 expended,

    835
    you find that in the Air Service the cost is, practically speaking, double what it is in the other Services. Take the administrative and secretarial staff. You find that the cost per £1,000,000 for the Air Service is £7,619, while for the Army It. is £3,382 and for the Navy £3,094. Taking it on the basis of a thousand persons, you find the comparison even worse, for in the Air Force the amount is £4,444, while in the Army it is £1,284, and in the Navy £1,932. In the matter of finance and accounts you get the same results. All the way through, as has been pointed out in the course of the Debate, and as in the matter of scholastic establishments, you find the comparison from the economic point inevitably as I have suggested. It is no answer to that charge of extravagance to say that the Air Force is efficient in the air. It is no answer to say that it is doing its best, and that we shake the confidence of the officers if we suggest any change. It is essential that we should have absolute economy in all our spending Services, and it is right that in this House Members should bring to the notice of the Minister their sense of the necessity for economy, and their knowledge that extravagance is going on and cannot be concealed.
    I said the Debate had been conducted in very moderate terms, and so it has, with a possible exception of the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter). He, if I may borrow a word from the speech of the Minister, rather assumed to himself the part which the Minister called the "booster and supercharger," and I think that on the whole his speech lost by its violence. It was unworthy of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was unworthy of any Member of this House to cast a reflection on the Army, to talk about the Army making people wear spurs, as if the heads of the Army, even after the experience of the Great War, were so lost to all sense of self-respect as to put ceremonial beside efficiency. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not mean it in an unworthy sense, but it was a little unworthy of him.
    The suggestion of another hon. Member that the Air Service might be brought back into its component parts is not, on the whole, so ridiculous as the hon. and gallant Member appeared to think if
    836
    extravagance can be reduced, and if efficiency can be maintained by a change of that nature, which many officers in the Service and many Members believe to be inevitable in time unless there is a Ministry of Defence.
    Rear-Admiral SUETER: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that we have already tried this plan? We have had a Naval wing and a Military wing, and the system did not work. It was very expensive, there was competition in personnel, in matériel, in engines and everything else, and that is why we now have a unified Air Service—because the other system was tried and failed.
    Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to say it did not work. It was with that organisation that, in the main, the War was won. The War was fought with the Service as it then was, and it is rather ridiculous to say that it did not work, when it did, in fact, for the first three years of the War carry all the strain thrown upon it by the greatest war in history. But I am in accord with the hon. and gallant Member in his advocacy of a Ministry of Defence as the best solution, and the Motion on the Paper standing in my name was put down with the intention of calling the attention of the House to the extravagance which is going on inside the Air Ministry, and in the hope that some explanation of that extravagance would be given. We are still awaiting an explanation of such figures as have been given for Alton, and figures such as those I have read out regarding the expenditure per million pounds and the expenditure per thousand men. We want explanations, also, of the fact that at Halton the administrative staff, apart from the instruction staff, in that small establishment is higher than the administrative staff for the whole of the Aldershot Command. There may be an explanation for these things, and we hope there is, but we have not yet heard it, and I think that, in the light of the facts submitted, we are justified, and more than justified, in bringing the matter to the attention of the House and asking for an explanation.
    Mr. CHARLETON: I should not have intervened in this Debate but for some remarks by the Minister for Air this

    837
    afternoon. I was struck by the way in which he was apologising for being unable to give private firms as much work in the coming year as in past years. I was also somewhat alarmed when he told us that private firms are now allowed to make aeroplanes for markets abroad. We have at Farnborough a large area of land with acres of sheds, in which 24 designers and 87 draughtsmen, amongst other people, are employed, and where experiments are carried out. The hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter), who has just gone out, said we got no return for our money. I had occasion to examine Farnborough in 1923, and I found that the experiments going on there were of a very useful nature. There was metal testing; there was a mechanical starter for aeroplanes; there were experiments with Diesel engines to obviate the necessity for the magneto; there was the "booster" we have heard so much about, and now there has been a statement by the Minister that we are on the verge of a new discovery. All that has gone on, I take it, at Farnborough. Then, last but not least, there is the famous helicopter. I saw that at a private view. I have had some mechanical training, as has also the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Rose), who asked a question about it yesterday, and when we conferred upon the helicopter we both agreed that we did not think it would work. I would like to tell the House that for the benefit of those who were to see it working in the shed canvas screens had been put up, in order that we should not get deluged with oil. It appeared to me, as one with some mechanical training, that we should want about as much oil as there is in Iraq to keep the thing going. Seeing how much oil was thrown about while it was in the shed, anyone could imagine how much it would need when it got outside.
    Quite a large number of inventions and improvements in connection with aeroplane engines have been made at Farnborough. I would like to ask the Minister whether all these new inventions are patented, and, if not, why not? What is the position of these private firms? Are all the improvements and experiments that have been effected at an expenditure of public money handed over as a sort of free gift to
    838
    the private aeroplane makers, who, we are now told, are being allowed to manufacture for the rest of the world? The Minister said, and those in the Service agree, that we have the best aeroplanes in the world. These private firms are making these aeroplanes for our potential enemies, and as the hon. Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) said, we shall be bombed by aeroplanes that are the best in the world, made by English firms, as the outcome of the experiments in our publicly-supported station at Farnborough.
    I would like to know also whether the same method of purchasing machines is being pursued as was in operation when the Select Committee on Estimates took evidence on this matter. The Select Committee asked for tenders, and the answer was that there was only one tender. Of course, that is not an ideal system from the point of view of economy, because investigations are carried out, and the manufacturer is beaten down in his price to what is considered by the experts to be a fair price. It seems to me if we go on in that way it is like going to a cheapjack market, because the makers will put up the price in the first in stance when they know the expert will come round to knock something off. The result will be that you will have aeroplane rings, and instead of getting full value for your money you will find that out of the question, and you will have combines as a result, and firms out to make profit rather than to give efficiency.
    I would like to ask how, under the present system, our experts can get their experience. At the present time we are not making aeroplanes on a large scale, and what guarantee have we that they are experts unless we know they have had some real experience. Under these circumstances we cannot feel that we are getting real satisfaction. I know it is argued that we are bound to keep the outside firms going in case of war. I should like to know whether, as in the case of the great shipping and armament firms, we are subsidising these aeroplane firms in order to keep them going in the slack times. Why not make aeroplanes ourselves? Why put them out to private enterprise where they make profit on them, and we have to buy them in a very blind sort of way. If we made the aeroplanes ourselves we

    839
    should save the cost of the experts, and the expense of sending people round to see that the work was being done according to the specification. The Government is the largest user of aeroplanes, and we want efficiency and security. As a nation we are doing all the research work in connection with aeroplanes, and it seems very foolish after we have spent our money in experimenting that the result of our experiments should be handed over to people outside who build the aeroplanes.
    Not long ago I paid a visit to the Halton training ground, and I must say that, as one who has had a mechanical training, I was delighted with what I saw there. There was no such thing as a square peg in a round hole. The lads were tried at all angles, in order to see what they were particularly suited for, and if a lad could not get on at carpentering, he was put to the forge or some other trade, and I saw these lads doing some very good work. The officer pointed out to me that one lad who was doing such excellent work now had been a failure at three other jobs. I saw one job being done at this training centre, and a visitor said to the officer "If this was being done on my railway, we should do it by machinery." The officer replied: "Yes, but your machinery would not be in the Sahara Desert or on the plains of Iraq, and we are training these men to do the work without machinery." If we can produce such excellent mechanics, why do we not produce aeroplanes? If it were a case of war, we have the best trained men in the world and the best improvements, and it seems to me that it would be a very easy thing to build our own aeroplanes. Then we should not have to worry about knocking the manufacturer down in his price, or watching him closely to see that he puts the best stuff into his aeroplanes. If you want cheaper aeroplanes and the very best, and you want to keep the secrets as to how they are manufactured, it seems to me that we should make the aeroplanes, and not allow people for private profit to use the brains of the nation, in order to manufacture the best aeroplanes, and then enable other nations to use them against us.
    Brigadier-General WARNER: I could net help feeling when I saw so many dis-
    840
    tinguished officers of the Air Force in this House how gratified they must have been to see the number of hon. Members rising in their places to speak on the Air Force, to take an interest in the subject we are debating this evening. In the explanatory Memorandum issued by the Minister of Air which is so lucid and clear, it is laid down that it is necessary to call a halt in the Home Defence Force because of the stringent necessity of keeping our finances in check, and also on account of the international situation. I think that besides the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) I am the only Member in this House who considers that it is a mistake at the present time to stop the development of the Home Defence Force. On the last occasion when we had a debate on these Estimates, the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) said
    "A well governed nation recognises that semi-security is a useless thing,"
    and to-night I am wholly in agreement with the remarks he made, because we are a well-governed nation at the present time, and we have a magnificent Government. Therefore I think it is a mistake to jeopardise our safety in any way at present, by cutting down the plans which have been issued for an increase in our Home Defence Forces when we have had no practical gesture from any other country in the world in that direction.
    In 1923 it was decided that it was necessary to keep up a force capable of meeting a strong force which was then, with its aeroplanes, within striking distance of this country. The Committee of Imperial Defence endorsed that decision, and it was decided that it would be necessary for this country to have 52 squadrons in the Home Defence Force. In 1924, the Under-Secretary in the Labour Government which was then in power also endorsed it, and said that they would carry on this policy. Let it be remembered that last year we rather reduced that Defence Force, and to-day we are calling a halt in these squadrons. The reason why we are calling a halt is that at the moment we have, as the Minister said, 25 squadrons in the Home Defence Force. But only 12 of those are regular squadrons. The other five are auxiliary squadrons, purely for training pilots, and, although in the organisation for this year we are to have one regular squadron

    841
    added from abroad, and two auxiliary squadrons formed, at the end of this year we shall only have for our Defence Force 21 squadrons, with a very small number of aeroplanes, as against the big force which is close at hand on the other side. Of course, we must allow that in our Air Force there is great efficiency, but efficiency cannot counteract swarms of aeroplanes and pilots from the other side in much greater numbers.
    I will now turn to the personnel of the Flying Corps, because to-night we are talking on the Estimates, and the discussions to which I have listened have taken rather a wide range and gone off the subject. I welcome the formation of the two University squadrons, which I advocated when I spoke at this time last year. The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala), whom I see opposite me, said afterwards that it was rather a sinister plan—I cannot quite quote his words—to encourage at the Universities the formation of these squadrons. I can only say, having been in India for many years, having some of my greatest friends, with whom I still correspond, in India, and having served with troops out there, that the hon. Member for North Batter-sea would not have made that remark if he had known me personally. I thought that it was very necessary, if we were to develop the Air Service in this country, that we should draw upon those men who were most suited to fill the best positions in the Air Force later on, and that in that way, if we could endeavour at the Universities to create this spirit, we should be able to gather them in, not only for flying, but for the research work which is so necessary.
    We owe to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler) and the University authorities a very great debt for having started these squadrons, because, as I have said, when in the future they develop into really flying squadrons, and have the opportunities afforded by the aerodrome which is so close to Cambridge at Duxford, we shall get a splendid reserve of flying officers for the Royal Air Force, and, what is more, we shall in all probability develop flying as a sport in this country. That I consider to be one of the most necessary things that we can do. It is supposed to be a dangerous sport, but I asked a question not long ago in this House as
    842
    to the percentage of accidents in 1925 as compared with the previous year, and it must interest the House to know that the accidents, in comparison with the hours flown—because that is the only way in which you can get at a proper percentage and a proper basis—were 90 per cent. below what they had been.
    The hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) referred to Halton Camp, and there has been some criticism to-night regarding the expense of training these young apprentices. I am all in favour of the training that these lads get there. They get the very best training that it is possible for any boys to obtain. They are not only trained in the line they choose to take up—that is to say, in engines, or in aircraft woodwork—but they also get a good and intelligent school education, they live a healthy life, and the idea that they spend all their time doing drills is absolutely wrong. I went there recently, and I found that the amount of drill they put in during the week is only four hours. I talked to many of them, and I consider that they are very fortunate to be undergoing this training. It must be looked at in this way, that, in recruiting and enlistment for the Air Force, it is necessary to get, not the skilled man of a trade who has only practised in that one branch of his trade, but the man who is capable of running an engine in circumstances, perhaps, where he is more or less by himself. He has to learn everything about it, and so there is very great difficulty in getting suitable men to enlist in the Air Force. Certain of these apprentices who go to Halton and who excel at their work and show special ability are selected, as I am sure the House knows, for cadetships, for which they get commissions at Cranwell. But, when I saw those boys there the other day, I was so struck with every one of them that I saw, that I recognised that they would form a fine basis of pilots for the Royal Air Force if, when they left there, they were given the opportunity of flying, and I would suggest to the Minister that every one of those boys who go through this apprenticeship, apart from those who go as cadets to Cranwell, should be given this advantage.
    A great deal has been said in the papers about buildings, and about the houses which have been erected for the

    843
    Air Force. This is a new Force, and it is most necessary that the men who work in it should be given comfortable and proper conditions. We always talk a lot in this Chamber regarding housing conditions; why should you not look after the men who come to serve you in the Service, and do the best you possibly can for them? What is more, in these new stations, at present, there is a great want of housing accommodation for the married men. I asked a question about it the other day. You have the married men there, and there are not quarters in the barracks in which they can live, so they have to go out and live in the surrounding villages, and, as they are a bit better off than the land workers, they take up the places, which are rather overcrowded at present. Therefore, I am exceedingly keen that we should take no notice of these criticisms as to housing, and I would say to the Minister, "Go on with housing, and get your stations comfortable and properly settled, be cause, if you do that, you will not only have your men in the barracks, but you will be able to get your married people there." Why should they not live under those conditions?
    But there is another matter. A lot of this money has been spent on the hangars, that is the sheds in which they keep the aeroplanes. Does it not stand to commonsense that when you have these highly-expensive machines you should house them in suitable buildings where they will not deteriorate? During the War the life of an aeroplane, which was not crashed or anything of that sort, but had to live out in the open and not in a proper covered house, was only about a month. Now it is three years, and I am sure by having these proper buildings to keep the aeroplanes in the life will be extended to four or five years, which will mean a great saving of money.
    The effect of this slowing up in the Home Defence Force and the other portions of the Royal Air Force is likely to have a very bad effect on the aircraft manufacturing companies. Perhaps hon. Members are not all aware, as I am, that at the close of the War there were some 150 aircraft manufacturing companies, and these have gradually got whittled down until there are now about 20,
    844
    Those 20 are at present doing very well, but they are only doing well, as you heard the Minister say to-night, on the orders they are getting internally in this country.
    For some reason or other—perhaps the aircraft companies blame the Government; perhaps they are to blame themselves—we see all over the world that the German companies, restricted as they are in the building of their aircraft, have somehow got in and taken the trade from us. I read recently in the "Argus," a paper published in South Africa, that a new company has been started there, the African Aero Company, which flies aeroplanes from Johannesburg to Cape Town and to Durban. They get a subsidy of £8,000 a year from the Government, and the aeroplanes employed are German built. There seems to be something wrong when you discover foreign aeroplanes in these countries. We build the best aeroplanes in the world—there is no doubt about that—but they come and filch what should by rights be ours. This very same German company, I believe, is endeavouring to get in in the West Indies on the service that is going to be worked to Columbia and Venezuela. There are great possibilities for aviation within the Empire. Anyone who has been in Canada recognises that they do all their surveys there now over the great lakes by aeroplane. In Australia it has also been recognised.
    9.0 P.M.
    How are we to help these companies in this country who will suffer from the Air
    Force not requiring so much material from them? Could the Minister not summon a conference of representatives from these different countries, simply to discuss the question of aviation and to secure that when they place their orders, as they do many other orders, those orders should come to this country? These German companies are subsidised, but I am sure, if the brains of our Air Ministry and the brains of the gentlemen who come from overseas are put together, some way might be discovered of helping the aircraft manufacturing companies, which will be very necessary to tide over the time for the present when we do not want to order so much material from them. The Minister referred to scientific development. At present the research work is limited to Farnborough and one or two

    845
    other stations. Might I suggest the feasibility of helping, by some of this money that is granted for research work, some of these private firms. Some of them have their designers and their draftsmen, but they may have among them brains which have not thoroughly developed because people have not got the chance. They have not the money to do it. If some of this money that is voted for research work could be diverted to some of these private companies, we should probably be great gainers.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: In the midst of the interesting details with which hon. Members have been dealing during the last hour or two I am afraid the issues of this Debate have been lost sight of. I have no doubt that it is extremely important that the proper education of the apprentices of the Air Force, and proper provision of housing, and these other questions should be thoroughly ventilated. I hope the great enthusiasm which has been shown by some hon. Members opposite for effective education may cross over to other quarters and that education will be provided for some of our apprentices in other walks of life, and that proper housing accommodation will be provided for those upon whom ultimately the welfare of this country depends. We shall, however, have opportunities to discuss those matters in connection with other Votes. The matter we are discussing to-night is, roughly speaking, an increase of £500,000 to a net Air Estimate already about £16,000,000. This increase is to be provided under the apparent delusion that it is to secure the defence of the country. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that this was the first duty of the Air Force, I wish he had stayed longer to examine that question more closely, and I wish some of the experts who have followed him had given some time to it.
    We are already spending, if we take the average expenditure per family, on the defence of the country, by one arm alone, the Navy, £7 per family per annum. By this vote we shall be spending another 35s. per family per annum to secure the defence of the people in time of war. No one knows better than the members of the Government, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if ever the contingency arises in which these so-called weapons of defence
    846
    are required to be used, you might just as well have armed the people with sticks and stones from the point of view of any effectiveness that will be obtained. That is the charge that we make against the Government in connection with the Estimates now put forward. The Committee is engaged in a sorry game of make-believe. We have the lives of the people as the pawns. We are pretending to prepare for a game of chess, which will be played not according to rules but played in a tornado, and the pawns will be swept off the board when the tempest begins. You will not secure the defence of the people by £16,000,000 spent on the Air Force, or even if you quadrupled the £16,000,000 now proposed.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a particularly clear idea of what it is that confronts us. Speaking at Bolton recently, he referred to the fact that the peace of Locarno had been the greatest contribution towards preventing a recurrence of a catastrophe which, he said, if it were repeated would mean the destruction of civilisation. He did not tell that Bolton audience that if the catastrophe were repeated he was providing 16 million pounds for an Air Force to guarantee their defence and 60 millions for a Navy which would guarantee their defence. He knew the truth and stated it, that if the catastrophe recurred for which this Air Force is being prepared, defence becomes a sheer impossibility. I remember the Chancellor of the Exchequer on one occasion making a point in connection with the Naval Estimates, that we were justified in spending the enormous sum of money that we then agreed upon, because we had to keep the one-Power standard. He said that we must be prepared to meet the strongest enemy that we might be likely to confront. What was true of the Navy then will be true of the Air Force; in fact it will be doubly true of the Air Force. The Under-Secretary of State for Air, in a lecture which he has been giving recently in Brussels, if I may quote from a report in the "Times," said:
    "The fact that Great Britain was an island was more of a danger than a protection in the event of aerial war."
    If it be true that because of our insular position that the enormous expenditure which has been agreed upon in regard to the Navy is necessary, then, according to the Under-Secretary's findings, it is

    847
    infinitely more true that a much greater sum should be spent if anything like the minimum of defence is to be provided.
    Let me examine the scheme of defence a little more closely from the point of view of the experts. Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard, lecturing on the subject of the Air Force as a means of defence, at Cambridge, some time ago, made this statement:
    "The aeroplane is the most offensive weapon yet invented, but a shockingly bad weapon of defence. Yet aeroplanes are the only defence against aeroplanes, and it is doubtful whether any other defensive weapon will take its place for a hundred years. Although it is necessary to have some defence in order to maintain the moral of our people, it is far more necessary to lower the moral of the enemy people, for nothing else can end war."
    During the last debates on this question I brought to the notice of the Air Minister the official view of our military headquarters regarding the use of weapons of war in the event of another war. In the Army Regulations it is stated that it is the duty of commanders to bring to bear such pressure upon the enemy civilian population that at the earliest moment they will press their Governments to sue for peace. According to this expert opinion, the only use to which our Air Force will be put in another war will not be to secure the defence of our own land, but to bring pressure to bear upon the enemy civilian population. I ask that a little closer attention should be paid to the question of the defence of our towns by air weapons. One hon. Member has asked the Air Minister whether there have been effective arrangements to defend a certain part of London. The Air Minister, quite rightly according to the rules, replied that it was not in the public interest to say what had been done for this area or that area. If the Air Minister had felt himself free to give a full and unvarnished statement of the position, he knows that no part of London is secure in the case of another war. That is the charge I bring against the Government in connection with these Estimates.
    With the development of high speeds and explosives, with the use of poison gases and of germs, there cannot be any sure guarantee in the case of another war that the security of our people can be obtained. The difficulty you would
    848
    be in, and I believe the military experts fully agree with this view, would be not merely that you would be pre-occupied with the defence of London, but with the defence of 100 other towns, which it is equally important should be considered from the defensive point of view. You would be pre-occupied with the question of the defence of your means of communication, from the point of view of the mobilisation of your armies and your supplies. You would have so many places to provide for that only by an extremely superior Air Force could you guarantee any sort of defence against those who might launch an attack on you.
    The Government have practically admitted this evening that the countries near to us are, in several instances, superior in the numbers of their aeroplanes. France has twice as many or more than twice as many. I see from the reports of what is taking place in America that the House Naval Affairs Committee has proposed a five-years scheme for aircraft building at an expenditure of £20,000,000, the Committee having in mind the creation of 100 new planes. Italy is contemplating a similar addition. France, although so superior in numbers, also proposes to make considerable additions to her fleet. In view of these things, how can the right hon. Gentleman leave so easily that which he said was the first duty of the Air Fleet, namely, to provide the air defence which the people have had promised to them? I submit that what actually is taking place is that more and more people in our land are realising the truth of what the then Under-Secretary of State for Air said so well in this House on 11th March, 1924:
    "The first people to bear the brunt of an attack upon the security of these islands will be the man and woman in the streets going about their round of daily business It will be the ordinary citizen whose lungs will be the first to be affected by poison gas, whose body will be rent, and whose home will be destroyed by the bombs of the invaders. I think the ordinary elector is beginning to realise with acute anxiety this new fact of war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1924; cols. 2232 and 2233, Vol. 170].
    I can assure the Air Minister that the electors of this country have had no assurance given to them by the Debate to-night, or by the proposals of the Government, that if another war should come anything like security has been obtained

    849
    for them. I therefore plead, as I have done so often in these Debates regarding military preparedness, that we would be far wiser if we cast off all fooling and told our people the simple truth, that the weapons of war have been so developed by science that you will never again use them for the purpose of defence. They have got out of human control, and if humanity is to be saved from a catastrophe which will overwhelm us all, it cannot be saved by the expenditure of either £16,000,000 or £116,000,000 upon an Air Service. There can only be an addition to a confusion which becomes worse confounded by all the efforts which you make in this direction. Unless we can make the Locarno spirit a reality instead of a pretence, unless we can secure by agreement, if it be possible, or, if not by agreement, by enterprise on our own behalf, and by setting the example ourselves, a reduction of the armaments with which we are surrounding ourselves, we face the greatest catastrophe that the world's history has known. I hope that as the electors realise more and more the truth of these things, as the Under-Secretary for Air in 1924 suggested, at last we shall get a state of mind in this country which will give us a Government that has courage to travel in the direction for which I have pleaded.
    Captain BRASS: I agree with the last remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, as far as the Locarno spirit is concerned. I only hope that at an early date we may be able to have some conference on disarmament, and may in that way be able to reduce all armaments all over the world. But until that time comes, I do not think we are quite wise in saying that there is no defence against a hostile Air Force. It may be true, as was said by Air-Marshal Trenchard, that the only defence against a hostile attack is an offensive. Personally, I think that that is a certain amount of defence. I feel that if we have a large number of mobile squadrons in the vicinity of any area that is to be attacked, especially squadrons with fighters and scouts, it will be very difficult for some of the hostile bombers to drop their bombs in the places in which they want to drop them, when there is a swarm of other aircraft fighting them in the way in which they would undoubtedly be fought if they came to attack this
    850
    country. The hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) said that we had an Air Force because someone else had an air force, and that he considered it was international snobbery. I wonder what he would have said if we had not had a Navy and an Army and an Air Force before the last War? I wonder what the position of the hon. and gallant Member, and of all hon. Members, would have been, if we had taken up that position before the last War? We should not have been here, I am afraid.
    Before saying one or two words about the Air Force, I would like quite humbly to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air on the very explicit statement which he has made. We have been attacked in various quarters. I am thinking more of the attack in the Press about the Air Force, which is now called and quite wrongly called, a ground force. We must remember that the Air Force is a developing force, as the Under-Secretary has said, and that through the development stages we must build new aerodromes and have a large number of people on the ground during the process of the construction of an efficient defensive force. If an airman is to be an efficient airman he has to be trained on the ground. It must be remembered that we cannot do fighting, bombing, map-reading and other things up in the air. It is absolutely essential, if we are to have an. efficient Air Force, to have schools in the aerodromes where pilots and observers are taught the things that are necessary when they get up in the air. They have to be taught bombing. They can learn that on the ground. They have to be taught photography, fighting, reconnaissance, spotting for guns, navigation and wireless. They have to be taught all these things on the ground. It is necessary in that way that they should be on the ground during a certain time.
    I do not believe in the theory that every airman should spend a certain amount of time in the air. I do not think it is a right policy. I do not think an airman should necessarily be an air-taxi driver. There is no reason why he should not spend only that amount of time in the air which could teach him to fly in the way he ought to fly, and teach him to fight and do all the necessary things that become an airman and are necessary for the particular part he is going to take.

    851
    Some people have an idea that the only way you are going to judge the efficiency of the Air Force is to find out how many hours each pilot has flown during a year. That is a perfectly ridiculous system. It does not show whether the Air Force is efficient or not. What we want to know, and I want to ask the Secretary of State for Air one or two questions, is whether the Air Force, for which we have to pay £15,000,000 this year, is really an efficient force. I would rather have a quite small efficient Air Force with efficient machines and officers than a large Air Force with a large number of rather dud machines, and a lot of officers who have done merely flying and have not gone into the question of bombing, fighting, and so on. What we want is a really efficient Air Force.
    I am told—I do not know if it be true—that some of the squadron leaders, and flight commanders in the Air Force, spend too much time in checking stores and doing a lot of paper work. They have to go into all sorts of things, and as a result of that they are not able to fly as much as they normally would do. I want to ask my right hon. Friend why it is that the number of flight commanders and flight flying officers in this year's Estimates has gone down by 150? If you look at page 6, Vote 1, you will see that the reduction in the number of flying officers is 150, while the wing commanders, on the other hand, have gone up by 6. I presume—I may be wrong—that the reason why the number of wing commanders has gone up, is because we are forming in this country a large number of extra squadrons and building a lot of extra aerodromes to take those squadrons, and as the result of that we shall require an increased number of wing commanders.
    Another question which I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether the officers of the Air Force are going through a very large number of courses? I remember at one time it was the practice in the Air Force to send officers to courses of different kinds. The result of that was that every officer was a sort of jack of all trades and master of none. He went to all sorts of places and through all sorts of courses, and at the end of that time he came back, having rather a muddled mind and understanding a little
    852
    about many things but not a great deal about one particular thing. I hope that is not the case at the present time. There is another point which should be raised, that is the question of how many bombing crews we have, and whether we are really teaching our Air Force officers to do the things which they will be expected to do in the event of war. Do we teach them not so much actual art of flying, but do we teach them bombing, enough bombing, do we teach them to fight in the air and use the photographic gun? That I think is a very important thing. I was told some time ago that a certain number of hours had to be flown and also that pilots had to use the photographic guns for a certain number of hours in the year. I am afraid I do not quite agree with that policy. It may be a right policy or it may not. It depends to a very large extent as to whether the man behind the gun understands what he is doing. First of all, he has to go through the course of fighting on the ground and understand that, and the photographic part of it. When he has done that, then he may be useful in that particular exercise. But to make every air officer, whether he really understands that particular business or not, pass through a certain process of taking photographs seems to me to be rather a waste of money if it is done in that way.
    I want to know whether the Air Force is really a mobile force. I wonder if the Air Ministry has ever considered having an alarm of an air raid, and what would happen if it was suddenly announced that hostile aircraft were coming over this country and were going to attack London. I wonder whether that has ever been thought of as far as an exercise is concerned, so as to try to get the Air Force as mobile as possible to concentrate at one particular place. The air raid might be planned to take place in the Midlands; it might be planned to take place over the London area; but wherever it was planned to take place, I do think it would be a good exercise for the Air Force, as far as their mobility was concerned, and their ability to grapple with that state of affairs if, unhappily, it should arise in this country. I make the suggestion to my right hon. Friend that manœuvres of something of that kind should be considered by the Air Ministry.
    I want to know what is happening to the ex-service pilot, the men who fought

    853
    during the War in the Air Force, who got a temporary commission in 1919 and who, after his temporary commission lapsed, was forbidden or unable to get a permanent commission and had to go to the reserve. That seems to me to be rather an unfair way of treating officers of the Air Force who were pilots during the War. I understand—I stand to be corrected—that about one-fourth of the officers who served during the War as flying officers and who since that time have got temporary commissions in the Air Force, hold permanent commissions in the Air Force at the present time. I wonder whether the principle of having a short-service commission is really good for the esprit de corps of the Air Force. We have a young fellow joining the Air Force quite young and he gets a temporary commission for five years. It is not like an officer going into the Army or the Navy. A boy who goes into the Navy hopes one day to be an admiral; a boy who goes into the Army hopes one day to be a Field-Marshal; but a boy who goes into the Air Force with a temporary commission for five years, does not entertain the expectation of becoming an Air-Marshal. Therefore, I ask, Are we going to get by this system the right type of individual in the Air Force and when they are in the Air Force are they going to have the same esprit de corps as that which is shared by officers in the Army or the Navy? I am afraid it is not likely. The system of short-service commissions leads a boy to think less about the future of the Air Force than about his own future.
    What is to happen to such a young officer at the end of the five years? He is paid very well during his service, and at the end of the time he may be fortunate enough to get a permanent commission, but it is more likely he will not get a permanent commission. He has then to seek work elsewhere, and the result is that officers holding temporary commissions cannot put their heart and soul into the work of the Air Force. Air Force officers are paid higher than officers of the same rank in the Army or Navy. That is perfectly right because there is a greater risk attached to the work of an air pilot than to the work of an officer in the Army or Navy, but when these young men leave the Air Force at the end of five years, they may have acquired
    854
    a certain amount of extravagance and they now expect to get positions of a better kind than they will be able to get. The Minister might consider if, instead of giving high rates of pay to young flying officers, it would not be better to keep back some of the money and give it as a grant to these officers when they are leaving the Force. On the question of the unified Service, which has been raised by a number of hon. Members, it seems to me rather strange that we should have a Director of Operations in the Navy and the Army and the Air Force and that the Navy should always get fresh meat while it is not considered necessary for the other Services. I understand that in the Navy fresh meat is alway supplied now.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: The hon. and gallant Member can never have been to sea.
    Captain BRASS: I am glad to be corrected if I am wrong in that particular, but I suggest that, before we go into the question of unification, the Report of the Colwyn Committee should be placed before Members of the House. I understand that Committee went into the finance of this question in order to see whether there was extravagance or not, and it would be a good thing if we could have that Report. I hope the Minister will take into account what I have said and will answer the questions which I have put, even if they have seemed to be in a slightly critical spirit.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for Air and the hon. Baronet the Under-Secretary of State for Air have defended their Department with great skill this afternoon, but they have failed to convert me to their point of view. I do not share in gibes against the Air Force. I do not blame the people in the Air Force, because they are only the victims of the system, and the system is wrong. The Air Force has a small but efficient flying service, and the rest of it is glorified welfare work. It is very nice to have these thousands of picked young men of good education, and so on, and to put them through an intensive training as mechanics and aircraft apprentices; it is very nice to have new barracks and camps and hangers, and so on; it is delightful to see that we have a dental squadron leader, and dental flight lieutenants, and also the Air Force's own parti-

    855
    cular nursing system under an air chief matron. But the net result is that we have 20 regular squadrons for home defence of about 12 machines each, or about 230 in all, and a reserve of only about 100 per cent. Not counting the machines which we have in Iraq and which we must keep in Egypt and India, that means that at the outbreak of a war we could put in the air only 600 or at the most 700 machines in the first few days as against 4,500 French machines.
    Sir S. HOARE indicated dissent.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Baronet shakes his head. I take his own figure. He says he hopes to have 25 squadrons of 12 each, and I say the reserve is only about 100 per cent. and I do not see where he can get more than 700 machines at the outside. According to figures given in a Presidential Report in the United States, the French first line and reserves in the first few days of a war are calculated to produce 4,500 machines. And, as for being the second Air Power in the world, I differ with the right hon. Baronet, and say that is absolute nonsense. From the same Report I find that Italy is calculated to have about 2,000 machines on the same basis, the United States about 1,400, Japan 1,300, and ourselves about 1,050.
    Mr. PENNY: What is the date of that Report?
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was presented a few weeks ago. If it is not correct then let us have the actual figures. The Minister has his own intelligence department, and as these figures have been given to the United States Senate, why cannot we have a similar report in this House? I am certain that the policy laid down in 1923 by the Conservative Prime Minister—the same right hon. and much-esteemed Gentleman who now occupies the position—namely
    "a home defence force of sufficient strength, adequately to protect us against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance of this country"
    —has not been followed out and is not being followed out. The right hon. Gentleman, at Colchester, on the 17th October, 1923, then, as now, adorning the office of Minister of Air, used these words:
    "The British air power must include a home defence force of sufficient strength
    856
    adequately to protect us against air attack by the strongest air force within striking distance of this country."
    And the right hon. Gentleman has not carried out that policy. He has deliberately departed from it, because of Locarno. Have the French cut down their Air Force because of Locarno, or the Italians, or the Americans? Of course not. The fact is, in cold truth, that if the Navy had been played the fool with like this, and let down in this way—because, remember, we had the finest Air Force in the world at the end of the War, and we have allowed it to melt away—and if we had a naval strength one-third that of our nearest neighbour and greatest potential opponent—I am not talking of politics, but of strategy—if the Navy had been let down in this way, and if we were the third or fourth Naval Power in the world to-day, the Government would not last 14 hours, and the Minister responsible would probably be hanged by the mob. It is only because the country does not understand the awful terrors and horrors of an air attack, and the way in which this new force can leap over armies and navies and wipe out the means of communication and of replenishment of the beaten Air Force, that this sort of thing can go on. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Locarno?"] I mentioned Locarno just now, and I asked whether the French were cutting down their Air Force because of Locarno, or the Italians, and the answer is, of course, in the negative.
    The fact is that if we are not going, with this very great and rising expenditure, to get a force that, if it cannot defend the country, can at any rate hold out such a terror of reprisals that nobody dare attack us, it would be much better to disband the whole thing, to disarm completely, to save the money, to reduce taxes, to strengthen our financial position, and to help our trade and commerce. If we are not going to get security, it is ridiculous to spend £16,000,000 on a glorified welfare service, because that is what it comes to. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir P. Sassoon) talked with great feeling about the poor officers in Iraq who are living in houses made of packing cases and petrol tins and all that kind of thing. I feel very sorry for them. but I notice that he does not do it, that he

    857
    does not live in such places at all. The Minister and he were not content with offices at Adastral House, but must needs take Gwydyr House in Whitehall. I dare say a good case can be made out for it, and it is more convenient to be near Westminster and in the Whitehall area, which gives a certain prestige which does not attach to other districts, but it must be extremely inconvenient to have these two offices, and before the expense at Adastral House was incurred I think the hon. Baronet might have seen that his beloved airmen in Iraq and at home were adequately housed in stone buildings, if these stone buildings are necessary for their comfort.
    The whole system is wrong. In France they do not have these vast ground forces. All the mounting guard, the fatigues, the officers' servants, and so on, are provided by the Army or Navy, as the case may be, and we ought to do the same in this country. I know it requires a great change in organisation to do anything like the same thing here, but I do not want to interfere with the independence of the Air Force at all. I want it to be an independent strategical force, and I think it will become the most important force in our whole defensive system, but I want it confined only to what is required for flying, fighting, research, and the proper equipment and outfitting of the force. The hon. and gallant Member for Hallam (Sir F. Sykes) made a speech that has not been answered, and that was indeed unanswerable, in reference to this particular question. The vast ground army that is complained about should be drawn from men not specially entered and trained for flying. That is where the waste comes in.
    With regard to the question of drilling, let me draw the attention of the Air Minister to the fact that the Air Service has too slavishly copied the Army and Navy in non-essentials. It is a great mistake too rigidly to discipline and drill mechanics. The mentality required for a mechanic is very different from the mentality required for a foot soldier. We found that out in the Service in regard to the engine-room artificers. After a man becomes a qualified mechanic, the more infantry drill you give him and the more mounting of the guard and parade ground drill and ceremonial you give him,
    858
    the worse mechanic he will become. It will sicken him of his job. The mentality required in a man to look after an aeroplane engine is very different from that required in a man who is trusted to be a smart sentry on guard outside an Air Marshal's country residence. Honestly, we found that out in the Navy. We have in the Navy the very finest engineer-artificers in the world, and we never think of giving them any unnecessary drill. We look upon them as artificers and as men whose soul and life are in their engines, and we object to them forming fours and drilling all day long. It really spoils them.
    That is the fault of the Air Service as I see it to-day, and the net result is an immediate fighting force of about one-third that of the nearest striking air force within reach of our shores, and a going back on the policy laid down and indorsed by all Governments since 1923, even the Government of my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who were practical in office, and yet this policy has been departed from by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Air. I repeat that it would be much better to save the whole of the money and strengthen the finances of the country instead of spending over £16,000,000 on a force which gives us neither security nor, at present, the hope of security.
    Captain REID: I listened to the very interesting speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air earlier in the Debate, and must say I appreciated what he was able to tell us. The only cause for criticism that I might have was more in regard to what he left unsaid than in regard to what he said. While he was speaking, I could not help feeling that had he been a back bencher, a free lance, like myself, we might have had some of his innermost thoughts upon the situation. Anyhow, I am a free lance, and, consequently, I am going to be presumptuous enough to guess at some of those things which the right hon. Gentleman left unsaid.
    Having spent a considerable portion of my career as an active flying officer in the Air Force, I naturally take a great interest in the subject, and approach it, perhaps, from the pilot's point of view. I think, perhaps, the best way to approach my objective would be to state the fact that this country strategically is

    859
    peculiarly situated from a geographical point of view, and even though in the future we had a greatly decreased Army and a greatly decreased Navy, the fact would remain that, provided we had a larger Air Force and an efficient Air Force, we would in that case be free from all hostile attacks. It so happens that we are in a position different from that of any other country, inasmuch as we are completely surrounded by water, and I often wonder why it is we do not take more advantage from the fact. Other countries have not the same necessity as ourselves to take full advantage of it. Perhaps I may cite, as an example, Italy. We have only to look at the map, and we see that Italy geographically is very similar to ourselves inasmuch as she is wholly surrounded by water, except for her northern territory. Signor Mussolini, evidently recognising the importance of the air arm, recently has concentrated upon the Air Force, to the presumed disadvantage both of the Italian Navy and the Italian Army.
    If we turn to France, we find that she is now leading the whole world as far as air record is concerned. Only last year she spent no less than £450,000 on subsidising her civil aviation. On the other hand, we, who during the War led the whole world as air pioneers, only intend to subsidise our civil aviation to the extent of £127,000 in the forthcoming year. If we turn to so-called bankrupt Germany, we find that last year that country spent no less than £244,000 upon her civil aviation—the country that is supposed to be down and out—and I understand that her machines are increasing to an alarming extent. I am told on good authority that it will only be a matter of a few years before German civil aviation machines will be more extensive in number than our own military machines. I understand that we at present have a matter of 710 aeroplanes, that is including all those which are stationed in Iraq and Egypt, and also those that are attached to the Army.
    10.0 P.M.
    I should like to impress upon the House of Commons this somewhat important situation, that every one of those German machines, which are growing in number every month, can, with a few hours' work expended upon them, be rapidly converted into hostile raiding machines. You have
    860
    only to fix a bomb-rack and a machine-gun and they are ready for active service. An even more serious consideration, of which, I think, we are sometimes inclined to lose sight, is that if a colossal hostile fleet of machines were allowed to come over to this country, or rather this city, unhindered, that war, so far as we are concerned, would be over in a very few hours, to our disadvantage. As has already been said by speakers, all our communications would be broken. It would be impossible to send out mobilisation orders of any sort; in fact, there would be chaos throughout the country, as London is somewhat peculiarly situated and is different from the capital of any other country, inasmuch as it is the key to the whole Empire.
    I know it can be argued that we are not in a position to prevent it, because even if we had as many machines as any other country, the fact remains that the hostile raiding machines could get over our shores before we could get up to their height and prevent them. That may be so, but as a pilot I somehow feel that if one were told that one had to raid a certain objective, unless there was a very good opportunity of getting back, one would never be prepared to start. And, after all, in warfare, as so many hon. and gallant Members in this House know, it is the moral effect that is so extremely important.
    Many hon. Members will remember, towards the end of the last hostilities, those mysterious suspended aprons which came along, and I may explain in a few words to those who do not remember about it what that means. As soon as hostile aircraft was approaching our shores, the fact was immediately communicated to headquarters in London, and their approximate height. Immediately captive balloons were sent up in a certain area of London, and between those captive balloons were suspended nets, the principle being that you could catch the hostile oncoming machines as you could catch fish in a fishing net.
    I agree that no machines were ever caught, but the authorities were, on that occasion, extremely clever. They told everybody that these suspended nets existed, and, at the same time, told everyone to keep it a dead secret. The result was that in a very few hours the whole world knew of it, and that was exactly

    861
    what the authorities wanted. They wanted the Germans to know, and if one examines the annals of the Air Force, one finds that after the system of suspended nets was started, no German machines actually came over the heart of London. Time and again they raided our shores, but the German bombers, feeling that discretion was the better part of valour, dropped their bombs on the countryside, and returned to their posts, no doubt telling excellent stories of how they bombed Buckingham Palace and the War Office, apparently leaving out the Houses of Parliament in case of severe reprimand. I only mention that to show how important is the moral factor in war.
    I would like to mention that it is very difficult to discuss air policy without making a comparison between the Air Force and the Army and the Navy. This is a question that has interested me ever since the War, and I have come to one or two conclusions on the subject which may not be in accord with the conclusions of every hon. Member in this House. As far as I can see it in the future, the main reason for our having such an extensive Army as we have at the moment is to fight other people's battles. As for the Navy, the naval experts tell us that they are quite capable of protecting our shores, and I presume that is the reason why we have such an extensive Navy, as a much smaller Navy would do to protect our trade. A growing percentage of people, however, are realising that the wars of the future are going to be in the air, especially 10 years ahead, and we have got to look 10 years ahead. That being so, what use are a large Army and so expensive a Navy going to be to us for raids made in the air? Even if these shores should be attacked in the old romantic way by means of a hostile fleet. I am not so sure that the best way to meet it would not be from the air by means of our machines. We have seen the interesting experiment that one machine can put out of action entirely the largest battleship, and these conclusions make me think that undoubtedly in 10 years from now the main use of our Fleet will be to act as a target for hostile machines, hostile submarines and mines.
    I make this suggestion in all seriousness. I look forward to the time—in fact, it is my ambition—when the Air Force, as far as the number of aeroplanes
    862
    is concerned, will be double the strength it is now. I go further than that and I say that I also look forward to the time when both the Army and the Navy are at the same time decreased in size. That, no doubt, may seem a somewhat sweeping statement. Let me qualify it if I can. Looking at it from the material point of view, it means that we can carry out considerable disarmament at a saving to the nation of millions of pounds. It is recognised that both the Army and the Navy cost considerably more than the Air Force. More than that, the Air Force is the only Service whose experience and progress is of advantage to us materially and commercially; that is to say, in civil aviation. It is quite different to the other Services in that respect. If I may turn for a moment to the practical side we have got to remember that we have got to think of all contingencies, and that if in the future it should ever be necessary for this country to assert herself in Europe, I sometimes feel that the best way of doing it would be for our augmented and efficient air fleet to make a visit to the capitals of the countries concerned, and I am convinced that that would put a very different complexion upon any argument.
    It was during the Armistice that I acted as staff captain to Air Marshal Sir John Salmond. I remember on one occasion it was necessary for me in the course of my duty to fly from Cologne to Brussels, from Brussels to Paris and from Paris to London. This was done with ease in one day. I merely mention this to emphasise how extremely mobile is the aeroplane these days. If in future wars we have to send our infantry and also our artillery to a range of 400 miles from this coast, just as we did in 1914, it would take them days, if not well over a week, to do it, whilst our aircraft could do the same journey in a little over three hours. That is a good comparison showing the mobility of the Air Force these days. Many of us must have been struck by the fact, looking through the history of this land, that Great Britain in the past has seldom won a war before she has practically lost it. I do not think we can bank on our good fortune or, shall we say, our stoutness of heart in that direction very much longer. After all, times move much more rapidly than they used to. When in years to

    863
    come I retire from being the father of the House, and my only occupation no doubt will be drinking port—provided I can afford it—and blaming the Socialist party for my gout, I have no ambition to be one of the "I told you so" brigade. I want to see us realising the importance of this arm. I want to see us moving with the times, and really at the moment getting ourselves in the position to meet such an attack as I have suggested.
    Only a few days ago I remember that Members worked themselves into a frenzy about the proposed, or supposed, future raiding of the Road Fund. I only wish just a quarter of the same amount of thought was given to the future raiding of these shores. It is high time we put away our antiquated conceptions and got down to solid bed rock on this particular subject. It is for that reason that I claim that it is no good the Pacifists saying that we must have disarmament, because unless we have complete disarmament the only way to prevent war will be to be prepared for war. It is a platitude, but it is none the less a true platitude, and there is no getting away from it. It is for that reason that I have suggested that we should greatly increase the size of our Air Force, and at the same time decrease the size of the other Forces. I feel that that has many advantages. We will have achieved considerable disarmament at a saving of millions of pounds to this country without any loss of security, and in fact with a great addition to the security of this land. Last but not least, I look forward to when once again this country can lead the whole world as an air pioneer both in regard to civil and military aviation.
    Sir S. HOARE: I think it would be a convenience to the House if I now attempted to answer some of the questions that have been raised in the course of the Debate. Let me say, at the outset, how grateful I am to the House for the good nature with which they have made any criticisms that they felt bound to make and fox the reception they have given to my Estimates. The Debate has covered a very wide ground and, I suppose owing to the fact that my Estimates are the first of the Service Estimates, certain general questions have been raised upon them, affecting not the Air Ministry in particular or
    864
    the fighting Services generally but indeed the whole policy of the Government. There is, for instance, the great question of disarmament that has been raised by Member after Member, particularly by hon. Members sitting on the benches opposite. Quite obviously that is not a question with which I can deal in any detail in a Debate of this kind Let me only assure the House that we are just as anxious to see a reduction of the great expenditure on armaments as any hon. Gentleman opposite. So far as I myself am concerned, realising as one is bound to have realised, if one is brought in daily contact with them, the horrors of air warfare, there is nothing I would like to see better than a restriction of air warfare and air armaments over the whole of Europe.
    There was the other big question of scarcely less importance which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ton-bridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender Clay)—the question of a Ministry of Defence. There again, that is a question for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and one on which I as one of the Service Ministers, and speaking for the Air Ministry obviously could not make any pronouncement. But I can say this, that I shall certainly convey to the Prime Minister the arguments the hon. and gallant Gentleman used, and add the fact that they were supported by hon. Members in every quarter of the House. It was quite obvious, in the course of the Debate, that there is a growing feeling in all questions of the House for much closer co-operation between the three Services than at present exists. To-night I can only make these two passing observations. The first is that I believe that in pressing the case for co-ordination my hon. and gallant Friend is pressing an open door. So far as my Department is concerned one wishes to see the closest possible co-operation between the Services and also between the three Chiefs of Staff. I am inclined to think that the best line of advance is to push forward the movement that already exists, and which will make sure of every great question of defence being first considered by the three chiefs of staff not as individuals but collectively. Secondly—and this is the only other observation I would venture to make—I am of opinion that before you can have a centralised Ministry of Defence you must

    865
    have a greater community of feeling between the Services themselves. You must build up from below this greater community of feeling, whether by the lessening of duplication in the Administrative Departments or by the making of the relations closer between the two Services than they are at present. The starting point is that of creating a common feeling in favour of much closer co-ordination than exists at present. Then we shall see something coming into being which may more fully meet my hon. Friend's suggestion. In any case, I will undertake to tell the Prime Minister that hon. Members on all sides of the House have pressed for this closer co-operation.
    There has been a series of questions put to me by hon. Members in connection with the administration of the Air Ministry. I do not know whether I have time to deal with all of them, but if I have not, I will undertake either to deal with them on the Report stage or in any other way that hon. Members may desire. I will only allude to a certain number of them which seem to me of great importance.
    Then there was the reference of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) to the creation of an engineer brand in the Air Force. I scarcely ever disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and when I do I must have very good reason for setting my opinion against so expert an opinion as his own. Weighing one thing with another, I am bound to say that it is better not to split up a comparatively small service like the Air Force into a number of different sections, and I would much rather try for the ideal, even though it may be difficult to attain, of spreading our engineering knowledge through the whole service and trying to make all our airmen to some extent engineers. That is the reason why I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend in the suggestion, which he has made before and which he renewed this evening. I am inclined to think our policy of not creating a separate branch is showing not unsatisfactory results, for we find that the engineering standards in the Air Force are going higher every year. Take the test of accidents: the number of accidents in proportion to flying hours, is falling year by year. But this is a
    866
    big subject, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, and I do not propose to go into it in greater detail this evening.
    Then there were a number of questions asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Captain Brass). On the question of short-service officers, there is a great deal to be said both for and against it, but the more I study the problem the more certain I am that we cannot obtain a satisfactory Air Force unless we have a large number of officers upon a short-service basis. If we have all our officers upon a long-service basis we shall have too many senior officers in a force that should be, principally, a flying force; and further, we shall not be able to build up so quickly the Reserve that is essential in any efficient Air Service. Our system of having half our officers on a short-service basis means that after five years they go on to the Reserve for another period of five years. That is the answer I make to my hon. and gallant Friend's observations about short-service commissioned officers. With reference to the other details he raised, I do not for a moment suggest they are not important, but I will, with his permission, give him answers when next we resume the Debate, or send them to him after this Debate this evening.
    There was a proposal made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Brigadier-General Warner) that we should have an Imperial Conference for discussing air questions common to the Empire as a whole. I am glad to think that the Imperial Conference will be meeting in October this year. I shall certainly bring up the question of air policy at the meetings of the conference, and I will see that it has a prominent place in the agenda of that conference. Some questions have been put to me by hon. Members opposite. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked me various questions about the garrison in Palestine. That is a question more for the Middle East Vote than for the Air Estimates, but I may say in passing that the evidence of the peaceful state of Palestine and Trans-Jordania only necessitates a total Air Force garrison there of a single squadron.
    There was also a long series of criticisms of the Ministry made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for

    867
    Hallam (Sir F. Sykes). Here, again, one hesitates to dispute the statements or the conclusions of one who has himself held such high responsible posts in the Air Force. I find myself in some difficulty with my hon. and gallant Friend, because I find that year after year, whatever I do and whatever attempts I make to develop the Air Force and aviation in the country generally, I am always wrong in the view of my hon. and gallant Friend. For instance, I remember two or three years ago my hon. and gallant Friend was clamouring for an increase in the strength of the Air Force. On that occasion I followed his advice, and I am now charged by him with setting up a great military organisation. He has pressed me in the past, as he has done this evening, to devote my attention to the development of research and leave nothing undone in the interest of scientific development.
    I am asked in the interests of research to make a small purchase of certain now notorious American machines and American engines. I may say that I have created a squadron for the purpose of research that will be many miles quicker per hour than any squadron that exists in any Air Force in the world. In the interests of research I have made that experiment, and I think my hon. and gallant Friend should be grateful for the action I have taken in this respect.
    I could go on through a whole series of similar episodes, but let me now come to the main basis of his criticism against my administration, criticisms which, while they were stated more moderately to-day than some people have stated them outside, none the less appear to represent a body of opinion, if not extensive in this House, at any rate are not inextensive in the country generally.
    First of all, there is the charge that we devote too much money to buildings, and too little money to the flying side of the Air Force. My hon. and gallant Friend made that charge this evening, and I had hoped that he would nave shown rather greater sympathy with the difficulties that confront any Air Minister than he did show in his somewhat negatively critical speech. Here am I to-day, faced with the problem of building up, for a period of years, an Air Force three times the size of the
    868
    Air Force that existed three years ago. When I first undertook the task, I found that, as a result of action that had been taken by a previous Government, with which I was in no way connected, almost all the aerodromes had been surrendered or sold, and the Air Force had been reduced to an almost insignificant size so far as this country is concerned. What was I to do with the new squadrons if I had no buildings in which to house them and no aerodromes which they could use?
    I might have taken the easy course, and have set up a great paper Air Force, with a large number of machines upon paper, and the men that were behind them. I thought—and I am glad my policy was subsequently supported by the Secretary of State for Air in the Labour Government—that a sound policy was to begin at the beginning, and not to order the machines or form the squadrons until I had the aerodromes for the Air Force to use, buildings for the men to live in, and hangars in which to keep the aeroplanes. I wish very much that I had not got hanging round my neck this great problem of finding these buildings. I should like, just as much as any Member of the House, to spend all my money upon the fighting squadrons, and no money at all upon buildings, but there is the fact that the Air Force is a new Force, created at the end of the War, with no permanent buildings of any kind; and, even with the expenditure for which I am asking the House to-day, and with similar expenditure in future years, part of the Air Force in 1929 will still be housed in temporary war huts. I would ask hon. Members how I could possibly defend a policy that, while providing houses for every other section of the community, which we are trying to do to-day in other branches of the Government's policy, did not provide houses for the airmen and officers of the force we are trying to build up?
    Then I come to another charge, the charge that we have set up at the Air Ministry and at some of our headquarters grossly excessive staffs. There, again, I welcome any practical suggestions as to the reduction of staffs. I should like to see those staffs cut down to the lowest possible limit, and so would my advisers. So far as the Air Ministry is concerned, there we have had inquiry after inquiry into our administration, and inquiry after inquiry has come to

    869
    the same conclusion, namely, that, upon the whole, the administration is sound and economical. If I need give an example of that, I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that, although during the last two years we have been greatly expanding the operations of the Air Ministry, and although we have been building up an Air Force many squadrons greater than it was two years ago, there has been an altogether insignificant rise in the staff of the Air Ministry, and this year, if it had not been for ordinary increments in salaries, there would have been a substantial reduction.
    With reference to the headquarters staffs, there, again, during the last 12 months we have had a most drastic scrutiny into the headquarters of our principal commands, and I am glad to think the result of that scrutiny is already showing itself in the Estimates and that we have been able to make substantial reductions over a large branch of this part of our administration. Speaking generally, we are all anxious—I as Minister and my advisers at the Air Ministry—to keep staffs down to the lowest possible limit.
    The last charge, which has been repeated over and over again now for many years in an exaggerated form, is that we are a ground service and not a flying force. All sorts of calculations are made to prove that the greater part of our activities take place on the ground and not in the air. Sums are worked out to show the number of men that it takes to keep an aeroplane in the air—calculations which are very often extremely misleading. But if there is anything in them I would point to the fact, for what it is worth, that while my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hallam was at the Air Ministry the percentage was 83 ground men, if I may use the expression, to one aeroplane in the air. I am glad to think that we have been able, first of all, to bring it down to something over 50, and we have now brought it down to something under 50.
    Sir F. SYKES: That, of course, was under war conditions, and not under the peace conditions, which have obtained during the last eight years.
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend has himself
    870
    stated time after time that, at the end of the War, our Air Force was the most efficient in the world. If that was so, I should not have thought there could be anything in the nature of a waste of men on the ground. But a calculation of that kind is really worth very little. It is not a question of how many men you have upon the ground. It is a much broader one. Is your Air Force an efficient Air Force, or is it not? I claim that, judged by every standard, our Air Force to-day is much the most efficient of any in the world.
    I can easily make that clear. I could give comparisons which would show much better figures than those I have given the House, but I prefer to take the most rigid basis of comparison, that of first line machines. If I wanted to give hon. Members a better showing, I could throw in training machines and experimental machines, and I could make the comparison look a great deal better with foreign Powers than it looks with the figures I have given the House. It seems to me that in a matter of defence of this kind it is much better to give the Committee, not the best possible figures, but the most stringent figures. On that account I have given the House the most stringent figures of comparison between first line machines.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: What is the technical definition of a first-line machine?
    Sir S. HOARE: A machine that can not only be put into the air without delay, but can be kept in the air with reserves behind it. I could appear to have many more machines. I could press further with alternatives for making the number of squadrons appear to be greater. I could lessen the amount of training that is undertaken by airmen and pilots. What would be the result? If our pilots were worse trained, if our mechanics did not have the full instruction that they now receive, you might for a moment or two appear to have more machines in the air in proportion to ground staff, but you would have machine after machine crashing, and the result would be not economy, but much greater expenditure.
    More important than that, I am not prepared to run the risk of unnecessarily losing the lives of pilots. I am quite certain that if we adopted the easy way of restricting our training and cutting

    871
    out the full instruction that our pilots now receive, the result would be appalling accidents, which I am glad to think we do not now experience, and a great rise in the loss of lives of pilots generally. When I hear these charges that we are a ground force and not a flying force, I would ask hon. Members who believe those charges to go to Iraq or to the North-West Frontier of India and see the flying work that our squadrons are doing there. No squadrons in any other country in the world can carry out work as efficiently as our squadrons at Iraq and the North-West Frontier of India are doing. That is the answer to the charge that we are a ground force and not a flying force.
    The fact that hero our squadrons are yearly improving in efficiency can be proved by every test placed upon them. Go to Hendon year after year and see what they can do there. You will find that they maintain a standard that has not been reached in any other country in Europe. Go to Iraq and see there a great country garrisoned by a few squadrons from the air, and garrisoned with extraordinary efficiency. Take another test. Take the test of the number of our pilots. It is a fact that we have half as many pilots as the United States. We have com paratively more pilots than France, which, it has been admitted this evening, has a much greater Air Force than we have. Lastly, I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Hallam and other hon. Members who may be inclined to make a charge that we are a ground force, that, to-day, we are flying proportionately twice as many hours as any other Air Force in the world. If comparison be made between us and the greatest flying Power in the world, our nearest neighbour, with a force twice as great as ours, I would say that, last year, we actually flew more hours than the whole of the force of that country put together. In view of these facts, I ask hon. Members to pay little attention to the charges so lightly made against this splendid Force. There is a grave risk that if unsupported charges of this kind—
    Sir F. SYKES: The charges are not at all against the Force itself. The Force is the most magnificent Force in
    872
    the world. The charge is against the policy which handles that Force. The policy, as I see it. as I said before, is upside down. There is too little flying and no reserve. That is the trouble.
    Sir S. HOARE: The policy is the policy of having as many pilots, as much flying and as much flying efficiency as possible. I disagree with my hon. and gallant Friend, who seems to think that when he was at the Air Ministry everything went well, and that since he left everything has gone badly. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"] I agree that it may be impertinent for me to put up my opinion against his.
    I feel I have already taken up too much time of the House. I have tried to give hon. Members concrete answers to the charges that have been made. I ask hon. Members to believe that the Air Force to-day is the finest flying force in the world, and that upon the whole we have been not unsuccessful in holding a balance between the various claims upon expenditure; and I would venture to ask hon. Members, now that we have had a long general Debate, to allow the Motion to be put that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, upon the undertaking that we have a resumption of this general Debate in the early future on the Report stage.
    Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: May we be clear on the last point? I understand that if we go on with this Debate now, you, Mr. Speaker, would give the Closure at 11 o'clock, and then we could go on with the Debate on Vote A, after 11 o'clock? If the House agrees to finish the Debate now, do we understand that we shall have a full day at a later date on the general question, when we can discuss Vote A? The right hon. Gentleman did not give any definite undertaking on that point. Do we understand that we have a full day on the general question at a later date?
    Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: May I also press for that, as there are many Members who are anxious to speak on this subject, which is of great importance? None of us wants to keep the House any longer to-night, although we have a right to do so.
    Sir S. HOARE: I am happy to give the House an assurance that there will be a full day, and, if Mr. Speaker will allow it, a general Debate will take place when we resume our discussion.
    Mr. SPEAKER: As far as I am concerned, if the House be pleased to pass the Committee stage of the Votes to-night—on the same day on which I am moved out of the Chair—I shall be prepared, on the Report stage, to allow a departure from the ordinary rule, that is to say, that, on the Report of Vote A, the discussion should be of the same full width
    as it has been to-day, on the Motion to move me out of the Chair.
    Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 98.

    Division No. 50.]

    AYES.

    [10.51 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

    Mac Robert, Alexander M.

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

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Makins, Brigadier-General E.

    Albery, Irving James

    Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.

    Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

    Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

    Ganzonl, Sir John

    Margesson, Captain D.

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

    Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

    Marriott, Sir J. A. R.

    Apsley, Lord

    Gibbs, col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

    Mason, Lieut.-col. Glyn K.

    Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

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

    Merriman, F. B.

    Atholl, Duchess of

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Meyer, sir Frank

    Balfour, George (Hampstead)

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)

    Balniel, Lord

    Grace, John

    Moore, Sir Newton J.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Grant, J. A.

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

    Barnston, Major Sir Harry

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Murchison, C. K.

    Betterton, Henry B.

    Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Bristol, N.)

    Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Nelson, Sir Frank

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

    Hacking, Captain Douglas H.

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

    Blundell, F. N.

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

    Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

    Boothby, R. J. G.

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

    Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hammersley, S. S.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart

    Hanbury, C.

    Oakley, T.

    Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

    Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

    Oman, Sir Charles William C.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Harland, A.

    Pennefather, Sir John

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Harrison, G. J. C.

    Penny, Frederick George

    Briscoe, Richard George

    Hartington, Marquess of

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    Brittain, Sir Harry

    Havery, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Broun-Lindsay, Major H.

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

    Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

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

    Haslam, Henry C.

    Price, Major C. W. M.

    Bullock, Captain M.

    Hawke, John Anthony

    Radford, E. A.

    Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.

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

    Rains, W.

    Butler, Sir Geoffrey

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

    Rees, Sir Beddoe

    Butt, Sir Alfred

    Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

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

    Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

    Henn, Sir Sydney H.

    Rentoul, G. S.

    Caine, Gordon Hall

    Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

    Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

    Campbell, E. T.

    Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

    Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)

    Cautley, Sir Henry S.

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

    Ropner, Major L.

    Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

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

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton

    Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

    Rye, F. G.

    Charteris, Brigadier-General J.

    Holland, Sir Arthur

    Salmon, Major I.

    Christie, J. A.

    Hopkins, J. W. W.

    Samuel, A. M. (surrey, Farnham)

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Hore-Bellsha, Leslie

    samuel, Samule (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

    Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

    Sandeman, A. Stewart

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Couper, J. B.

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

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sandon, Lord

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

    Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

    Sassoon, Sir Phillp Albert Gustave D.

    Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Huntingfield, Lord

    Savery, s. S

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

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

    Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)

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

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Galnsbro)

    Iliffe, Sir Edward M.

    Sheffield, Sir Brekeley

    Cunliffe, Sir Herbert

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

    Shepperson, E. W.

    Curzon, Captain Viscount

    Jacob, A. E.

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

    Dalziel, Sir Davison

    Jephcott, A. R.

    Slaney, Major P. Kenyon

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

    Kindersley, Major Guy M.

    Smithers, Waldron

    Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.

    King, Captain Henry Douglas

    Spender-Clay, colonel H.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

    Lamb, J. Q.

    Sprot, Sir Alexander

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

    Little, Dr. E. Graham

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

    Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

    Loder, J. de V.

    Storry-Deans, R.

    Dawson, Sir Philip

    Lord, Walter Greaves-

    Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.

    Eden, Captain Anthony

    Lougher, L.

    Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Sugden, Sir Wilfrid

    Elliot, Captain Walter E.

    Lumley, L. R.

    Thompson, Luke (sunderland)

    Elveden, Viscount

    Lynn, Sir R. J.

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

    Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

    MacAndrew, Charles Glen

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Everard, W. Lindsay

    Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    MacIntyre, Ian

    Tryon, Rt. Hon. Geroge Clement

    Fanshawe, Commander G. D.

    McLean, Major A.

    Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Macmllian, Captain H.

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

    Fielden, E. B.

    Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Finburgh, S.

    McNell, Rt. Hon. Ronald John

    Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)

    Watts, Dr. T.

    Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

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

    Walls, S. R.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

    Wise, Sir Fredric

    Woodcock, Colonel H. C.

    Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)

    Withers, John James

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)

    Womersley, W. J.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Cope and Lord Stanley.

    NOES.

    Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)

    Hardie, George D.

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

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

    Hastings, Sir Patrick

    Rose, Frank H.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hayday, Arthur

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Attlee, Clement Richard

    Hayes, John Henry

    Salter, Dr. Alfred

    Baker, Walter

    Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)

    Scrymgeour, E.

    Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)

    Henderson, T. (Glasgow)

    Sexton, James

    Barr, J.

    Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

    Batey, Joseph

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

    Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

    John, William (Rhondda, West)

    Sitch, Charles H.

    Bromley, J.

    Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel

    Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

    Smith, Rennie (Penistone)

    Cape, Thomas

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snell, Harry

    Charleton, H. C.

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford, T. w.

    Cluse, W. S.

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

    Stephen, Campbell

    Compton, Joseph

    Kirkwood, D.

    Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)

    Connolly, M.

    Lansbury, George

    Taylor, R. A.

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, F.

    Thurtle, E.

    Dalton, Hugh

    Lowth, T.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.

    Davies, Evan (Evan Vale)

    Lunne, William

    Viant, S. P.

    Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

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

    Wallhead, Ricard C.

    Day, Colonel Harry

    Mackinder W.

    Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney

    Dennison, R.

    March, S.

    Welsh, J. C.

    Dunnico, H.

    Maxton, James

    Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.

    Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)

    Morris, R. H.

    Williams, David (Swansea, East)

    Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Oliver, George Harold

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Gillett, George M.

    Owen, Major G.

    Windsor, Walter

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

    Palin, John Henry

    Wright, W.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Groves, T.

    Potts, John S.

    TELLLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Allen Parkison and Mr. A. Barnes.

    Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Richardson R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

    Supply considered in Committee.
    [Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

    NUMBER OF AIR FORCE.
    Resolved,
    "That a number of Air Forces, not exceeding 35,500, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and abroad, exclusive of those serving in India, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

    PAY, ETC., OF THE AIR FORCE.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,405,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Air Force at Home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

    WORKS, BUILDINGS, AND LANDS.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,347,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Works, Buildings, Repairs, and Lands of the Air Force, including Civilian Staff and other Charges connected
    876
    therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

    QUARTERING, STORES (EXCEPT TECHNICAL), SUPPLIES, AND TRANSPORT.
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,507,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport of the Air Force, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."

    TECHNICAL AND WARLIKE STORES (INCLUDING EXPERIMENTAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES).
    Resolved,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,091,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Technical and Warlike Stores of the Air Force (including Experimental and Research Services), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927."
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

BISHOPRIC OF SHREWSBURY MEASURE.
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I beg to move,
"That, in accordance with The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Bishopric of Shrewsbury Measure, 1925, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
I rise to move this Resolution by which the House is asked to agree to a measure passed by a large majority in the Church Assembly for the creation of a new diocese of Shrewsbury as soon as sufficient funds have been collected. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up !"] At the present time two-thirds of the amount required has still to be collected, but hitherto no public appeal has been made, and I should like to make clear from the outset that this proposal involves no charge whatever on public funds. The Measure provides that the new diocese shall include all parishes in the Archdeaconries of Salop and Ludlow which are situated wholly or partly within the County of Shropshire, together with one parish in the Principality of Wales. At the present time the Archdeaconry of Salop is in the diocese of Lichfield, and the Archdeaconry of Ludlow is in the diocese of Hereford. Therefore, under this proposal, these two diocese will be reduced in size. There are two main reasons for this proposal. One is to give relief to the diocese of Lichfield. I do not propose to dwell upon that side of the question, because that will be dealt with presently by my hon. Friend the Member for the Stone Division. The other reason is to provide better for the spiritual welfare of the people who live within the area of the proposed diocese.
It is largely a question of comparative accessibility and compartive distance from the diocesan centre, and that applies both from the point of view of the Bishop visiting the different parts of his diocese and also from the point of view of the clergy and laity visiting the diocesan centre. In the case of all the principal towns in those two archdeaconries, with two exceptions, the distances from Shrewsbury are very much shorter than the distances from either Lichfield or Hereford. Also, the majority of people who live in the area of the proposed new diocese have nor-
878
mally no business other than ecclesiastical which takes them either to Lichfield or Hereford, whereas Shrewsbury is the normal town for their business. It is situated in the centre of the proposed new diocese, and has roads and railways radiating from it. It is, in fact, an ideal centre for the diocese.
This proposal is no new one. It was first publicly discussed in the Hereford Diocesan Conference in 1889, and since then it has been very fully considered at numerous Church Conferences throughout the two dioceses. I am not going into the details of those. I will only observe that in the year 1921 the Bishop of Lichfield, in a letter to the Archdeaconry of Salop, strongly recommened the proposal, on account of the impossibility of doing his work adequately in a diocese so large and so thickly populated as Lichfield. In the same year, the Bishop of Hereford, in a letter to the Archdeaconry of Ludlow, stated that in his opinion the practical considerations in favour of the proposal outweighed the sentimental objections to it.
Then in 1924, a referendum was held, at the request of the Church Assembly, in order to ascertain the views of all the Parochial Church Councils in the two Dioceses on two alternative proposals. One was this proposal which is now before the House to form a new Bishopric, and the other proposal suggested that in order to relieve Lichfield, the Archdeaconry of Salop should be taken away from Lichfield and added to Hereford, that would have relieved Lichfield, but it would not remedy the disadvantages from which the Archdeaconries of Salop and Ludlow are suffering as regards distance from the Diocesan centre.
The referendum was held and the result of the voting was that in the whole of the two Dioceses, 499 Parochial Church Councils voted in favour of the Bishopric and 238 in favour of the alternative proposal, that is a majority of 261. If we take the figures only for the Archdeaconries of Salop and Ludlow, which are the parts primarily affected, the figures were 196 Church Councils in favour of the Bishopric proposal and 69 voted in favour of the alternative proposal, a majority of 127.
Then the Church Assembly appointed a Committee to' consider any other possible alternative schemes which might be

879
suggested. Five other alternative schemes were considered, and all of them were rejected by this Committee. Therefore, when this scheme came before the Church Assembly last year, it was passed by a very large majority. Thus the scheme has been passed by the Church Assembly and has been recommended by the Bishops of Lichfield and Hereford, and the figures I have quoted show that a great majority of the people in the parts primarily concerned desire it. I am aware that there are certain objections raised. It is said that the Diocese of Hereford will be left too small. It may be true that Hereford will be left smaller in area than most others at the present time. It may be true that the Hereford area will not have a very large population, but I submit that what really matters is the number of parishes and separate units with which the Bishop has to deal, and in this respect Hereford, even when reduced in size, will be still larger in this respect than several other Dioceses.
It is said that Hereford will suffer extra burdens, and that it will still have to maintain the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, and so on, but this will cause no extra expense to the funds of the diocese. It is said that the administrative expenditure of the Hereford Diocese will be increased—that it will be automatically doubled. I do not know on what calculation those figures are based. According to my information, and I have figures in support of my contention, the extra expenses for administrative purposes which will be thrown on the Diocese of Hereford will only be about £70a year. Then we hear the argument that if money can be raised for Church purposes let it be used to increase the stipends of the underpaid parochial clergy. If it were true that the creation of a new diocese would prevent an improvement in the position of the parochial clergy, then I would certainly agree there would be very much to be said for the argument, but experience has shown that the creation of a new diocese leads to the raising of more money for Church purposes, and therefore so far from the creation of a new diocese injuring the position of the parochial clergy, it is more likely to benefit them. It is said that there are
880
alternative arrangements. We are entitled to ask what are they? All the alternatives that have been suggested have been considered and rejected. Therefore, I submit that these objections are outweighed by the arguments in favour of the scheme, the great advantage from the point of view of nearness to the diocesan centre, which it will bring to the area primarily concerned, and the fact that the great majority have clearly and definitely expressed their wish for it. For these reasons I hope the House will agree to this Resolution, and I beg to move.
Mr. BROMLEY: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down, will he tell us in what diocese Bitterley and Woofferton will be under the new scheme?
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: Bitterley will be in the new diocese.
Mr. BROMLEY: And Woofferton?
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: I think it will remain in Hereford.
Mr. LAMB: I beg to second the Motion so well and fully moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow.
I promise the House that I shall not detain Members long, not because I am lacking in appreciation of the justice or wisdom of this Measure, but because I have common sense enough to know that at this time of night hon. Members do not want long speeches. It will have been gathered that this Measure purposes to do three things. The first is to divide the present Bishopric of Lichfield by liberating that portion which is now situated in Shropshire; the second is to create a new Bishopric in Shropshire; and the third is to eliminate the portion which is now in Shropshire from the present Bishopric of Hereford. I wish to address my remarks to the House from the attitude of a resident, and one who has been actively associated with the Church in Staffordshire for many years. Let me give briefly the population and the area of the Diocese of Lichfield. There are 468 parishes; the area is 1,175 square miles; the population is 1,389,111. The present Bishop of Lichfield has given most nobly of his abilities and service to the work he has been performing. But I do say this: that the present condition of the County of Staffordshire deserves and requires a full time Bishop. The populations of the new

881
proposed areas would be as follows—the remaining portion of the Diocese of Lichfield which would remain in Lichfield—that portion now situated in the County of Stafford would have 330 beneficiaries with a population of one and a quarter millions. The population taken away from the Lichfield area and placed as part of the new Bishopric would be comprised in 138 benefices with 162,000 odd of population. The needs of North Staffordshire are very great, as, indeed, are the needs of the whole of Staffordshire, where we have two very large industrial areas. In the north we have the Potteries, comprising what is sometimes termed "The Five towns," which are really six, and have now been combined into the new city of Stoke-on-Trent. That is surrounded by a very large and populous mining district. In the south we have what is generally known to the public as "The Black Country," comprising seven or eight large populous towns, and in addition there are the city of Lichfield and the boroughs of Stafford, Burton and Newcastle. There is also a very large rural area, and the north-east portion of that, which is on the Derbyshire side, is very sparsely populated, and also very inaccessible, and its administration and supervision require a great deal more time from the Bishop than, possibly, is the case in other districts.
All I wish to say with regard to the Diocese of Hereford is that it appears to me that Hereford is the home of all the opposition to this Measure. It is quite justifiable, but I believe I shall not unnecessarily annoy the representatives of Hereford if I say it is based rather more on sentiment than on reason. The Hereford Diocese will undoubtedly lose a certain portion, that which is now situated in Shropshire, but it will gain the full-time services of a Bishop for the restricted area; and in addition to that the whole of the finance for the new Bishopric will be found by Shropshire, and Hereford will remain, with a very slight reduction, with the whole of their present income. The Measure has the support of both Bishops; the rural deaneries have very largely supported it; for the last four years—1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924—the Diocesan Conference has supported it almost unanimously; the Church Assembly has passed it; and it has been stated to be expedient by the
882
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I consider that the great volume of evidence not only here but in the dioceses concerned is in favour of the Measure, and I have very great pleasure in seconding the Motion.
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE: May I intervene to give an answer to an hon. Member opposite who asked me a question? He asked me whether two parishes which he named would be in the new diocese. They will both be in the new diocese.
Mr. S. ROBERTS: You have been good enough to intimate to me, Mr. Speaker, that on a Motion of this kind no Amendment is in order. Therefore, I have to ask the House to give a direct negative to the Motion which has been submitted. I very much regret that a Motion of this importance should come on at a time of night when most hon. Members have probably no great desire to listen to argument, because this matter is absolutely of vital importance, from a Church point of view, to those I am representing. I apologise to the House for having to speak at this late hour, but I must deal, I am afraid, at some length with the arguments. I speak with some little knowledge of the question, because I have taken part in this controversy for the last five years as a member of the Church Assembly. In the first place, this proposal for a new Bishopric is absolutely unique in its character, and I do not know of any other Bishopric which was created under similar circumstances. In other well-known instances, when new Bishoprics were formed, it was done by cutting off large industrial centres like Sheffield and Birmingham, or cases like Winchester, which was too large, and it was cut into three parts, and Norfolk and Suffolk were divided to make them similar, and in all these cases the parts cut away were infinitely larger than what is proposed in the case of Hereford, and which is proposed against the wishes of the people in that diocese. I think I shall be able to prove up to the hilt that the majority of the people in the existing diocese of Hereford are definitely opposed to this Measure. As far as evidence of local feeling is concerned, I only need to allude to a great public meeting which passed a resolution against this proposal. The Hereford City Council unanimously passed a resolution against

883
this Measure, the motion being moved by a leading member of the Wesleyan body. Upon the instructions of the Church Assembly a definite plebiscite was taken of the parochial Church parishes of Tichfield and Hereford. The people in the Staffordshire Diocese had no interest in the matter except to get some relief for their Bishop, and it was merely a secondary thought to bring in Shropshire, which was suggested by the Bishop of Tichfield in order to put up a sort of smoke screen. A plebiscite was taken in the Diocese of Hereford, which consists of the county of Hereford and part of Shropshire, and in the existing Diocese of Hereford 207 voted against the measure and 105 for it, practically two to one against the measure. Now I will take the Shropshire part of the Diocese.
Sir HENRY SLESSER: Will the hon. Member say who were the voters?
Mr. ROBERTS: The plebiscite was taken by instruction of the Bishop, and the voters were the members of the Parochial Church Councils. The Hereford Diocesan Conference was even more opposed to this measure.
In the Shropshire portion—that is, the portion of the diocese which it is proposed to take away—there were 71 for the Measure and 61 against it or for the alternative proposal, so that even in the Shropshire part it is almost even feeling with regard to this proposal; and I may say that the opposition to this Measure comes from Shropshire to a very large extent, and some of the leading opponents of this Measure are Shropshire men who desire to remain in the diocese of Hereford. I want just to allude to the pamphlet which has been issued by the promoters of this Measure, in which they deal with the question of local opinion. I do not think they deal with it very fairly. They say:
"The Shropshire portion of the Hereford diocese "—
where, as have just said the figures of the plebiscite were 71 to 61—
"supported it by a 6 to 1 majority in this official Conference summoned ad hoc."
They go on to say:
"The Hereford portion alone opposed it, but 18 per cent. of its parishes supported it."
884
There they are not comparing like with like. They are taking the plebiscite where it suits them, and quite a different Conference where, again, it suits them. They do not even say that the resolution was carried at that Conference with a very important rider, which was this:
"That the archdeaconry of Salop "—
that is, the part of Shropshire now in Lichfield—
"should be temporarily added to the diocese of Hereford until the Shrewsbury Bishopric should be formed."
Those who supported that rider did so very much on the ground that they felt that, if once that union had taken place, it would be many years before it would break off, and that it would probably be so successful that that break would never come at all. So, in this pamphlet, it is hardly fair to say that the Shropshire portion of the diocesan Conference supported it by a 6 to 1 majority, without any allusion to this important rider, without which the resolution would not have been carried by that majority at all.
Although I do not wish to do so, I must just speak of the question of the support given to this Measure by the Bishop of Hereford. I am very reluctant to deal with the matter in any way, but, if I may say so, I think the Bishop was rather "got hold of," being very young as a Bishop, before he really knew what the feeling of his own diocese was, and that, having come to that position, he feels that he is bound to stand by it. At the same time, he has made two very important statements. One was that the Diocese of Hereford as it exists today is not too large for a Bishop's work, and the other was that he saw no practical physical difficulty that would prevent him from administering both Hereford and Lichfield. As against the opinion which he expresses at the present time, I would put the opinion of the late Bishop of Hereford, who is now Bishop of Durham, and who is, and has been, one of the most strenuous opponents of this Measure. He is a man who knows the conditions in Hereford.
I assure the House that the reason why we in Hereford oppose this Measure is not sentiment, and it is not pride; it is because we think the Diocese of Hereford will suffer serious and definite injury. We say that Hereford will be left too small. It will be left with a population

885
of about 114,000. I believe there are about 37 bishops in this country, and the population of the country is about 40,000,000, so that the average for each Bishopric must be something over 1,000,000, and yet it is proposed that the Bishopric of Hereford should be one of 114,000 souls. That would be about the population of Fulham or Hammersmith, or Shoreditch or St. Marylebone. Imagine having a bishop for one of these small districts, the size of which all hon. Members know and realise. The promoters of this Measure say that, although Hereford is small, it will be larger than 68 other dioceses as regards number of incumbents, and larger than about 10 in area. When I tell the House that one of these 10 is the diocese of London, it will be seen that the argument as to area is not one that can carry much weight. As to the number of incumbents, one of the dioceses that I have looked up is Birmingham, where, although they have a smaller number of incumbents, they have about 170 assistant clergy, while in Hereford, I believe, we have only about 13 assistant clergy In estimating the new diocese you want to look at the question with regard to expression. You want to see whether there is likely to be a growth of population that needs this spiritual care, and we find that by comparison with past figures the parishes of Hereford are slowly and gradually coming down in numbers. The number of incumbents is gradually being reduced. I know the parishes well. They are very small. You could get five or six within a Parliamentary polling district. They are well worthy of amalgamation, and, though this would need possibly 170 incumbents, in 10 or 20 years, that number might easily be reduced to something like 120. It is perfectly conclusive that you are reducing the diocese to a size that would become almost ridiculous, and probably bring scandal to the Church. Are you going to keep up a larger cathedral organisation, with your bishop, your dean, your archdeacon, your residential canons and vicars choral, and all other paraphernalia of episcopal dignity for such a small population as this? It seems to me that is likely to make the enemies of the Church, as such scooff, and that is a danger we should try to avoid.
886
I do not want to deal with the matter on a money basis. This is not a matter where money comes in to a great extent, but it means with regard to Hereford, that the administrative expenses will be doubled. At present they collect in the diocese about £8,000, and the administrative expenses come to about £900, which is roughly 10 per cent. It is calculated that when you take away the money collected in the Shropshire Parishes you cannot reduce your administrative expenses because the Secretaries of the diocesan societies, which must be kept going if the diocese is to live, tell us you are going to double your administrative expenses and the administrative expenses will go up from what is a fairly reasonable figure of 2s. in the £ to the unreasonable figure of 4s. Then I hear some suggestion has been made to the collections at the Hereford Musical Festival, which takes place once in three years, might be taken to make up the deficiency. When I tell the House these collections have been earmarked always for the widows and orphans of the clergy. I do not think they will listen very much longer to an argument of that sort. When the supporters of the Bill come to us in Hereford and tell us we do not know our own business and do not know what is good for us, it rather makes me feel as if someone came to my garage and stole my motor car and left a note to say "I have done it for your good because it will do you good to walk." It is almost adding insult to injury when they tell us after all it will not do us any harm and we do not know our own business.
Now I come to the most difficult point I have to answer—and I do not want to shirk it—the fact that the Church Assembly, to whom powers have been relegated, I have recommended this Measure, and I want to face that fairly and squarely. I believe there is a considerable amount of controversy when the enabling Bill got through as to the amount of power Parliament should have, and there is a considerable amount of controversy as to whether this procedure that we are taking to-night should be by direct vote or whether the Bill should lie on the Table to be objected to by means of a Prayer.
In order that Parliament might keep these direct powers for itself, the Bill

887
has to be passed by a definite vote of each House. The Winchester Diocese Bill only passed the House of Lords, I understand, by a majority of three. I may be wrong in my figure, but it was something very near that figure. That shows that the other place does not think that the powers of Parliament have been abrogated. I do not think this House would be wise to rest upon the argument that the power has been abrogated, and that Parliament ought not to interfere.
Mr. LAMB: Neither of the hon. Members who have spoken used that argument.
Mr. ROBERTS: I am not here merely to deal with the arguments of my hon. Friends, but to deal with the whole case, and also to anticipate arguments that may be used on the other side. I think my hon. Friend's interruption was irrelevant and unnecessary. I want to go back to the time when this matter first came before the Church Assembly. A new Sees Committee was appointed to survey the country to look into the question of Bishoprics and to recommend to the Assembly the new Bishoprics that were to go forward. Several have gone forward as recommended, practically unanimously; in some cases with opposition from this House, and in others without opposition in this House. With respect to the composition of the Committee as originally formed—it was only natural that it should have been so—far and away the overwhelming majority of the members were what might be called small Bishopric men. I do not want to go into this controversy, but there is a controversy between the small Bishopric men and the big Bishopric men. When a Committee of that sort was appointed it was natural that it should be a little Bishopric Committee. When the question of the Shrewsbury Diocese first came up I was a member of the Committee and I found myself in a minority of one, and I think I remained in a minority of one the whole time. The whole way through the influence and weight of the Committee appointed by the Assembly carried the Bill through stage by stage. Whenever it was referred back to another Committee we found that to a great extent the influencing personnel was the same. I felt the whole time that the dice was loaded against me—if I may
888
say so without meaning any offence—and there was no chance of obtaining a reversal of the decision originally come to.
Hon. Members may say that the House to-night has not the time and has not the evidence before it to enable it to come to a decision. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I would say that the Church Assembly as a whole had very little more time and very little more evidence on which to come to a judicial decision than has this House to-night. It was the original work of the Committee which went into the question which practically decided it at the beginning. Again and again we had the weight of that original Committee against us, and therefore we found ourselves here tonight. Parliament has not abrogated its powers; it has the ultimate appeal in its hands, and to Parliament we appeal.
I want to say a few words respecting the relief of Lichfield. The main object of the Bill is to relieve Lichfield. I do not want to say anything unkind about Shropshire. Let us take it that the main object is to relieve Lichfield. Does this Bill relieve Lichfield either adequately, permanently or speedily? I maintain that it does not. Lichfield is a large diocese of over 1,000,000 people. You are going to take away about one-eighth of that diocese and leave a diocese which will probably be much too big, and one that in the course of time will probably have to be divided again. Anyone who studies the question very carefully will see that a new diocese in the Potteries is a far more ideal scheme than cutting off North Shropshire from the diocese of Hereford. In the Potteries you have a large industrial population. If the need for the relief of Lichfield is so urgent, this is not the way to do it. The promoters say that they are not going to raise the money at once. I have here a cutting from the report of a speech by Colonel Oldham, who was one of the most active promoters of the Bill, and a very eloquent promoter too. Speaking in Ludlow he said:
"There was no intention whatever, under present conditions of financial stringency, of trying to raise large sums of money for this purpose."
That speech was made two years ago, but I very much doubt whether the condition of financial stringency is very much better now than then. So it does not mean

889
that the diocese of Lichfield is going to get immediate relief, but it does mean that the Ludlow Archdeacon will be like Mahomet's coffin, belonging neither to the one nor the other, still attached to Hereford by law, but knowing that at some time in an indefinite future he will go to Lichfield. That will be a bad situation for the whole Diocese of Hereford, and it certainly will not bring to Lichfield the relief that it hopes to get. I hope that the House will judge the case on its merits and not on the defects of my arguments. I feel very much handicapped in this Debate, because there is on the other side the noble lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), one of the most accomplished debaters in this House. He will be able, apparently, to rend my arguments to pieces, although the arguments remain just as sound at the end. I ask the House to beware of that. We also have against us the well-deserved popularity of the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty. I feel that he, with his great weight and personality, is behind this Bill. Someone, not knowing that I was taking part in the opposition, said to me "Are you going to vote for Bridgeman's bishop?" I hope that the weight of the arguments of the Noble Lord and the popularity of the right hon. Gentleman will not have the effect of unduly leading Members of this House away from the real facts of the case. This Bill will do a serious injury to the Diocese of Hereford, it will not relieve Lichfield, and I appeal with confidence to the verdict of the House.
Sir CHARLES OMAN: I must confess that it is extremely unpleasant for me to speak against a Bill which I know is brought forward with the most admirable intentions, but I am absolutely bound to do so on the one great principle that I object to the creation of dioceses of about 100,000 souls. The whole object of the creation of new dioceses in England is to relieve enormous dioceses, such as Lincoln once was and such as other dioceses still are. This is a Bill to create a new diocese of 114,000 souls. It pretends to be a Measure to relieve Lichfield, but of the 1,200,000 people in the Lichfield diocese it is only going to take away 200,000. It is practically no relief to Lichfield at all. But it destroys the old Bishopric of Hereford—leav-
890
ing it a scrap with 114,000 souls only. Its main justification is that it takes county boundaries as the limits of the new bishoprics. But I see no tendency, under the present system of creating bishoprics, to take county boundaries as the proper limits. What counties could be more patriotic or more proud of their county traditions than Yorkshire and Lancashire? Are they asking to have their county boundaries respected and no new sees created? In these days we hear the county boundaries spoken of as the most admirable basis for delimiting bishoprics but it seems to be a doubtful policy. For example, Rutland with its 18,000 souls might, on this principle, demand to have its own bishopric—or, possibly, Huntingdonshire with its 54,000, which would be absurd. I submit that the idea of the county boundaries as the natural boundaries of bishoprics is not necessarily of compelling force. The question for us is the question of population. Here we have a district of 114,000 population, tending to decrease, the parishes rapidly diminishing in number owing to amalgamations, and we are asked to regard it as a fit and proper unit for a diocese, in this latest development in the process of dividing the English sees. It seems preposterous to begin making sees of 114,000 souls. It is not as though the people in the parts of Shropshire adjacent to Herefordshire had shown any absolutely predominant wish to do away with the ancient connection which existed between them and the historic See of Hereford.
If I am to trust the statistics sent to me by the Lord-Lieutenant of Herefordshire and the speech of the hon. Member for Hereford' (Mr. S. Roberts), there is no great demand in the Southern half of Shropshire for the severance of their connection—which goes back to the 7th century—with what has been an ancient political unit, viz., the Kingdom of the Magesactas, described by the Venerable Bede as "the bishopric of the Mercians who lie beyond the Severn"—a very excellent definition. This is am old royal Mercian bishopric which has survived down to this day, and I confess that I regard with sorrow, the idea of a small thinly-peopled diocese—it has only 200,000 souls, including its Shropshire parishes—of extreme historic in-

891
terest being cut up on some ground of adopting county boundaries. The old English Bishopric of Hereford is an interesting survival, and I see no reason why it should be interfered with. Therefore, while acknowledging the good intentions of my hon. Friends who have brought in this Measure, I suggest that certain things which may not be undesirable in themselves, certain things which may appeal to us as convenient, are perhaps not to be insisted upon, when we find that they are horribly objectionable to our neighbours. The promoters of the Measure must know that the whole of Herefordshire loathes it, and I ask them if it is their duty to offend their Christian brethren of Herefordshire by carrying it out? It will create the smallest and poorest diocese in England—not territorially small as the diocese of London is, but small in population. In the whole scope of the two Archbishoprics, the Isle of Man will now be the only see with a smaller population than the new Hereford diocese of this Measure.
Sir H. SLESSER: I want to appeal more particularly to those hon. Members who are not directly concerned with the Diocese of Hereford or Lichfield to support this Measure. While no one disputes that Parliament has the ultimate right to throw out measures of the National Assembly, yet the Debate we have had to-night shows, to my mind, the great wisdom of Parliament when it passed the Church of England Assembly Powers Act in 1919. As I understood the intention of that Measure, Parliament meant the Church in matters which did not interfere with the Constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects to decide its own administration, its own boundaries and its own affairs. I say with all respect that I am a little horrified at the material nature of the considerations which have been advanced to-night. Those who were in the National Assembly, the Bishops, clergy and the laity, were concerned with the multiplication of the arrangement of these dioceses for spiritual reasons. They were concerned with the fact that Bishops in the Church of England have certain spiritual functions to perform—the function of Confirmation and other functions—and Parliament in its wisdom decided in 1919 that spiritual matters were
892
matters properly to be considered by a body which it then set up composed of Bishops, priests and laity of the Church of England. That body came to a decision on spiritual grounds that it was wise in the spiritual interest that there should be created a Bishopric of Shrewsbury.
But the matter did not stop there. Parliament decided to put a check upon the National Assembly in the form of the Ecclesiastical Committee to which some of us—I for one, happen to be a member—are nominated either by Mr. Speaker or by the Lord Chancellor, for the very purpose of seeing that the Acts of the National Assembly do not interfere with the Constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects because it was never intended to give to the National Assembly powers which did so interfere with the Constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects The Ecclesiastical Committee, composed of Members of all parties in this House and in another place, meeting together has considered this matter and has reported to the House that this Measure does not prejudicially affect the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects and the Committee considered it expedient that it should become law. Of course that is not decision, but it is a very strong recommendation.
Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I should like to ask the hon. and learned Member a question, because I was very interested in the passing of the Act which set up this Committee. I have no recollection of its having been put upon the Committee as a duty whether they should recommend or not. I am only asking for information; I may be wrong.
Sir H. SLESSER: The whole matter is dealt with under Section 3 of the Act which says in considering a Measure the Ecclesiastical Committee shall draft a Report thereon to Parliament stating the nature of the legal effect of the Measure and its views on the expediency thereof especially with regard to the Constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects.
Mr. D. HERBERT:—"especially with regard to."
12.0 M.
Sir H. SLESSER: I do not think we need enter into a legal argument at this time of night. I say, though Parliament has a perfect right, if it wishes, to ignore that recommendation,

893
at the same time, the Committee, having been set up by Act of Parliament for the purpose of making a report, the burden lies upon those who ask us to dissent from the Report of that Committee to show good cause why they dissent from the general recommendation. Otherwise, the whole settlement, as I understand it, of the National Assembly and the Ecclesiastical Committee becomes a thing of nought. The National Assembly, representing as it does all sides of the spirituality and laity concerned in Church matters, and the Ecclesiastical Committee, representing particularly the views of the two Houses of Parliament, have considered this matter in all its bearings, and have come here and said: "We think that this is a Measure which ought properly to be passed into law."
The matter is really a very serious one, because, as I understand it, if mere questions of boundaries or of the competing claims of persons in one diocese or another are to be considered in Parliament, regardless of the views of the National Assembly itself, which is more concerned than anybody else for the spiritual development of these matters, and of the Ecclesiastical Committee, then, I say, it is a very serious thing for Parliament lightly to overset those decisions. Some hon. Members from Hereford Diocese think they have been hardly treated in this matter—whether they think the spiritual interests of Hereford are affected or not, I do not know—but I submit to those who are not particularly concerned, who are the majority, that the fact that the Ecclesiastical Committee and the National Assembly, which latter body includes all the Bishops, who surely ought to know where and how their powers ought to be exercised, recommend this course is a fact that is entitled to some consideration.
The bishops themselves have decided in favour of this Measure, and surely the arguments which we have heard to-night are not sufficiently weighty for this House to take the responsibility of destroying a proposal which comes from the whole of the organised opinion of the Church of England, when you know in addition that your own Ecclesiastical Committee has said that there is nothing in these proposals which interferes with the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects.
894
I want to press that point, because, if another view is taken and a precedent is established, as it may possibly be in this case, I can foresee that in future we shall have Debates—I will not say tedious, but protracted Debates—on every Measure which comes up from the National Assembly. If Parliament wishes, in its wisdom, to destroy the Church of England Assembly, there is a way in which to do that. Repeal the Act if you will, if you can get a majority for so doing, but so long as the Church of England has been given what Parliament intended to be autonomy, subject only to its not interfering with the constitutional rights of His Majesty's subjects, I say that Parliament should hesitate long before it interferes with the considered, organized, and collective opinion of the whole of the Church.
Mr. FIELDEN: As I reside a few miles south of Shrewsbury, and in the diocese of Hereford, I hope the House will excuse me for a few moments if I ask them at this late hour to listen to my opinions on this question. The object underlying this proposal is the relief of the diocese of Lichfield. The seconder pointed out that the population in Lichfield at the present moment is about 1,300,000 or 1,400,000. This Measure will relieve that diocese to the extent of about 160,000, and it will still leave the diocese of Lichfield very much too large, considering the distribution of the population in that diocese, for its efficient working by a Bishop who lies far away from much of the population and in view of the fact that much of the diocese is rather inaccessible to him. The proposal for putting a new Bishop in Shrewsbury and adding the southern part of the county of Shropshire to the Archdeaconry of Salop will give a diocese of about 260,000 people, with a Bishop residing in Shrewsbury, and it will make an admirable diocese if small dioceses are the point at which we should aim; but is it fair to do this when it will destroy—for that is practically what it comes to—the existing Diocese of Hereford, by making it so small that it will not attract an energetic, active Bishop?
The alternative proposal that the Archdeaconry of Salop should be added, temporarily if you like, to the Diocese of Hereford would allow the Bishop of

895
Hereford further scope; it would not place upon him too much work for an active, energetic man; the rail connections between Hereford and Shrewsbury and between Shrewsbury and the northern part of the Archdeaconry of Salop are quite good; the Bishop of Hereford has offered to keep an establishment in Shrewsbury so that he can deal in Shrewsbury with the clergy in the northern part of the diocese; and, above all, it can be done at no cost except the out-of-pocket cost for the Bishop of Hereford, and in these days, I think, the question of cost is a material question. If the Bill goes through it cannot come into operation until the sum of about £60,000 has been subscribed for the proposed new Bishopric. I have not seen the figures with regard to the amount that is already subscribed or the amount that is already promised, but I understand—I may be wrong—that the sum subscribed and promised does not amount to one-third of the sum required. This proposed diocese will be entirely an agricultural diocese, and, I think, one is not wrong in doubting whether it will not be some considerable number of years before a Bishop of Shrewsbury will be established, even if this Measure passes. Therefore, if it is relief to Lichfield that is required—and I grant that it will be some relief to Lichfield, but only a small relief—that relief can be arranged for almost immediately. As to the question whether Hereford is in favour of the proposal or is against it, I will point out to the House that last year there was an election of representatives from the Diocese of Hereford to the Church Assembly. There were six vacancies. There were six candidates put up in opposition to this Bill, and five of them were returned; therefore, I think, there can be no doubt that whatever may have taken place in the past, last year the opinion of the Hereford Diocese was definitely against this Bill. The Seconder mentioned that there was perhaps some sentiment in this question. I think that there is some sentiment in Shropshire—a sentiment long held—that there should be a Bishop for Shropshire with a Cathedral in Shrewsbury. No one, I am sure, will find fault with such a wish so long as that wish, if carried out, does not inter-
896
fere with the interests of others. If it is carried out I maintain that it will seriously interfere with the wishes of those in the Diocese of Hereford at the present time, and if, when the Vote is given, sentiment is to have any weight, I hope that those who go into the Lobby to Vote will maintain in its present condition—a condition which has existed for the whole of its life—a diocese that has been in existence for upwards of twelve hundred and fifty years.
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I do not want to answer all the arguments that have been raised in this Debate, but I do—as representing a constituency which under this Bill will be forming a part of the Diocese of Shropshire, and as myself residing in another part of Shropshire which is in Hereford Diocese—support very strongly this Measure. I want to do it, not on the grounds that have been very much brought forward to-night as to numbers and boundaries and so on, but on the ground of what is good for the Church. The Assembly are the best judges of that matter. We have been appealed to by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) to think about what happened in the 7th century or under the Venerable Bede. What we want to think about is what is going to happen in the 20th century and the needs of the 20th century. We have been told that we must not offend our Christian brethren. Might I suggest that they also might be careful not to offend us? What is the position? Hereford is a Cathedral town, easily accessible to the people of the county. What is the position in Shropshire? Some of those who desire to get to one diocesan centre, which is Lichfield, have to travel 60 or 70 miles, and to the other, Hereford, the distance is about the same. Anyone who thinks for a moment will realise how utterly impossible it is for any real corporate or diocesan feeling to be fostered under the circumstances. On the other hand Shrewsbury is in the middle of the county of Shropshire and accessible from every quarter. People can travel frequently, and at small expense. If made the centre of Church interests it is easily accessible. In my opinion, if there is one thing more than another that has had its influence upon

897
the character of Church life it has been the institution of Church Councils. They were made the interest of the poorer people just as keen, perhaps keener, throughout the Church than some others. they have brought new life into Church feeling, and the people take enormous interest in the work of the diocese. Where they live in a great many parts of Shropshire it is quite impossible, both in point of time and expense for these poorer members of the Church to get anywhere near the centre of the diocese. I do feel that Hereford should have some consideration for these things. They have everything they require. Why should they object to us having what we desire in this matter? They urge that small dioceses such as suggested are bad. But in all the instances where dioceses have been reduced in size, the church life has been improved; more money has been raised for church purposes, and benefit has been received in other ways. There will still be a large number of parishes left in the diocese of Hereford. If the Bishop were to go every week in the year to one of them it would take him four years to get round, and if he went oftener it would be better both for him and for his people. The smaller area of the projected diocese is the only argument put forward against it. That argument is controverted by the experience of the smaller dioceses. One hon. Member was anxious that population should be considered. Well, Hereford is very widely scattered and it is difficult to get about it. So is Shropshire. If the Bishop does his work thoroughly he will be a very much overworked man. Money has been referred to. The hon. Member who spoke seemed to think that because we had not found a lot of money that it showed a lack of interest in the matter. Would that hon. Member subscribe a large sum of money if he did not know whether or not there was any chance of getting what was aimed at? I think it is an extraordinary thing that £12,000 has already been raised by the people who are anxious to have this diocese. I hope that for the reasons advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Solicitor-General, and more especially for the reason that it will be for the good of the Church and give poorer members a chance of having closer relations with their diocesan centre that this Motion will be passed. The change
898
will be welcome to Shropshire, which, after all, is the centre of the new scheme, and is deserving of some consideration.
Mr. SHEPPERSON: Before the ex-Solicitor-General leaves the House, I desire to refer to and to demur to a statement he made a short time ago. I suggest that under no conditions or at any time has this House ever surrendered its powers to the Church Assembly. Both legally and constitutionally the right of this House is supreme. I suggest to members that to-night they have to answer two questions, first, whether this Measure is, as the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty said, for the good of the Church, and, secondly, whether the population of the district affected by the Measure want it or do not want it. I submit that no case has been made out on those two points. It may be said that those of us who speak on one side are influenced by biassed considerations, but the same may be said of members on the other side, and I think we ought to try to look at the matter fairly. Two years ago, during a discussion of one of these Measures, an hon. Member said he felt as if he were a juryman. I think that tonight a great many hon. Members feel they are in the position of jurymen, and have to decide between two issues. On the first issue, the good of the Church, the useful activities of the Church, we have heard it explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) how the Diocese of Hereford will be injured by being reduced to a population of 114,000. For what purpose? To relieve Lichfield of only one-eighth of its population. I suggest that any benefit to Lichfield in the matter of Church activity will be more than counterbalanced by the harm done to Hereford. So on the issue of whether the Measure is good for the Church I submit they have made out no case whatever. If the House of Commons is going to act as a jury, I submit to members that we in Hereford are in the position of the defence that the onus of proving their case is on the promoters of the Measure, and that they have not done so. If this Measure is passed tonight Hereford will be absolutely divided in two. If it is not passed there may be a possibility in the future of some alternative Measure being brought before the House. Again I would ask Members to consider themselves as a jury and we in Hereford as defendants, and would ask

899
them to give us, as defendants, the benefit of the doubt.
Lord HUGH CECIL: I think the House is now approaching the time when it will be inclined to come to a decision, but I beg to ask leave to say just one word in support of the Measure, before we proceed to vote. I have, of course, followed this discussion in the Church Assembly, and as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. S. Roberts) will agree, I was always most anxious that something should be done to meet the very strong opposition which was expressed by himself and other representatives of the County of Hereford. I think it was on my Motion that a special inquiry was made to see whether there was any possible way of dealing with the relief of the Diocese of Lichfield except the method proposed by this Measure. The position is quite simple. All people who looked into it, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford himself, are agreed that relief ought to be given to the diocese of Lichfield. One may say that that diocese unanimously supports this Measure as the best way of obtaining that relief. Two committees of the Church Assembly have looked into the matter, and they have satisfied themselves that this is the only way to give relief to the diocese. Then there is the question of local feeling. It is said that the local feeling of Hereford is against it, but after all Hereford will remain as it is now. Herefordshire will have the same Bishop, the same organisation, and the same traditions which it rejoices in now. It is said that the Hereford people were excited about it, but the ordinary layman in five years will not know that anything has happened. On the other side you have to consider the feeling in Shropshire. Do you really think you could shift them into a diocese against their will? The people of North Shropshire could not be so dealt with, nor those of South Shropshire for whom Hereford seems to have the same sort of enthusiasm as Germany had for Alsace-Lorraine.
It is quite clear to me that the reasonable thing is to have regard to the local feeling of those whose jurisdiction is in question. That is for Shropshire to decide. If they did not want to have that Bishopric they would not support it. I should be very unhappy if
900
I thought it would ruin the diocese of Hereford, but I do not think it will do anything of the kind. It is said there will be only 114,000 souls to the Bishop. For whom is that supposed to be bad? Is it bad for the souls to have too much Bishop or for the Bishop to be able to give enough pastoral care to the souls? Then we are told that no eligible person would accept the position ! Is that really likely? Could any of the hon. Gentlemen sitting there say that if they were offered a Bishopric of 175 benefices they would say, "That is much too little for me." When I am told that the diocese will be insignificant I ask, is the County Council insignificant? Does the Herefordshire County Council go about weighed down by a sense of its paltry significance? Is the Lord Lieutenant of the county ashamed to put on his uniform because he has so pigmy an office? Surely not. All that is proposed is that the ecclesiastical area should correspond with the civil area. If the civic area is an efficient area, why should not the ecclesiastical area be one?
I fully agree it is within the right of the House of Commons to reject any Measure it pleases, but will they be wise to do so? The Assembly has gone thoroughly into the matter; it has been examined by various Committees. What good shall we do by rejecting it? Is it to be supposed any Measure will be brought up overriding the feeling of Shropshire? If you reject this Measure, you will not do anything to relieve the diocese of Lichfield. You will turn a deaf ear to the wishes of the Assembly. Let the Assembly be your counsellor in this matter, otherwise you will leave this great grievance unreformed. I put it to hon. Members as the conscientious trustees of the great authority lying in their hands and appeal to them not to overthrow the decision of the Assembly, which I am persuaded is a wise, just and inevitable decision.
Mr. BARR: I think it is only fair that as one important voice has been heard from this side of the House there should also be heard the voice of one who would make clear that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) was speaking for himself and those who agree with him, and that there are other views held on these benches. It has been said to me, why

901
should a Scotsman interfere in this question? I would remind hon. Members opposite that in the Scottish Church Bill, in which I was interested, they completely snowed me under. I do not say this is retaliation, but I wish to speak on the merits of the case. I wish to say first of all, that to an outsider, the arithmetic of the matter does not commend the Measure. It is supposed to give relief to the Diocese of Lichfield, yet it must be admitted that the relief is of a slender character. There is at present 1,247,000 of population in Lichfield diocese. The reduction is 160,000, leaving 1,187,000 in the diocese. The Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) said that the Diocese of Hereford would remain just as it is, and mentioned its traditions, but I do not see how, when you reduce a diocese from a population of 200,000 to a population of 114,000 and make it the smallest diocese in the country, you can say it remains as it is. I would point out, further, that the new Diocese of Shrewsbury will have a population of 246,000, more than double the population you are giving to Hereford under the new scheme. An hon. Member opposite put forward as a case for this alteration that it would make greatly for convenience, as the people went to Shrewsbury for business, and they were at a much larger distance from Hereford or Lichfield. There is not a single diocese in the country that you would not cut up if you went on the principle of picking out a town because of its greater convenience.
My second objection to the Measure is that it is in a manner a forced settlement. There is keen division with regard to it. We find, further, that 230 parishes prefer the Shrewsbury Bishopric and 215 preferred some alternative. Hereford declared its opposition in every way open to it. I think it is bad for the Churches, both in Scotland and England, that they should overbear the small minorities in this manner. Those who have commended to us the judgment of the Church should compose their differences in the Church, and in these districts, before they come to us for our imprimatur. It has been said by more than one hon. Gentleman that this was not putting any charge whatever on public funds. I beg to say Parliament is asked to-night to put its
902
imprimatur on an appeal for funds. Clause 2 says:
"The Ecclesiastical Commissioners shall receive all contributions which may be made by the public for the purposes of the endowment of a Bishopric of Shrewsbury."
In these days of economy it is interesting to find that £400 will be surrendered by Hereford, but there will still be a salary for the Bishop of Hereford of about £4,000 and provision is being made to build up a salary of £3,000 to £3,500 for the new Bishop of Shrewsbury. I do not want to accentuate the differences in this matter, but as we know the Bishops are paid very large sums. From the Archbishop of Canterbury downwards we have salaries from £15,000. The Bishop of Durham has £7,000 and in the present case the Bishop is to have about £3,500, while incumbents in the Church are receiving less than £200, and some of them £100. I cannot be a party to erecting new Bishoprics on this expensive scale as long as that exists. The other day it was declared that the minimum sum for any Minister in the Church to which I belong, the United Free Church of Scotland, with no State grants whatever was £300 with a manse besides. I think it was the First Lord of the Admiralty, who said the Measure was for the good of the Church. In my view these things and their continuance is not for the good of the Church. Reference has been made to the National Assembly of the Church of England (Powers) Bill, 1919, but I do not think the House should be under any misapprehension in regard to Parliamentary control. I should like to give these three brief quotations: The Bishop of Liverpool said:
"No attempt whatever is to be made to prevent Parliament having a final control over the destinies of the Church."
Lord Robert Cecil, on the Second Reading of the Bill, said that it left Parliament
"in exactly the position it always has been.. and to say the Bill abolishes Parliamentary control is a most fantastic perversion of the fact."
Lord Parmoor, one of the sponsors of the Measure, maintained that the
"effective control of Parliament would be enormously enhanced."
My fundamental contention is that if a Church accepts public contributions it must submit to some measure of control. I think this House is very ill-fitted to come to

903
a decision on a Measure of that kind. We do not know what the requirements of the diocese are, and why should Parliament be asked to put its imprimatur on the raising of £3,200 without full knowledge of the case; and why should they invest Bishops, as Clause 4 does, with rights, privileges, and jurisdictions? There was a famous countryman of mine, Matthew Henderson, who said he held the patent of his nobility direct from Almighty God. It is admitted that the Church must submit to some measure of restraint and control. It is sometimes said that a Church in this position is as free as a Nonconformist Church, but that is falsified every time a Measure of this kind comes before the House. In my last sentence I would just say this parting word as a Nonconformist. Only as a Church surrenders its national endowments can it truly purchase its full
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday Evening, Mr.
freedom, and only as it gives up the privileges of establishment and throws off that restraint that Lord Selborne in his "Defence of the Church of England" admits, can it enter fully on the liberty, independence and full self-government that are the prerogatives only of those Churches that choose to exist or are driven to exist entirely apart from all State connection.
Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR-CLIVE rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."
Question put accordingly,
"That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Bishopric of Shrewsbury Measure, 1925, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent."
The House divided: Ayes, 57; Noes, 33.

Division No. 51.]

AYES.

[12.43 a.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.

Margesson, Captain D.

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

Gibbs Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham

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

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Balfour, George (Hampstead)

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Harland. A.

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Barnston, Major Sir Harry

Hartington, Marquess of

Sandon, Lord

Betterton, Henry B.

Hayes, John Henry

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

Birchall. Major J. Dearman

Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)

Skelton, A. N.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Hennessy, Major J. R. G.

Slesser, Sir Henry H.

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

Smithers, Waldron

Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward

Howard, Captain Hon. Donald

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)

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

Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.

Cope, Major William

Jacob, A. E.

Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)

Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.

Kindersley, Major G. M.

Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichffield)

Curzon, Captain Viscount

Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.

Wolmer, Viscount

Dalton, Hugh

Loder, J. de V.

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

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

Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

Edmondson, Major A. J.

Lumley, L. R

Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)

Macmillan, Captain H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Colonel Windsor-Clive and Mr. Lamb.

Forestier-Walker, Sir L.

Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn

NOES.

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

Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)

Radford, E. A.

Barr, J.

Kelly, W. T.

Raine, W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Makins, Brigadler-General E.

Sandeman, A. Stewart

Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph

Shepperson, E. W.

Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)

Neville, R. J.

Shiels, Dr. Drummond

Fielden, E. B.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)

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

Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)

Windsor, Walter

Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)

Oakley, T.

Wise, Sir Fredric

Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy

Penny, Frederick George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Samuel Roberts and Captain Bourne.

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Purcell, A. A.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

SPEAKER adjourned the, House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Ten Minutes before one o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY.
  Loss OF H.M.S. "HAMPSHIRE."
  Loss OF H.M.S. "HAMPSHIRE."
  LEADING COOKS (PROMOTION).
  LEADING COOKS (PROMOTION).
  COMMISSIONED WRITERS.
  COMMISSIONED WRITERS.
  BOY TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS.
  BOY TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS.
BRITISH ARMY.
  OFFICERS' PAY (CADETS).
  OFFICERS' PAY (CADETS).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PAY).
  ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS (PAY).
  MECHANICAL TRANSPORT VEHICLES.
  MECHANICAL TRANSPORT VEHICLES.
  CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS, MALTA AND GIBRALTAR.
  CIVILIAN EMPLOYÉS, MALTA AND GIBRALTAR.
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT (HOUSING).
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT (HOUSING).
ROYAL AIR FORCE.
  MACHINES DELIVERED.
  MACHINES DELIVERED.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS.
  PERSONNEL AND MACHINES (RATIO).
  PERSONNEL AND MACHINES (RATIO).
NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  EX-AIRMAN'S CLAIM.
  EX-AIRMAN'S CLAIM.
  MOTHER'S PENSION (MRS. MORRISON).
  MOTHER'S PENSION (MRS. MORRISON).
  ADMIRALTY DECISIONS (APPEALS).
  ADMIRALTY DECISIONS (APPEALS).
  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL NAVY).
  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL NAVY).
  COMMISSIONERS OF CHELSEA HOSPITAL (DISABILITY PENSIONS).
  COMMISSIONERS OF CHELSEA HOSPITAL (DISABILITY PENSIONS).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  NEW BUILDINGS.
  NEW BUILDINGS.
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT (RE-ORGANISATION).
  ORDNANCE DEPOT, DIDCOT (RE-ORGANISATION).
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  SUPERANNUATION.
  ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS.
  ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS.
  ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS (SALES).
  ORDNANCE SURVEY MAPS (SALES).
  WOMEN POLICE AND WARDERS.
  WOMEN POLICE AND WARDERS.
  DOLGARROG DAM DISASTER.
  DOLGARROG DAM DISASTER.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  VOTERS' REGISTER.
  VOTERS' REGISTER.
  IRAQ.
  IRAQ.
  SUGAR DUTIES.
  SUGAR DUTIES.
  FIGHTING SERVICES (ESTIMATES).
  FIGHTING SERVICES (ESTIMATES).
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
  EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  COUNTY OF FIFE.
  COUNTY OF FIFE.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  BENEFIT DISALLOWED.
  JUVENILE CENTRES.
  JUVENILE CENTRES.
  PERTH-INVERNESS ROAD (WORKERS' ACCOMMODATION).
  PERTH-INVERNESS ROAD (WORKERS' ACCOMMODATION).
HOUSING.
  SUBSIDY HOUSES (DEFECTS).
  SUBSIDY HOUSES (DEFECTS).
  KENT COALFIELD.
  KENT COALFIELD.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
  ISLE OF WIGHT.
POOR LAW.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (MEMBERS' EXPENSES).
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (MEMBERS' EXPENSES).
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  SOUTHWARK BOARD OF GUARDIANS (SURCHARGE).
  SOUTHWARK BOARD OF GUARDIANS (SURCHARGE).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT, DEVIZES.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT, DEVIZES.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.
  INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE TESTS.
  INDUSTRIAL FATIGUE TESTS.
  POPLAR AND BETHNAL GREENCOUNCILS (SURCHARGES).
  POPLAR AND BETHNAL GREENCOUNCILS (SURCHARGES).
  LUNACY REFORM (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT).
  LUNACY REFORM (ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT).
  DEATH CERTIFICATES.
  DEATH CERTIFICATES.
  TURKEY (DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENTS).
  TURKEY (DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENTS).
  GERMANY (EXPENDITURE IN ARMAMENTS).
  GERMANY (EXPENDITURE IN ARMAMENTS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SAAR VALLEY).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SAAR VALLEY).
AGRICULTURE.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  CHERRY FRUIT FLY.
  CHERRY FRUIT FLY.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  FARM INSTITUTES.
  FARM INSTITUTES.
  EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.
  EDUCATION AND RESEARCH.
SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.
  WRAPPING PAPERS.
  WRAPPING PAPERS.
  OPTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.
  OPTICAL AND SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS.
  STEAMSHIP "LONDON MARINER" (WIRELESS OPERATOR).
  STEAMSHIP "LONDON MARINER" (WIRELESS OPERATOR).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  TURKEY (COASTING TRADE).
  TURKEY (COASTING TRADE).
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION (TIMBER).
  CENSUS OF PRODUCTION (TIMBER).
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FISHING INDUSTRY.
  FORESTRY COMMISSION.
  FORESTRY COMMISSION.
EDUCATION.
  CLINIC AND HANDICRAFT CENTRE, WALSALL.
  CLINIC AND HANDICRAFT CENTRE, WALSALL.
  PLAYING FIELDS, PRESTON AND LEEDS.
  PLAYING FIELDS, PRESTON AND LEEDS.
  HANDICRAFT, COLCHESTER.
  HANDICRAFT, COLCHESTER.
  EALING (NEW SCHOOL).
  EALING (NEW SCHOOL).
  CENTRAL SCHOOL, WALTHAMSTOW (EXTENSION).
  CENTRAL SCHOOL, WALTHAMSTOW (EXTENSION).
  PROVISION OF MEALS.
  PROVISION OF MEALS.
COAL MINING INDUSTRY.
  NYSTAGMUS.
  NYSTAGMUS.
  HARBOUR DUES, IPSWICH.
  HARBOUR DUES, IPSWICH.
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (TAXATION).
  MOTOR TRAFFIC (TAXATION).
  POST OFFICE (MOTOR VEHICLES).
  POST OFFICE (MOTOR VEHICLES).
  INDIA (AGRICULTURE COMMISSION).
  INDIA (AGRICULTURE COMMISSION).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AUTHORS' (LAW OF LIBEL) PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill this afternoon I think I should begin by saying that I have made myself responsible for it at the request of the Incorporated Society of Authors, Playwrights and Composers, on the committee of management of which society I have the honour to be. I think it is generally recognised that this society is the responsible body for looking after the best interests of authors and members of the literary profession as a whole. This Bill can be described as entirely non-Party and I hope that in its main principles at any rate it may be considered also as free from serious controversy. The Society of Authors has had it under consideration for a large number of years and it is the result of a good deal of practical experience.
I ought to say at once that there is no desire on the part of any author to protect another author unduly at the expense of any private person. We know that some people write at times, with knowledge, of some personal enemy and that they put in prejudice and malice or, alternatively, use facts with great carelessness. It is not desired that any one who writes a work of fiction with any of those things in mind should be free from the normal procedure of the law as it stands at present. The Bill is designed merely to protect the author who, without the slightest intention whatever and after having taken all reasonable precautions, uses the name of some living person in a work of fiction. I am assured by those who have studied the law of libel as part of their profession that there are extremely few genuine grievances arising from the use of the names of real people. In fact, in the years which have
304
clapsed since the test case of Jones v. Hulton, in only one case has the plaintiff succeeded in establishing that there was reasonable ground for supposing that he was, in fact, the person to whom allusion was made.
The point of view of the author is that there are constant vexatious complaints and charges, and it is to remedy these rather than to deal with serious and real injury that the Bill is designed. I may point out that any writer of fiction, whether serious or light, is by virtue of his calling peculiarly liable to have frivolous or blackmailing claims and charges made against him. It is impossible to conceive the writing of a work of fiction without the mention of anybody's name. If we had all our characters in books labelled Mr. A. or Miss B. I think fiction would not occupy that honourable place in the list of books that it does at present. I was interested to observe that in the eighteenth century there was one celebrated instance at any rate of the respect paid to members of your Lordships' House. In one of the best known of Richard-son's works, while he has no hesitation whatever in ascribing definite names to his heroes or villians, where he has occasion to mention a member of your Lordships' House he refers to him only by his initials. The eighteenth century is passed and now, if there were necessity to refer to a member of your Lordships' House, I think it would be necessary to give a name. There, of course, with the limited field of names, it is possible to avoid any reference to any living member of your Lordships' House.
Those who have not studied this question with any detail say it would not be difficult to avoid the choice of the name of a living person, and ask: Why not he on the safe side and choose some quite impossible name? Experience has shown that there is no such thing in real life as a completely impossible name. It was at one time thought, as no doubt many of your Lordships are aware, that Charles Dickens invented the names of his characters. We now know that he, like many other authors, took note as he went along in his life of various names that struck his fancy and made a record of them for use on subsequent occasions. This morning I turned up the London

305
Telephone Directory and had no difficulty whatever in finding the name of Snodgrass and the name of Winkle, and it would have been open some years ago to any gentlemen of those names to have issued a claim against Mr. Dickens for having held them up to ridicule. The immortal name of Pickwick is not in the Telephone Directory, but we know there are people with such a name walking about the streets of England.
I will give a definite and quite recent example. Not many weeks ago a publisher issued in the ordinary course of his business a preliminary announcement of a novel that he intended to publish, in these words:—
" A middle-aged man and woman have done well in the world together, hut chiefly through the woman's power and charm. Circumstances then bring the man, Firmin Bradbeer, back to the surroundings in which he passed his childhood. Here he reveals what has always lain dormant in him before the eyes of his wife."
It is perhaps difficult for a layman to see in what respect such a paragraph as that could be held in any way to be libellous. I can hardly believe that to state a person is middle-aged to-day should be so adjudged, or even that one owed one's success, or even thought one owed one's success in life, to one's wife's power and charm. But the point to which I wish to direct your Lordships' attention is that though here the author has chosen a very singular surname and a Christian name which, so far as I know, is unique, nevertheless that author has not been safe, because there has appeared a person who says that that is, in fact, his name, both his Christian and his surname, and that therefore this paragraph refers to him. He claimed damages from the author and would not even be content, though the book has not yet been published, with an apology or an alteration of the name. I shall have occasion in another moment to refer to that case again.
Such are the difficulties, however, in front of any author who chooses what he imagines to be a very impossible name. There is almost certain to be somebody throughout the length and breadth of the land who possesses that name and the more rare it is the greater reason has that particular person for saying: Obviously you meant it for me. So much is this so that it is the practice of one
306
very well-known author always to use perfectly ordinary names, on the principle, of course, that there is safety in numbers. To quote again from an ancient instance, there is no doubt that Fielding would have been quite safe from any Tom Jones by the number of Tom Joneses there are in this country. But your Lordships can readily appreciate what a limitation that places upon the art of fiction. It is extremely difficult to imagine the scion of an ancient house, who for some purpose it may be necessary to put into one's novel, called by some perfectly obvious and ordinary name; and even if the novelist, rather than run the risk of choosing a very uncommon name, always chooses extremely ordinary names, he is still by no means safe from having a vexatious charge brought against him.
There is a well-known novelist living to-day, who wrote a book in which he has chosen for Ids plot the somewhat amorous adventures of his hero. He chose a perfectly ordinary name. I again had recourse to the London Telephone Directory this morning, and I found in that, which, after all, is a fairly limited field, that there were no fewer than 99 persons bearing the same name. Therefore we must imagine that there must be many hundreds in England and, as it was a common Scottish name, many thousands in Scotland who had that name. The hook became quite well-known, and after a time some gentleman who had the surname that had been used by this author found himself the subject of lighthearted chaff on the part. of his friends, who purported, for the purpose of badinage, to assume that he was the gentleman referred to. After some Considerable time, this gentleman thought that this was a chance out of which some material advantage might be derived. He thereupon wrote to the author and said he claimed damages for libel. The author was not only well known but he was also fairly well-to-do, and he was possessed of a temperament that did not suffer fools gladly; so he determined to fight the case and did so. He proved that at the time the book was published the man who was claiming damages from him was exactly two years old, so that, in the opinion of any reasonable man, it could not have been held to apply to him. The case was accordingly dismissed, but the author was not only put to a great

307
deal of time and trouble, but also was very substantially out of pocket as the cost of his successful defence.
Passing away from the subject of names, supposing an author attempts to give verisimilitude to his work by describing a particular part of the country; even there he is in great danger of having a vexatious action brought against him. Supposing an author, without mentioning any name, were to say that not ten miles from a cathedral city in the North of England there dwelt a choleric captain with a bulbous nose and unpleasant habits: it is by no means certain that somebody would not write to him and say: "I live not ten miles from York, which is a cathedral city in the North of England, my nose is unfortunately bulbous, some people think that my habits are unpleasant, and undoubtedly my temper is choleric. Besides that, I have been a captain in the Army. Therefore, this must refer to me." That is an imaginative case, but it is not very far removed from what is actually happening.
A well-known authoress last year published a book in which she mentioned by name a certain seaside resort. In the course of her work, she quite incidentally referred, without mentioning any name, to the drunken fisherman of that resort. I should be far from saying that fishermen are any more or any less drunken than any other profession, but I think we might, say that in most seaside resorts where there are fishermen there will be at least one who has been at some time or other the worse for liquor. In this particular resort there was a fisherman who hastened to clap the appellation upon himself and said: "I am the drunken fisherman to whom you allude." The authoress found herself with a claim for damages. She went to her solicitors who said: "You can fight it if you like, but it will cost you time and money and you had much better settle it for a small sum."
She was in communication with the fisherman and about to settle it when a firm of solicitors in quite another part of the country learned of what was going on and got into touch with the fisherman. They said: "No, your reputation is worth a great deal more than you are expecting to extract from this authoress." And eventually the authoress had to pay,
308
or did pay, a good deal more than the fisherman at first was prepared to accept. Yet it is not pretended for a moment that this case, if it had been fought in the Courts, could have been supported by any material evidence of damage, or that there was any allusion to this particular man. I am informed that as the result of long experience it is found almost invariably much the cheapest and easiest to pay a sum to settle a claim made in this way.
The Bill which I have the honour to ask your Lordships to consider favourably this afternoon is really confined to two points. In the first place it attempts to meet these constant cases of frivolous charges, really cases of literary blackmail against the poor author, and in the second place it deals with the fact that the author's status in the matter is very frequently entirely ignored. In the case to which I have already referred, where there was a preliminary announcement by the publisher, the claim was in the first place made against the publisher, who is no more interested in the work of one author than in the work of all the other authors for whom he acts as publisher. He, without reference to the author, settled the claim for a small sum and then debited the author with the amount. There is no procedure, so I am told, by which the author is bound to be made a party to defend his work, and there are cases where the long and laborious work of a man is put on one side and the issue suppressed by the publisher, because he would rather settle it without trouble and without any reference to the author at all.
There are only four material clauses in this Bill. The first clause provides that proof of some intention, some knowledge by the author of the person who is supposed to be damaged, must be given or else that the defendant should satisfy the Judge that he has taken all reasonable precautions and has not been guilty of negligence. The second clause provides that the author should be able, if he can satisfy the Judge, to obtain an order dismissing the action as a frivolous one. These two clauses should be read in conjunction with Clause 3, by which a Judge has power to make an order by which the defendant, the author, can be called upon either to apologise or to alter the

309
names of his characters, "or otherwise as may in all the circumstances of the case seem just." That is giving a wide discretion to the Judge to deal with the matter in a way he thinks most fair, and it is hardly possible to see how much wider words can be used. That, I submit, is a safeguard to any person who really has any legitimate grievance. The fourth clause provides that the author should be made the defendant as well as the publisher, or even without the publisher, so that he may, if his work is called in question, be able to defend it. That is the Bill.
I have only to add that it has been before the Council of the Publishers' Association and has met with their warm approval. The Bill is not produced hastily by a pure layman, but has been considered by those who have great practical experience in this matter. I notice that the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Darling, has placed a Motion on the Order Paper providing that if the Bill is read a second time it should be referred to a Select Committee. If the noble and learned Lord deems that to be necessary or advisable I am far from wishing to oppose it. There may well be legal matters dealing with the law of libel and other technicalities which have not been fully appreciated by myself, and if that is so and the noble and learned Lord moves his Motion, I shall not oppose it. I hope, however, that your Lordships will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading. The profession of a novelist is not one which in most cases is richly rewarded and it has its exacting side. Under the aspect I have delineated this afternoon it also has its grave dangers, and there must be few people who have not had many hours of encouragement, solace and amusement from reading the work of authors. I hope their interests may receive favourable consideration from your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gorell.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, there are two things which this House will, I think, be especially anxious to protect. One is the right of an author to use untrammelled his imaginative powers for the purpose of the recreation and amusement of his readers, and the
310
second, of equal consequence, to safeguard all people from unlawful and libellous attacks. It seems to me that to-day beyond all other times a man's character is of the highest possible value and nothing ought to be done to take away any right he possesses to protect its security. Again, there is another thing which is hateful to every form of society, and that is your needy and speculative litigant, the person who assumes that he has received an injury when, in fact, he is not injured at all, and goes before the Court in the hope that he may be able from a sympathetic jury to extract damages for a wrong that he has never suffered.
I rather gather from the noble Lord that this Bill is designed to meet that particular class of attack, and if it were so it would certainly have nothing but commendation and approval from myself. But on reading the Bill I find it rather difficult to see 'Inv it will secure that end at all, except, possibly, by the second clause. I read the first clause with some anxiety and I am not sure that it advances the present law at all. It provides that no action for libel shall be maintainable UT less it is proved that the defendant intended to publish "such defamatory matter of and concerning the plaintiff." I speak as one who is always ready to be corrected in these matters, but I thought that the gist of every libel action was that the words were spoken "of and concerning the plaintiff" and that, unless you can establish that fact, the whole of your action falls to the ground. Therefore it seems to me that this first clause does not carry the existing law one single step further than it reaches at the present moment.
Further, the provision may be limited unfavourably against the author, and for this reason. Your Lordships will see that this clause refers only in the first place to "a literary or dramatic work." What is a literary work? This may be extremely difficult to define, for people's notions of literature vary considerably and I am bound to say that a great deal of the material that is published between covers in the form of a book does not appear to me to have any literary quality at all. But still, assuming that you have got over that difficulty and that you have established that anything that is written becomes literature—I sincerely hope that nothing so ridiculous

311
will ever be established—the next thing that you come to is that it must be a work "which purports to be a work of fiction." But some of the finest flights of imagination have been soared upon the assumption that they were dealing with reality and not with fiction. A great many of Scott's novels were written as definite records of events and do not purport to be fiction at all. That they are fiction is undoubtedly true, but, on the face of the hooks, they do not purport to be fiction.
Again, if your Lordships have ever read, as many of you surely must, those most delightful tales that were published about India, beginning with "A Digit of the Moon" and going through a long series, you will remember that they were all published under the most cleverly assumed disguise as nothing but a translation of existing documents. In fact, they were a work of the purest and most delightful imagination that in recent times it has been my pleasure to read, hut, none the less, they never purported to be fiction at all. Consequently it appears to me, in the first place, that the first clause as it stands adds nothing whatever to the protection which the author does and most certainly ought to enjoy; and, next, that a man has only got to declare that his book is a statement of fact and not a work of fiction and he can pursue his malignant purpose of caricaturing his friends to the utmost extent of his desire.
The next provision is one with which I am not so much prepared to quarrel, for the reason that I am afraid that I am a little irregular in my notions about legal proceedings. I have often thought that it would be a most admirable thing if, in every litigation, it were possible at the earliest stage to put a test either of the plaintiff's case or of the defendant's case, and to see whether there was, in fact, anything to be tried. There is no greater scandal than the scandal which involves people in prolonged and heavy losses at the instance of perfectly worthless and impecunious persons, and I should be very glad indeed to assist the noble Lord in devising some scheme applicable not merely to authors—because, great as their claims are upon us, we, too, are human beings and are entitled to the same protection as they are—but generally, and I should be very glad if the Lord Chancellor could see his way to help us in that
312
respect. The second clause, then, as I say, is one which, in my opinion, ought to be read generally and not with special application to a limited class.
Finally, we come to a clause which, I am bound to say, causes me some surprise. If you are going to proceed, either civilly or criminally, in regard to any matter against the person who has published it, the proceedings are to be postponed until you have taken
"all reasonable steps to notify the author that such proceedings are pending."
After all, the essence of every libel is o always publication. That, unless my legal training has been forgotten, is the essential fact of libel, and it is the person who publishes the libel who is really responsible. A man may have written a letter and not published it at all. However, when you have the publisher you have to hang up the whole of your proceedings, either civil or criminal, until you have notified the author.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not in civil proceedings.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I think the Bill says:
"Where any criminal or summary proceedings are taken…"
but it may refer only to criminal proceedings, which makes it all the more ridiculous. Let us assume that an obscene work has been published. There will probably be present to your Lordships' minds one of the last occasions on which an important work was prosecuted on the ground of its obscenity. I refer to Zola's "La Terre". Vizitelly, the publisher, was prosecuted for it and convicted.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I was the defendant's counsel.
LORD BUCKMASTER: That makes the conviction the more remarkable. It has always struck me that it was, in fact, a remarkable conviction, but, none the less, this man was, according to the law of this country, found guilty of having published an obscene work. It is enough for us, who are prepared to accept the guidance and judgment of the Court, to say that we must take it as the law that the publication of that work was an obscene thing and, being an obscene thing, it must surely be stopped. I want to know,

313
therefore, what would have been "reasonable efforts" to notify M. Zola, who was then living in retirement in France, that proceedings were being taken against Mr. Vizitelly over here and that we were postponing the whole of these proceedings until that was done. When you have notified him and received due information—which, I should imagine, through the dissemination of that class of matter through the daily Press, who are not as a rule very anxious to obscure such an incident, would not, have taken very long—what then? He is then to have a "reasonable opportunity of appearing."
Supposing he says that he wants to appear, is he to be made a co-defendant? Arc proceedings to be taken against him? The Bill does not say that at all. All that the Bill says is that nothing shall be done to—
"make any order prejudicial to the work or the author unless after hearing the author and any evidence that may be adduced by him the court or the judge is satisfied that the matter complained of is in fact blasphemous, seditious or obscene."
I suppose it is prejudicial to an author to send him to gaol, but I wonder whether this is meant. If rot, it seems to me that all that this clause does is most needlessly to embarrass and paralyse the arm of the criminal law, and I see no reason whatever why that should be done.
Accordingly, so far as this Bill is concerned, it appears to me that, as it stands, the first clause is unnecessary. If it is not, I shall be glad indeed to help the noble Lord to achieve what he desires. It seems further that the second clause should be made of general application. And it seems that the fourth clause is a change in our criminal procedure which I think most people who are familiar with the administration of the law would highly resent.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING had given Notice, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, to move, That it be referred to a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when I put down the Motion which stands in my name I did not in the least mean to imply that I recommended the Bill for a Second Reading, but I knew that the noble Lord opposite. was moving the Second Beading of the Bill not altogether on his own
314
account and there were many people who wanted some such provisions accorded them as are contained in the first clause. It was because of that, more than anything else, that I did not put down a simple Motion for the rejection of the, Bill.
I can hardly agree with the noble and learned Lord, lord Buckmaster, when he says that he cannot see that the first clause alters the law as it stands. I think what my noble friend Lord Gorell has in his mind in drawing that first clause is this. There was a case, Jones v Holton, which was tried about sixteen years ago. It was tried by Mr. Justice Channell. A verdict was given for the plaintiff for some£1,700 against a newspaper. It was taken to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal upheld the verdict. The case was brought to your Lordships' House, where the Court of Appeal judgment was affirmed, but a dissentient judgment was delivered by Lord Moulton. If your Lordships will read it you will find it was a most forcible judgment. It is, not a judgment which can be altogether neglected. It gave. very powerful reasons for coming to a conclusion opposite to that to which Lord Loreburn, Lord Gorell and Lord Atkinson came. I am not sure whether or not there was another noble Lord sitting. They particularly relied upon the judgment of Lord Justice Farwell.
The point of it is this. A writer professed to describe the races at Dieppe. He gave a florid description of racing in France, and of the kind of people who attend there, and he put in a number of others in order to show that there was a Mr. Artemus Jones, who at Putney was a churchwarden and who at Dieppe was attending the races with a lady of doubtful virtue. There is a Mr. Artemus Jones, and he brought an action against the paper. The defendants said: "We do not mean this for the Mr. Artemus Jones who brings the action. The facts were these. We wanted to write an amusing article, and so put in the story about the churchwarden. There was not a real churchwarden; it was not right that he lived at Putney; we thought first of all of Artemus as an amusing name, and then of Artemus Ward, but as there was a person named Artemus Ward we changed it to Jones, so that it could not apply to anybody." Therefore the

315
defence was that the article did not apply to the plaintiff—that the author did not write it and the paper did not publish it as concerning the plaintiff. Mr. Justice Channell said this:
"If the jury think that the writing referred only to a fictitious person the jury should find for the defendants, but if they think it would be understood by reasonable persons who knew the plaintiff to refer to him, then they should find for the plaintiff. It is immaterial whether the writing did in fact refer to the plaintiff or not."
That was the law as laid down by Mr. Justice Channell, and as declared by the Court of Appeal and by the majority of this House, and it is because of that—I think Lord Buckmaster has rather misunderstood my noble friend who introduced the Bill—that this first clause is drawn.
I do not know whether it does it altogether, but I am sure that it is meant to alter the law as declared in this House, and to make it what Lord Moulton declared it to be, and that is that not only should the words appear to reasonable people to apply to the plaintiff, but they must be proved to have been written by the author, or published by the publisher, with the intention that they should apply to him. It may be that the words of the clause do not do what Lord Gorell desires, because you could read the clause as Lord Buckmaster reads it, so that it does not alter the law in regard to "defamatory matter of and concerning I the plaintiff." I think, however, that Lord Buckmaster has overlooked this, that the clause contains the words "intended to publish or published negligently." That is introducing something new. The plaintiff, if this were made the law, would have to prove—I think that is what Lord Gorell means—either that the author or publisher intended the libel to apply to the particular person who brings the action, or, if he could not prove that, would he bound then to prove that it was published so negligently and recklessly that the person who published it must be held liable, just as any person who commits any other wrong recklessly is made to pay for it. I think, therefore, that this first section does raise a question which it is desired, and I think reasonably, by many people, should be raised and settled once and-for all, seeing that there is that very strong dissentient judgment of Lord Moulton's in the case of Jones v. Hulton before this House.
With regard to the rest of the Bill I really cannot see that there is anything to be said for it. Clause 2 would have a preliminary investigation. Now I entirely differ from Lord Buckmaster with regard to that. Will your Lordships read Clause 2 and see what it does? Lord Buckmaster would apply it not only to libel but to every cause of action that can come before the Court. At present a man issues his writ and takes the ordinary steps, and the matter is tried before a Judge or Judge and jury. My noble friend would have it that before the case shall be tried, and even before the defendant has put in his defence, the defendant may apply to the Court to dismiss the action on the ground that there is no reasonable probability of the plaintiff being able at the trial to prove the defendant's intention or negligence. This inquiry is to be held before the Judge alone, and is to be decided by that unfortunate official simply upon affidavit.
Anybody with skill in drawing affidavits could draw an affidavit which, if one could believe all that was in it, ought to satisfy anybody that there was not the slightest probability of the plaintiff being able at the trial to prove his case. If I were trying the matter there is one thing that I should ask him, and that is this: "You tell me it is not probable that the plaintiff can prove his plea. Will you tell me who is the leading counsel to appear for him?" Because I know some counsel who could prove it, and I know others who certainly could not. All this is to be explained in the affidavit. How would counsel be able on affidavit to show whether there is a reasonable probability 7 Lord Buckmaster would apply this to all sorts of cases. I am afraid that he has not seen the cases of a rather disreputable character that I was so long acquainted with. How is anybody to investigate the ordinary cases of a taxi-cab running into a carriage or an omnibus, or over a person, sober or drunk, upon an affidavit, and to say whether the defendant should be allowed to put in a defence, or whether he should not?
The next clause is Clause 3, which is a most extraordinary proposal. It states:—
"Where a defendant in any action for libel relies upon the provisions of Sections one or two of this Act, the court or the judge may, as a condition of giving judgment or making any order in the defend-

317
ant's favour, put the defendant upon such terms as to the publication of an explanation or apology or the altering of the names of characters in the work or otherwise as may in all the circumstances of the case seem just."
That assumes that the trial has been finished, that the jury have found for the defendant, but that the Judge thinks that still there should be soma alteration made in the book.
Both the noble Lords who have spoken have mentioned Charles Dickens. The noble Lord opposite said there never was such a person as Pickwick. Oh, yes, there was. Charles Dickens took the name of Pickwick from the name upon the coach that ran from Bath through Chippenham. Any one who has ever been out with the Beaufort Hounds and seen the inn called the "Crosskeys Pickwick" will know exactly how the name was given to the little infant Pickwick who became the proprietor of that line of coaches. What would the Judge have to do? He might say: "Well, this is rather hard upon the real Pickwick. I will settle upon another name." What name could he settle on? How long would it take him to find a name which would be acceptable to everybody? He might give his own name—I do not suppose anybody could find fault with that—but short of that I do not see what he could do.
Take another case. It is very well known that the Judge in the ease of Bardell and Pickwick, Mr. Justice Stare Leigh, wits a Judge upon the Bench at that time. There was only a slight alteration of the name, which I will not mention, as there are still members of the family. Mr. Justice Stareleigh was a caricature of a Judge then living, and, as a. Judge, I should not like to have it said of me, as was said of Mr. Justice Stareleigh: "At this point the learned Judge wrote something in his book with a pen with no ink in it "This is the kind of thing we have to deal with. We may assume that the defendant had got a verdict. Then the Judge has to say, according to Clause 3: "Well, now, this is really a very offensive imputation on my brother Stareleigh, that he takes his notes with a pen without any ink in it, and I must put in some other name." It would be very tempting to put in the name of somebody who lately reversed him. I will not assume that he would
318
do that, but it would throw upon him the difficulty of deciding what name he is to substitute for that of Mr. Justice Stareleigh.
There is an even stronger case. There is a case of the Lord Chancellor who had as a friend, according to Dickens, a Mr. Pell, a most disreputable attorney who practised in the Bankruptcy Court, and Mr. Pell told a story of how the Lord Chancellor used such language as I do not think any Lord Chancellor ever did use, in order to convey his high opinion of Mr. Poll's talents in getting anybody through the Bankruptcy Court. I have ascertained that when Dickens published this about the Lord Chancellor Lord Cottenham occupied the Woolsack. Suppose an action had been brought and the Judge said: "I have said what yon must do about Mr. Justice Stareleigh, and now here is the case of the Lord Chancellor. I cannot allow you to defame the Lord Chancellor. I must deal with the circumstances as may appear just. You must not put. in the Lord Chancellor. "The man would say: "Whom may I mention" Suppose the Judge said: "Of course, it must be a Judge, there is no point in it otherwise; supposing we take the Master of the Rolls." I cannot: really support this part of the Bill, if anybody should challenge the Second Beading; I do not think this Bill ought to be read a second time.
As to the next proposal I really should not have thought anything so revolutionary could have been proposed in your Lordships' House. This applies to criminal procedure, and what is provided is that where somebody has been prosecuted and put into the dock because there are criminal proceedings against him in respect of blasphemous, seditious or obscene matter, then, if that person is a publisher, the author is to be allowed to say: "All these proceedings must be hung up until I also am allowed to appear." I cannot make out what he is. He appears to be sort of amicus curiæ as far as I can see. He steps into the dock, he has not been proceeded against, there is no charge against him, and he has to have a reasonable opportunity of appearing and contending that the matter complained of is not blasphemous, sedition's or obscene. So far as I can see, if he fails, and if it is proved that it is blasphemous and obscene,

319
he cannot be sentenced, but the other man can whom, it may be, he has come to assist. I cannot imagine anything which would make criminal proceedings more. absolutely impossible than such a provision as that.
But then, the clause goes on:—
" If in any such criminal or summary proceedings the author appears either as defendant or pursuant to such notification as aforesaid he shall be heard in defence of his work and may adduce evidence in support of such defence, and the court or the judge shall not convict any defendant or make any order prejudicial to the work or the author unless after hearing the author and any evidence which may Le adduced by him the court or the judge is satisfied that the matter complained of is in fact blasphemous, seditious or obscene."
That seems to come this, that if a person is indicted for obscene matter there steps into the dock beside him the person who has written it, who cannot be convicted, but who has a right to appear, and if the jury convict the publisher, why, then the Judge is not to pass sentence unless he is satisfied that the libel is blasphemous or obscene.
This question of whether Judges or juries should have the chief jurisdiction in matters of libel was settled over a hundred years ago. It was long the practice for the Judge to decide whether a thing was a libel or not, and, of course, if it was not a libel, the man could not be convicted. That was taken out of the hands of the Judges and left to the jury with a kind of direction which the Judges at present know how to give. But if this Bill were passed in anything like the state in which it stands, as far as I can see it would revolutionise all practice of trial by jury in libel cases, it would lead to such confusion as the law has never known. Therefore, although I think it might be well to have a discussion as to whether the ease of Jones v. Hulton should really remain the law of the land or whether it should not, I do not think anything at all should be decided until the matter has been considered by a Select Committee who can hear witnesses and discover what it is that various parties desire to do. Be that as it may, I should not be at all surprised if your Lordships decided not to give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD SUMNER: My Lords, may I draw your attention to the practical
320
consequences of Clause 4 of this Bill? It applies to all criminal proceedings for any alleged blasphemous, seditious or obscene matter contained in any literary, dramatic or artiste work which has been published or performed under its author's name. The terms of the clause are so wide that it would be very difficult indeed to exclude the greater part of the publications issued from the Press. It applies to every proceeding taken to bring a work of that kind to justice, and applies to every author, wherever he lives and whoever he may be, who may have published such matter. It makes it obligatory that all further proceedings in the case shall be stayed until the prosecution has taken all reasonable steps to notify the author that such proceedings are pending and to give him a reasonable opportunity of appearing at the hearing and contending that what he has written is not blasphemous, seditious or obscene.
A small experience of a case like this occurs to me. I once tried a man for publishing an obscene libel. I cannot say that it was not literary; it might easily have been literary. The man defended himself and did so in the half-crazy fashion that authors of that kind of stuff are prone to adopt by reading the whole thing and dilating upon it, and repeating it and citing the usual quotations from "The Decameron" and all the other things which these people always try to bring out. After about an hour and a-half of this the jury said to me: "My Lord, are we obliged to listen to this stuff?" Anti I replied: "I am afraid you are bound to hear him out. He is on his trial and is defending himself and we must hear what he has to say."
Supposing that scene were repeated under Clause 4 of this Bill. The publisher could not be on his trial at all until the author of the stuff the proud parent of it, was notified and was given this opportunity. The Judge would be obliged to say to the jury, the author reading his book and defending it in the usual way: "I do not want to hear this, you do not want to hear this and the prisoner at the Bar does not want to hear this. He wants to plead 'Guilty'; he understands what it means. But I am not allowed to take his plea Guilty' because there is to be no judgment until the author has had this

321
opportunity." When the author has enjoyed himself to the full, when he has clone all the possible mischief he can to the public by declaiming his work in Court and endeavouring to justify it, the inevitable result will occur which should have happened at the beginning—namely, that the publisher will plead "Guilty," take his sentence and be removed. Then the author can leave the Court with all the pride of authorship about him. If anybody else republishes his work he would be entitled to the same opportunity over again, or if, having left the Court for a sufficient length of time, the police arrested him and charged him with the authorship, he could go over the whole thing again. That is the extra publication of filth which would be given by this endeavour to protect authors, of which an author who has sailed as close as he can to the line, or rather over it, would gladly wail himself.
This applies also to seditious matter, and I should like to consider how it could be worked out by any party, who desire to obtain the utmost publicity for seditious works. Your Lordships will see that it could, and would, be done in this way. As soon as you endeavoured to suppress a work by prosecuting the person who was publishing or selling it, the author would be entitled to come and make speeches and call all his comrades to give evidence about it, and say that they did not think it seditious and so on, and to repeat that, as long as you ventured to take proceedings at all. It appears to me that the clause, though not entirely beyond any conception of those who drafted it, has the effect of making all these prosecutions, which are always repulsive and sometimes worse, as prolonged, as notorious and as offensive as they can possibly be. That, of course, is not an integral part of the whole Bill and it could be cut out.
My noble and learned friend has not, T. think, quite hit upon the point of Clause 1. He suggests that it might be worth while to have a talk, by which I suppose he means a Committee, about the effect of Jones v. Hulton. If this was a. Bill merely to reverse a decision of your Lordships' House I should say that we are accustomed to it and we do not complain. But if the precedent was followed to any extent, your Lordships would be
322
snowed under with Bills to reverse our judgments, because it is rarely that we are all agreed and when we are agreed upon one conclusion it is frequently on different grounds.
But the real point of this Bill is to create a special privileged class, neither numerous nor meritorious nor unable to protect themselves. At present Jones v. Hulton applies as good law fur everybody. Under this Bill Jones v. Hulton will continue to apply to every literary or dramatic work not purporting to be a work of fiction. It would apply to history, which very often is a work of fiction without purporting to be such. It would apply to personal memoirs, in which the names of all the statesmen one has ever met at dinner are introduced, and in which anecdotes of their University career and so forth are carefully recorded. It would refer to dramatic works most of which, I take it, purport to be works of fiction, though there may be exceptions like the play of "Henry VIII" or "Mary Queen of Scots, "including Knox and Darnley, and so forth.
Plays mostly would come within this category and the authors of these works would be in a class by themselves, entitled to say: "Jones v. Hulton does not apply to us. If we name you by the name you bear, or if we describe you in such, a way that you are quite easily recognised by your appearance, or description or politics, or whatever it may be, we cannot be sued for it unless the plaintiff, in addition to proving that the words are understood to refer to him, that his character has been damaged and that it is very annoying, goes on to prove that the defendant either published intentionally or negligently." I do not understand how the victim of a casual passage incorporated in a book or a casual passage in a story could ever be expected to say one way or the other that the defendant intended to publish it about him. He published the book. He wrote it with his pen or typed it on his typewriter. He corrected the proofs. He sent it to the publisher and when it was published appears to have sent round copies to his friends. If that does not show the intention of publication, what does? I suppose this means that the plaintiff should not be able to get to the jury and complete his case unless he could show that the defendant had some personal

323
malice against himself, a humble person of whom the author had never heard or about whom the author did not care twopence.
In the same way, "published negligently"—what does that mean? It means, I suppose, that he did not take sufficient pains to ascertain, when he described someone who held a particular office, and on a particular occasion got into a ludicrous situation in public, that the story was true, or that at any rate there was nobody else on whom that story could be fastened. How is any plaintiff to prove that? I venture to say that the object of this clause is to discriminate between class and class. The law at present is the same for everybody who is libelled. If something defamatory has been said of and concerning him much depends upon people identifying him with the passage published. Whatever the defendant is, whether he has published one kind of work or another, whether it is a newspaper, or a novel, or a serious work, or a sermon, or what not, the law is the same, and the injured person, about whom I fancy the Society of Authors does not feel very much concern, has his chance of getting redress.
I dare say there are cases of blackmail. There may be cases of blackmail in every kind of action. If the noble Lord could devote himself to devising any practical way by which blackmailing and speculative actions could be prevented he would be a great benefactor of the country, but no one has yet found out any better way than the present, which is to take the man into Court, let him go into the witness box, and see what sort of a case he can make, and ask the jury what they think about it. If they give a farthing damages he at any rate does not get any costs. If they find for the defendant, the plaintiff has to pay the costs. If he has no money you can have the satisfaction of making him a bankrupt, and then, if he incurs a debt of more than£20 without mentioning that he is a bankrupt, which of course he never does, he is liable to be sent to prison. So, with a little pertinacity, you get your own back in time. I do not think that it is at all worth while, for the sake of discussing whether Lord Justice Moulton's judgment was right or wrong, to pass the Second Beading of this Bill, and send it to a Committee, but your Lordships will be the judges of that.
324
There is one other thing—namely, this procedure, about which my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster seemed to have some hope, if a Judge could investigate these matters at an early stage. The Judge is to have no evidence before him except affidavit evidence, and he has to read that, and then he has to decide whether there is any reasonable probability that the action will succeed; that is to say, whether it is at all likely that the plaintiff will succeed in showing that the defendant was intentionally libellous or was negligently libellous. I suppose the first thing the Judge would have to do would be to read the book, and I am sure that in his place rather than do that I would resign. In the second place, the best clue to the rights and wrongs of a libel action is to see the parties in the witness box. The Judge under this preliminary procedure would not be able to see them. He would have to look at an affidavit, perhaps sworn by an affidavit clerk. He would say to himself: "There is no subject in the common law in which it is more necessary to take the opinion of a jury than on the question of reasonable and probable cause." I should say the same thing regarding the reasonable probability of a jury finding one thing or another. I should say: "I shall certainly let this go into Court." Then you would have the expense of a pretty full dress hearing without the parties being present, and then have the further expense of going into Court in the long run.
The Authors' Society naturally and laudably endeavours to support the cause of its own members, many of whom I have no doubt have suffered considerably by being pestered with actions that never ought to be brought: but I do wish, when any attempt is made of that kind to alter the law in order to suit a particular set of cases, that the parties would first of all consider the other side of the matter and say to themselves: "What difference will this make to the people who are the victims of our unintentional wrongs?" and "How far are we justified in order that we may not get into trouble unless a good deal more is proved against us than has to be proved against other people, in asking the Legislature to say that people who

325
are injured by our Society shall have more difficulty in Retting damages than if they wore injured by anybody else?"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, this Bill has received a very critical and faithful examination at the hands of noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and it only remains for me to state in a few sentences the view of His Majesty's Government. Clause 1 is plainly intended to meet the case which occurred in the well-known decision in Jones v. Hulton, the case where a writer, quite accidentally, not knowing of the existence of a certain person, used his name as the name of a character to whom he attributed certain misdeeds. It is a surprise to me that that case should occur so often as we are told it does occur. I should have thought it quite an exceptional case, in which not only the name but the attributes of the character fitted so closely a living person not known to the author, that that living person thought it worth while to put on the cap and to seek to obtain damages.
But we have been told by a very distinguished author of fiction that that ease does occur pretty often, and that ho knows of many cases where damages have been claimed on that ground. If that is really so I think, possibly, the law requires consideration, but I doubt whether Clause 1 is quite the remedy which ought to be applied. It is rather hard on a person to have his name used, and used in some unsavoury context, and not to have some chance of defending himself, and of clearing his name, and I think that if anything at all is to be done the burden of proof should be laid on other shoulders. You should not enact that the plaintiff, in such a case, must prove that the novel was intended to refer to him, but you might perhaps give the, defendant a chance of proving that he had no knowledge at all of the plaintiff's existence, and certainly did not mean to refer to him, and that he took all proper care in order to avoid the mischance that has happened. If the noble Lord turned this clause round in the way I have described there might, I think, be something to be said for it.
With regard to the second clause it proposes a kind of interlocutory procedure for stopping an action of this kind. I must say I think it wholly objectionable. The effect of it is this,
326
that the defendant may take out a summons on mere affidavit evidence, which I suppose would not be the subject of cross-examination, and by that means stay the action. He may have a trial run. I am sure that in many a case the defendant would have a trial run. The effect is that there are two trials, or two hearings, one partial and the other complete, and it might often happen that an action which really had some substantial foundation might be stayed in this way without the plaintiff having a chance of getting his case properly before the jury. I had a letter yesterday from a very distinguished counsel who says:
"I am sure there are many cases which I have won which would have been stopped in limine if this procedure had been generally applicable."
My noble and learned friend Lord Buck-master suggested that some such procedure might be applied to stop in this way all frivolous or unfounded actions. There is a remedy. There is power already under existing rules to stop an action which is frivolous and vexatious, and with these powers in existence I do not think it is possible to propose that in this special category of actions this special remedy should be provided. About Clause 3 I will say no more.
As to Clause 4, after the speeches which have already been made, I can only say that I think it is hopeless. It applies to criminal and summary proceedings. I do not know what distinction is intended to be drawn there, because summary proceedings are criminal proceedings; and besides, in proceedings in cases of blasphemy, sedition or obscene language there is no summary proceeding at all. But it applies to cases where the author is a foreign author, who may be far away, and the effect of the clause would be to stay a prosecution and deprive the prosecutor of his remedy and the defendant of the chance of making good his defence. Possibly the foreign author would not come here as a defendant, but only as a person affected, simply as a kind of intervene!-. If the publisher wishes the author to be heard in a case of that kind his simple course is to call him as a witness. If the defendant chooses he can do so.
I have shown that only in Clause 1, and only if that clause is turned upside down, is this Bill likely to provide any remedy, and if from that point of view

327
the noble Lord thinks fit to proceed with the Motion for the Second Reading—although I think it would be better if he drafted a shorter Bill dealing more closely with the facts—and if the House thinks fit to accept the Second Heading, I hope the proposal of the noble and learned Lord to refer the Bill to a Select Committee will be accepted so that the promoters of the Bill will have a chance of proving whether there is or is not a real need for a Bill of this kind.
LORD GORELL: My Lords, after the very weighty speeches from noble and learned Lords I should be ill-advised to proceed with the Second Reading this afternoon. There are, however, one or two observations I should like to make. Lord Buckmaster said that there would be two points always present to your Lordships—one, a desire that writers of fiction and authors generally should suffer no limitations in their imaginative art and, the other, a desire to afford protection to the private person. The whole of the criticism against the Bill by three noble and learned Lords who have spoken has been directed to the second point mentioned by Lord Buckmaster. I think Lord Darling was under a misapprehension when dealing with Clause 3 as to what I understood the Bill would do. The Judge would not himself have to find a character or name called Pickwick. He would say that the name has to be altered and leave it to the author to effect the alteration; and with regard to the case of Mr. Justice Stareleigh he may say: "If you say he is making notes with a pen that has been dipped in ink it would meet the case."
The only other observation I have to make is with regard to the criticism of Lord Sumner on Clause 4. It was certainly not the intention of any one responsible for the Bill, and certainly not my intention, to make it easier to publish blasphemous, seditious and obscene works. What was in mind was the case of a man who has written what he believes to be a thoroughly religious book and someone says it is a blasphemous book and brings an action against the publisher. The publisher thereupon agrees to suppress the book. The author for the rest of his life, not having been a party to the action, is under the stigma that he has written a book which has been decided to be blasphemous. It is still more a stigma
328
in the case of a book that is decided to be obscene.
The greatest medical books have been under that stigma at one time and another. There is a well-known medical book published in five or six volumes. When the first volume was published in this country someone brought an action alleging that it was obscene, and the publisher agreed to suppress the volume. This is the only country in the world in which that work is not now known. It was to meet that kind of case that the clause was designed, in order that the author should be able to state why he has written the book and why in his view it is neither blasphemous, nor seditious nor obscene. The Lord Chancellor said he may be made a witness. That is perfectly true, but the publisher need not make him i a witness and may agree to suppress the work without calling him at all. However, after what has fallen from those who are much more qualified to speak as to the law of libel than I am, I respectfully ask leave to withdraw the Bill in order to reconsider the points raised and possibly introduce a shorter Bill.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE: My Lords, I address your Lordships this afternoon with a certain amount of disappointment because I had hoped that this Bill would have been looked upon as non-contentious. I bring forward this Bill with no intention at all of trying to score a point or even to pose as the great friend of the agricultural labourer. The House, I am sure, will believe me when I say that I bring it forward only because I have felt very keenly for many years on this very important subject. It came to the front about three years ago when the Labour Government came into power. We all hoped then that one of the first things that they would do would be to achieve something to ameliorate the condition of the agricultural labourer. Mr. Noel Buxton, who lives amongst these people and knows them in one of the most poorly paid counties in England, brought in a Bill of which he moved the Second Reading in a speech of great ability and

329
power. It was then that he made a terrible statement, which, I believe, has never been contradicted or denied, that in Norfolk, when an agricultural labourer has 25 s. paid to him, when ho had paid for his cottage, 2s. 6d. to 3s., and when he had paid for the necessities of life, all that is left to him, if he has a wife and four children—and almost all these men have families—is the average sum of one farthing a meal for himself, his wife and his children. That is a state of things which is too horrible to contemplate.
Mr. Buxton brought forward his Bill, as I say, in a speech of great power, but there was much disappointment, not only among land reformers but also among the labourers themselves, that no minimum wage was fixed and that these arrangements were to be made locally and to be undertaken by people who, being on the spot, were supposed to be the best authority for dealing with them. When the Bill came up to your Lordships House the Liberal Party moved an Amendment in order to try to get a fixed minimum wage. We were unsuccessful, and Lord Parmoor, who was leading the House in the Labour interest, gave two reasons why the minimum wage should not be adopted. He said that his first reason was that an overwhelming preponderance of labourers were against it. I doubt that very much indeed. One of my old political friends was George Edwards, the labourers' representative, and I think that if Lord Parmoor had had a conversation with him he would hardly have wished to repeat the statement he made on that occasion.
Lord Parmoor said that he would speak not from fancy but from fact. He said that there were two counties in England with which he was very well acquainted—one was Buckinghamshire and the other was Yorkshire. It struck me, as he said that, that there were a large number of other counties in England with which the noble Lord did not profess to have much acquaintance, and therefore I supposed that it would be useless to ask him why, in the County of Norfolk, on land which is very much better than the land in the County of Buckingham, where he lives, farmers could not pay the wage which he himself pays—for the noble Lord sets a great example and, I believe, pays his labourers 38 s. a week and gives them a cottage.
330
I wondered why the farmers in Buckinghamshire, on worse land, growing the same stuff and going to the same markets, could pay so much more than the farmers in Norfolk, where the land is very much better. Everybody knows that the land between Norwich and Lynn is a very fine stretch of land, much better than the land in Buckinghamshire. But, since the noble Lord professes to have no knowledge at all of affairs in that part of the country, I will not press that point.
Referring to Yorkshire, then, the noble Lord said that all the Yorkshire people were against the minimum wage because, if they had a minimum wage, it would at once bring down their own wages, which naturally are very high in that County. I am not a Yorkshireman, either by birth, accident or inclination, and I cannot give any answer to that, but the statement at once brought up Lord Gain-ford, who is of the family of Pease, which is as well known and as much honoured in Yorkshire as is the name of Buxton in Norfolk. Lord Gainford at once repudiated in the strongest language what he went so far as to call a libel on the people of the County in which he lived. But I suppose that Lord Parmoor's argument had great effect, for he led his supporters and the supporters of the great Conservative Party into the Lobby against us and we were beaten hip and thigh. The Bill was carried in its original form and the men of Norfolk had to settle down to another winter of anxiety, privation and discontent.
Then the curtain went up on Act 2, and things certainly looked a little happier and rosier, because the returns from the different counties had come in and the result was exactly what we had to a great extent hoped it would be. There was a minimum wage in every county in England except three, granted by those persons who are acting in water tight compartments. There was a leakage in the other three compartments. Since the principle of the minimum wage has been adopted all over England, all that we respectfully ask is that the minimum wage should be extended to the other three counties. We upon these Benches then brought in a Bill which was the exact counterpart of that which I have the honour to present to your Lordships. When we brought in this Bill people asked what was the use of having it. They were tired of the agricultural

331
labourers, who, they said, had had their innings and must now make the best of things. But, after all, if there are only three counties left out, they are three of the greatest agricultural counties in England and the area of these three counties is 'bigger than most people suspect. The area of Norfolk, Suffolk and Berkshire is something like 2,600,000 acres, which represents 4,000 square miles. That is to say, it represents a piece of land as big as a road one mile wide running through the whole of Africa from the Cape to Cairo; and I think the House will admit that this is a pretty tidy piece of land.
Lord Bledisloe, who was the "star" of the occasion and to whom was entrusted the task of providing arguments to knock out this Bill, said that he could not agree to the minimum legal wage because he was all in favour of purity in politics and clean legislation. Naturally he had the whole House with him there. We all agree that this is one of the essentials in any man who ever hopes to occupy great positions under the. Crown. Character and consistency are the essentials of a leader, and without them no man can ever hope to take the foremost place. But I ask my noble friend one question. Is it not a great deal to ask us to believe that the giving of 3s. a week to a certain number of badly-housed, badly-clothed, badly-fed men would be in the least likely to take us back to the bad old days of which we read in history—the days of Walpole or Bolingbroke? I submit to my noble friend that although we can believe a great deal we really cannot be expected to swallow that.
Well, we went to a Division and that Division had a certain amount of significance. Whips were sent out by both sides last year on this question, and I think 119 noble Lords answered to the crack of the, whip. When the Division was taken 67 Peers voted with the Government and 22 Peers on the Liberal side voted in favour of the Bill. What is significant is that there were 19 Peers, and Peers of great importance, representing a great deal in this House, who walked out of the House. Of course they would not vote against their side and you will not find their names in the Division List. Besides that, where were the great representatives of the landed interest? Where was the Duke of Devonshire, the
332
Duke of Buccleuch, Earl Fitzwilliam, the Marquess of Lansdowne, and Lord Anglesey? None of these noble Lords were present on that occasion, and, as I have said before, if we had been permitted to vote according to our wishes most of the Peers who walked out would have voted in favour of the Bill.
There was another winter of discontent, and now we come to the present time. About six weeks ago the labourers of Norfolk, emboldened, I think, by the sympathy expressed everywhere for these men—because there is no doubt about it the land question is coining rapidly to the front, and England is beginning to see. what is the importance of the land question—applied to the county committee. The arrangement under the Act was that labourers and farmers should be represented on these county committees. It is all right, of course, when there is the pressure, such as exists in other parts of England, of other industries wanting employees, but in Norfolk there are not the ordinary effects of supply and demand. These labourers very respectfully asked the Norfolk County Advisory Committee to give them 3s. 6d. or 3s. more to help them in their trouble, and the answer was, "No, no, no, we will not have anything to do with it." There was, of course, a deadlock. The six labourers' representatives were on one side, and the six farmers on the other. Of course, there are three independent members on the Norfolk County Committe, including an independent chairman—a man above all suspicion, and on whom the whole thing rests.
I do not know the names of the two independent members of the Norfolk County Committee, but I know their professions. One is a brewer and the other is a chemist. The chemist, I happen to know, is a Liberal, and a county alderman, and I have not the slightest doubt that when these two men voted one voted with the labourers and the other voted with the farmers, and there was again a deadlock. Then, of course, they had to depend upon the chairman. What happened then? The whole of the labourers and their wives and children in the County of Norfolk, living on something like 2,000 square miles, depended upon the vote, the ipse dixit, of the chairman, and the chairman of the Norfolk County Ad-

333
visory Committee is the superintendent of a private lunatic asylum. That is the exact state of affairs now.
I am trying in the best way I can to bring the case of those poor men before your Lordships' House, and you must go into the Lobby and vote one way or another. That is the way to try a great question involving the fate of these men, women and children under this Bill. At the present moment they are entirely at the mercy of the master of a madhouse. I hope your Lordships will excuse me for speaking in this way, but I feel so strongly upon the matter that when I wake up in the middle of the night, and think of the misery of these poor people, I cannot get to sleep again. I would ask your Lordships to consider who and what are the men that are being treated in this way. What did they do in days gone by, when almost the crack of doom sounded in England, and my noble friend Lord Oxford and Asquith, from his place in Parliament, told the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons the nation, that we had got to fight not only for our existence but for the honour and liberty of the country. What did these men do then? I do not say that they did better than anybody else. That would be nonsense, for they could not do any better. But they proved themselves worthy descendants of men who formed part of the "thin red line" in days gone by. Those men came forward to fight for you, and to fight for me, and to fight for our children, and to fight next to those gallant sons and grandsons of your Lordships whose memorial we are shortly going to put up in the Gallery close by. I do not say they did better than anybody else, but think of what that Sandringham Company of Territorials did. They were ordered to advance at Gallipoli in smoke and fire and flame, headed by their agent, and those men went into the fire and flame, and everyone of them perished. Not one was ever heard of again. Is this the way to treat men who served the country like that?
I apologise to the House for speaking in this way, but I ask noble Lords opposite—not to vote against the Government, far from it, I am a very strong Party man myself. But I ask them not to go into the Lobby on this occasion.
334
Do follow the example of the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Leicester, the descendant of old Thomas Coke of Norfolk, whoso name is handed down with such affection because he looked after the men and the women on his estate—do follow the example of Lord Leicester, and remember that not one single landlord in the eastern counties, not one (if there is one I apologise to him for taking his name in vain) who went into the Lobby in the Division last year. Lord Albemarle and Lord Iveagh and Lord Bristol—you do not find the name of one of them voting for the starvation wage. I am sorry if I have spoken with too great warmth, but I do from the bottom of my heart hope that the House of Lords will be true to its own instincts, and that noble Lords will not go into the Lobby on this occasion, but will help those who wish to do their best to put an end to a state of things which is not only a disgrace to the community, but a national danger and a national crime. I beg to move the Second Heading of this little Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lincolnshire.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. I should like to say that as far as I understood the speech of the noble Marquess the chief reason why he is anxious to introduce this Bill is that the agricultural wages committee in Norfolk have decided by the casting vote of their chairman, not to increase the wages in that County. Thai is an argument which might be advanced by people like myself, who are entirely against any interference between grown men in their affairs, but I should like to ask the noble Marquess what he expected when he supported a Bill which provided that, when six farmers and six representatives of the men met and could not agree, the casting vote was to be in the hands of the chairman. The chairman has given his casting vote, and it happens to be against the men.
This Bill proposes to fix by Act of Parliament a minimum wage of 30 s. One of the arguments of the noble Marquess was that in only two counties, in England is less than 30 s. paid. I understand that in Norfolk in the summer the wages are 29 s. a week and

335
in the winter 28 s. In Suffolk in the summer they are 29 s. 6d. and in the winter 28 s. Now it may be held that there is not very much harm in this Bill because it would only affect those two particular Counties, but in passing a measure of this sort one has to consider the effect upon the community, and not only upon one section of the community. I do not suppose that the noble Marquess would be at all influenced by any remarks that I may make, but I observe that he stated that character and consistency in a leader were among the chief things that a leader ought to possess. I propose to quote to him certain statements which were made by his own leader, the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. I heard with very great pleasure the noble Earl when he made the statements which I am now going to quote. They were quite my sentiments, but they were delivered in very much better words than are at my command to express such wise and sensible views.
The noble Earl's remarks were made on the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Bill in March, 1912. A Mr. King had moved to fix the minimum wage at 5s. a day—curiously enough, the same minimum which the noble Marquess wishes to fix. This is what the noble Earl said:—
"In my opinion and in the opinion of the Government it is undesirable to name a figure in the Bill, and I say that in the interests of all parties. I say further that I am not disposed to set the precedent of fixing a figure of wages in an Act of Parliament. If you once put in an Act of Parliament, as expressing the considered judgment of Parliament, a particular wage as a minimum wage that would be treated as a maximum. There is another point of view."—
and I would call the attention of your Lordships to this particular sentence—
"It is this. If you once put a figure like this into an Act of Parliament is it not perfectly clear to those of us who know about electioneering that it must become the subject of agitation—I do not want to use offensive phrases—and of bidding and counter-bidding in constituencies where a particular class of workers are affected. It is the most natural thing in the world to go to a constituency and say, 'Well, 5s. is not enough; suppose we say 6s.' That would have most demoralising results. These seem to me two very serious considerations—so serious that the Government is unable to accept the Amendment."
Sir Edward Grey—another of the leaders of the noble Marquess—supported the
336
noble Earl, and the Amendment was withdrawn. On the Report stage it was again moved, and the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, then Mr. Buxton, another leader, opposed it. It went to a Division, and it was defeated by 326 votes to 83.
I do not think I need say anything more. You have the opinion which the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, gave when he was the Leader of a great Party, in the most serious manner, in the, most excellent language and expressing the most excellent sentiments. As the noble Marquess said, character and consistency are the greatest attributes of a leader and, therefore, I feel certain that if your Lordships divide upon this Motion the noble Earl, Lord Oxford and Asquith, will be in the same Division Lobby as myself. I content myself now with moving the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: My Lords, I should have waited until I had heard what the Government had to say regarding this matter but for the speech of my noble friend opposite which is something in the nature of a personal challenge to myself and ought, therefore, to be taken up without delay. First of all, may I state the ground upon which I shall certainly vote in favour of the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill? That there ought to be a minimum wage in agriculture is now, I think, a proposition which is the common property of all Parties in the State. I am not aware that in any quarter of this House or of the other House that proposition would be disputed.
So far as I am personally concerned, I am not always anxious to vindicate my consistency, but since it has been impugned upon one point let me, first of all, make it clear upon another. Thirteen years ago, or very nearly thirteen years ago, in the month of December, 1913, being then at the head of the Government, I stated in outline and in public the proposals for land reform which we had then in contemplation and which, but for the outburst of the War in the following year, would certainly have assumed, I will not say legislative form, because

337
that would have depended a great deal upon the dispositions of your Lordships' House, but certainly the form of legislative proposals.
Let me add, parenthetically, that I need hardly assure your Lordships that I am not going into the general question of land reform at this moment, but I have always thought, or at any rate for a great number of years, that the proper way to approach the question was to approach it from the bottom. In other words, you must start with the position and prospects of the men who till the soil. You must secure for them, to use what has now become a cant phrase in other departments of production, as a first, charge upon the product of the industry, a sufficient remuneration to enable them to live decent and humane lives. I do not believe that proposition is now disputed in any quarter. I said then and I repeat to-day, that around the condition of the agricultural labourer hangs the whole future of the agricultural community. And the conclusion I came to was that this is a case in which the State must step in and secure a minimum wage. When I say a "minimum wage" I mean a wage such as will ensure a labourer of average industry and prudence reasonable conditions of living. I do not believe that proposition is controverted in this House or anywhere else. Indeed, the legislation which has since been passed and to which my noble friend referred just now is a recognition that that is so.
Now, is a wage lower than the figure prescribed by this Bill, 30 s. a week, a wage which it will be contended by anybody satisfies those conditions? The noble Lord who has just addressed the House has great practical acquaintance with the land. He knows as much about the land as he knows, if I may venture to compare the different departments of his knowledge, about the City of London, and I know that, subject to the unstable conditions of the industry and notwithstanding the malign interferences and intrusions of politicians, he is a model landlord and, I hope, a prosperous one.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Not the last.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: That is not his own fault I am sure. It is probably due to one or other of the two obstructive forces to which I have
338
just referred; I will not say in what proportion or in what degree. But I have had the privilege of sitting opposite the noble Lord in various places for the, past forty years and I know well that he is a man of the most humane instincts and I am sure they are not limited to the animal creation. But does the noble Lord tell me, and will he tell your Lordships' House, that, under existing conditions, the minimum sum provided by this Bill—namely, 30 s. a week—is more than any man now engaged in the tilling of the soil ought to receive? I do not think he would say, No.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No. But the noble Lord will excuse me if I interrupt him further to point out that in the debate from which. I quoted he himself said that 5s. a day was the proper sum to give the miners at that time.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I am coming to that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: He said that the result would be so disastrous to the community that it must be swept aside.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: I am coming to what I said about the coal miners; but the noble Lord has not answered my question or, if he has, he has answered it in the sense I expected him to do. It is a striking fact, and one which cannot fail to produce its influence upon the, mind of every reasonable man, that except in three counties in England at this moment under the machinery which the law provides the wages paid to the agricultural labourers equals or exceeds, and in most cases substantially exceeds, 30 s. a week. That is certainly so in a great many cases. It is only in three counties that a wage below that figure is at present paid. This is not a Bill to provide for the future. It is limited in its scope to that particular point and, under the conditions which now prevail, it does not appear to me to be arguable that a man ought to be employed in tilling the soil of this country at a lower wage than that.
The noble Lord seems to think that I am guilty of some inconsistency in maintaining that position to-day in regard to this particular matter because of what I said about the Coal Mines Regulation

339
Bill in the year 1912. I have not refreshed my memory about it, but I am perfectly sure that this quotation is accurate. I have a very distinct recollection of the conditions in which we were then working. We were then fixing for the first time as the result of a prolonged and most disastrous industrial disturbance the principle of a minimum wage for the coal mining industry, as we all know now, one of the most varied in its local conditions of any of the industries of this country. The method by which we proceeded was the method which has been followed to a large extent even to-day, and was followed for a great many years, of setting up district boards which would regulate the minimum wage in particular localities in accordance with the special conditions, infinitely varied as they are, under which that industry is carried on. There were people who thought that it would be desirable to put in those two figures of 5s., I think, for men, and 2s. for boys, in that industry under those conditions. I thought, and the Government thought, that would not be an expedient course for the reasons stated in the quotations that the noble Lord has made from my speech. I think so still, without in any way anticipating future legislation in regard to this the most vexed of all problems, the proper scale of remuneration in the coal industry. I shall be very much surprised, if, whatever arrangement is ultimately proposed and sanctioned by Parliament, it is not recognised that the diversities are such as to make it undesirable to name some specific figure of universal application. I am not proposing to do so. I should not propose to do so in the case of any of the other industries of which I can think.
But here we are not dealing with the general question of the regulation of agricultural wages. We are dealing with a specific case. As regards the remainder of the country, we are perfectly prepared to leave things—I do not say as they are, but at any rate to leave things without any immediate and exceptional legislation. But here you have in three comparatively limited areas, but areas of very great importance to the production of the country, this exceptional standard of wages, which everybody acquainted with the facts and conditions of the industry recognises to be below the minimum that an agricultural labourer, to
340
carry on his work efficiently and live under decent conditions, ought to receive. The question, and the sole question, which is raised by my noble friend's Bill is whether your Lordships will put that state of things right and enable these men, without interfering in any way with the operations of the wages boards in the various counties and areas of the country, to be in such a position that they may be able to feel that they are receiving the minimum which both the conscience and the judgment of those who are acquainted with their conditions I believe are unanimous in declaring they ought to receive.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I have one qualification for addressing you on this particular question, and that is that I am the chairman of an agricultural wages committee, and that I do not recognise in what I must call the travesty of the proceedings of a wages board that has been given to us by Lord Lincolnshire a true account of what really passes in those discussions. I may make one correction. Perhaps the noble Marquess will say that it is all in his favour. It is no longer three counties that are below the average of 30 s., it is now only two—namely, Suffolk and Norfolk. Those are the two principal arable counties in the whole of the United Kingdom, and it is for that reason, and probably for no other, that the wages there fall slightly below the level of all other agricultural counties. I should like to say, after studying that point very carefully, that I believe it is the utmost that a farmer can pay on arable land, and that to push the arable farmers of Norfolk and Suffolk further on that point would be to drive the land out of cultivation. I regret to have to say it, because in most other parts of England the farmer can lay the land down to grass. I do not absolutely know what he can do if you put the wages in Norfolk and Suffolk up beyond that point.
I should like to see 30 s. paid everywhere if that was possible, for this reason. Most of the wage earners in agriculture make on an average about 36 s. a week or more. The average wage of the agricultural working man is really not 30 s. but more like 36 s., but it is the man who gets the fewest additional hours who is the man you want to help, because his case is that of the man into whose cottage the least money comes in the week. Therefore I do think there is that

341
to be said in favour of a minimum wage. On the other hand, I am perfectly sure that if you once fix a minimum wage there will be a tendency in all the counties gradually to reduce wages to that level, and there will be a strong temptation to prevent any rise whatever in the future. If you once fix the minimum wage it becomes, if I may quote the noble Earl's language, which I am afraid is absolutely true, the maximum wage, and it becomes the maximum wage for several years to come. Therefore I think that on principle a minimum wage is not on the whole a. wise thing to adopt.
May I point out this? I think the noble Marquess, on the last occasion when he brought in this Bill, charged those on the other side of the House with having stolen the clothes of the Liberal Party in the matter of the policy of small holdings. He himself has the honourable distinction of having his name identified with the movement for all time, but I think, in the form in which he proposes a minimum wage, it is quite evident that his clothes are going to be reversible ones. He can wear them outside in or inside out—that is to say, he can go into the farmers ordinary and say to the farmers: "I have secured you a 60-hour week at 6d. an hour": or he can go over the way to a meeting of the labourers and say to them: "I have got you a 30-hour week at 1s. an hour." You cannot fix a minimum wage in the way that the noble Marquess proposes to do it. It ought to be fixed at so much an hour, and then when you have the number of hours, you can fix the wage. But the noble Marquess in his Bill proposes 30 s. a week; so you get 30 s. a week, whether a man works 60 hours a week at 6d. an hour, or whether he works 30 hours a week at 1s. an hour. It is hardly reasonable that we should be asked here to give our sanction to a Bill that enables persons to use it in a double fashion, and to say to the farmers: "We get you a 60-hour week at 6d. an hour," and to the labourers: "We got you a 30-hour week at 1s. an hour." A Bill in this form, I regret to say, I shall have to oppose.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE): My Lords, let me say at once, speaking not only for myself but on behalf of the Government, that we most fully sym-
342
pathise with the intention of the noble Marquess in re introducing this generously intended Bill, but we feel bound once more to oppose it because we are confident that it will not carry out what it is designed to effect. We are doing our best, and evidencee of it will become apparent during the present Session of Parliament, to create a better outlook and fuller opportunity for the advancement of those unfortunate people who in an industrial sense are on the lowest rung of fortune's ladder. The moving and eloquent appeal of the noble Marquess on this occasion, as last year, has reached our hearts even if it has not succeeded in convincing our judgment.
The noble Marquess referred to the unfortunate case, the very recital of which must have distressed your Lordships, which was described by the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government, Mr. Noel Buxton, but if Mr. Noel Buxton is quoted at all in this connection I must point out, as I did when the same Bill was before your Lordships only eight months ago, that Mr. Noel Buxton emphasised very strongly in the House of Commons the undesirability of fixing a minimum wage by Act of Parliament. The noble Marquess referred to Norfolk, where, as in the case of Suffolk, the wages of the unskilled agricultural labourers are nearer the minimum that would be fixed by this Bill, and he quoted Norfolk by contrast with Buckinghamshire. I want to say in that connection that on the thin soil over chalk in Buckinghamshire, with which the noble Marquess is familiar and also the noble and learned Lord opposite, Lord Parrnoor, there is that great distinction to which Lord Ernle referred just now; in the one case you can at least lay down land to permanent pasture, but in the case of the poorer sandy soil of Norfolk this is impracticable. That does constitute some difference between the two.
I regret that the noble Marquess referred to the position of the gentleman who presides over the district wage committee in the County of Norfolk. I was wholly unaware before he spoke as to what his particular profession was, but your Lordships will agree that it in no way affects the impartiality of his judgment or the reasons which convinced him that it was right to cast his vote in a

343
particular direction. I should like to remind your Lordships and the noble Marquess that that gentleman was selected by the wage committee themselves, not by the Minister of Agriculture or by a Tory Government. He was selected by the wage committee themselves, formed, as your Lordships are aware, except for the two additional independent members, of an equal number of representatives of employers and employed.
I hesitate to deal with the arguments put forward by the Earl of Oxford and Asquith. I cannot attempt to compete in dialectics with so distinguished a statesman, but I should like to say that so far as propoals for land reform are concerned I believe, and I think every member of the present Government believes, that you have to approach this problem from the bottom, to use the noble Earl's own words, or what I believe to have been his own words; to secure for the workers, the agricultural workers, at least a subsistence wage which shall be a first charge on the industry. So far we are at one with him. But the question is how heavy a charge, in this connection can the industry bear and how can its amount best be calculated? It is on that footing alone that we probably should join issue with the noble Earl.
We dealt, with this subject only eight months ago, and I hope I may be allowed to give rapidly our reasons—I will put them shortly; I can but reiterate them—for opposing this Bill, which is the selfsame Bill which was rejected toy this House by three votes to one in June last. I then fully explained our reasons for opposing the Bill in the best interests of the workers themselves, reasons which were emphasised by the Minister of Agriculture in the Labour Government, by Lord Olivier, by the Earl of Kimberley, and by other undoubted champions of the best interests of the agricultural worker. These reasons put shortly are, first, that the fixing of a minimum wage is now vested by Act of Parliament in district wage committees, who have, or should have, the fullest knowledge of local conditions, and of what is necessary for the efficiency and comfort of the workers on the one hand and of what the industry can afford on the other in the respective areas where they operate.
344
On the whole the statutory machinery set up by that Act is working satisfactorily, smoothly and equitably.
Secondly, most counties have a minimum wage which is appreciably above that which is sought to be fixed by this Bill. In fact, it would only now directly apply, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, to two counties, the County of Berkshire, as Lord Ernie pointed out, having already a wage equal to that which is fixed as a minimum in the Bill. But, as Lord Ernie also pointed out, it would probably have the effect of depressing wages where the wages are already higher, in some cases substantially higher, the tendency being for a minimum wage to become also a maximum wage. Just to show how different the wages are of so-called unskilled workers in certain areas—I say so-called, because I do not believe an efficient agricultural worker is unskilled—let me give some figures. In East Lancashire the minimum wage is 42 s. in Glamorganshire, 37 s. 6d.; in the Holland Division of Lincolnshire, a purely agricultural area, 35 s.
In the third place, no fixed limit of continuous application is fair either to the industry or to those employed in it. This is, after all, in our judgment the most important consideration. The value of a money wage depends upon its purchasing value for the time being, and that value is constantly changing. The proposed limit might, and probably would, be out of date in a very short time. I might remind your Lordships that the average pre-War wage, in the years 1913–14, for unskilled agricultural workers was 18 s. per week. The average wage to-day for similar labour is 31 s. 5d. per week, and in money value, curiously enough—that is to say, in their purchasing capacity—the pre-War average wage and the current wage are exactly equivalent. That, if I may say so, is a very marked illustration of the absurdity of trying to fix any particular figure as representing for all time equivalent value for the agricultural worker.
What the industry can afford to pay depends upon all sorts of varying factors, such as the price of agricultural produce on the one hand and the cost of raw materials, rent, rates and taxes, on the other. The rates of minimum wage, as fixed by the Act of 1924, are

345
based mainly upon the cost of living and the value of agricultural produce. That is to say, in their actual working, it is the cost of living and the value of agricultural produce for the time being that are taken mainly into account. I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that, judged from both these points of view, the position of the agricultural worker has materially improved during the last few years. I have in my hand a document which I hope that your Lordships will study, because it is most 'intensely interesting, and I should like particularly to commend it to the noble Karl, Lord Oxford and Asquith. It is a Report of proceedings under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1921. and I take from pages 58 and 59 certain figures which apply, in each case, to the month of August in the years that I shall mention.
In the month of August, 1917, agricultural wages were 39 per cent. higher than they were in the datum or basic year, 1914; the cost of living was 80 per cent. higher than the normal; and the prices of agricultural produce were 97 per cent. higher than the normal. It is quite clear that the agricultural worker at that time was not getting the full benefit of the improved value of agricultural produce and that he was suffering from a relatively increased cost of living. In 1920 and 1921—the same figures apply to August in both years—the agricultural wages stood 160 per cent. higher than the datum level, instead of 39 per cent., as in the year 1917, the cost of living was "140 per cent. higher, and the prices of agricultural produce were 160 per cent. higher than the normal. In 1922 the standard of agricultural wages was 76 per cent. higher, the cost of living was 81 per cent. higher and the prices of agricultural produce were 67 per cent. higher than the normal. In 1923 agricultural wages stood 56 per cent. higher than the datum level, the cost of living 73 per cent. higher and the price of agricultural produce 56 per cent. higher. In 1924 agricultural wages were 56 per cent. higher than the normal, the cost of living 71 per cent. higher and the prices of agricultural produce, which, of course, had been steadily falling, stood at 59 per cent. above the datum level. The position last year, up to the end of July, shows this material improvement
346
from the agricultural workers' point of view: Agricultural wages stood 75 per cent. higher than the normal as contrasted with 56 per cent. the year before, although the cost of living was only 73 per cent. higher and the prices of agricultural produce had fallen to 56 per cent. above the basic figure. That is, if I may say so, a very strong illustration of the danger of fixing any particular figure in an Act of Parliament without relation to those governing factors which so materially influence the capacity of an industry to pay and, indeed, the comfort of the workers employed in that industry.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: If I do not interrupt the noble Lord, may I ask one question which seems to me to follow from the figures which the noble Lord has given? He has told us, I am sure quite accurately, that the average agricultural wage in the year 1913–14 was 18 s., and I think he added that it is now 31 s 6d.
LORD BLEDISLOE: 31 s. 5d.
THE EARL OF OXFORD AND ASQUITH: And he told us that, measured in proper terms of converted values, the one was roughly equivalent to the other. It follows therefore—does it not?—that the proposal in this Bill to give these two counties a weekly wage of 30 s. means putting them, measure for measure, below the average wage of 1913.
LORD BLEDISLOE: I am afraid that the noble Earl has not followed the trend of my argument. Taking those two figures by themselves, of course, that would be a relevant and convincing argument, but I am trying to point out to the House that you have to take into account other factors as well: the value for the time being of the agricultural produce out of the profit of which the wage has to be paid, and such factors—and very important factors they are—as the cost, which in recent years has been very high, of the raw materials required by the farmer in order to obtain that output.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House in reiterating what I have said on former occasions, but I should like to remind your Lordships, particularly in view of that which the noble Earl has just said, that the cost of living figure to which

347
I have made particular reference is not based only on the cost of living in rural districts, but preponderantly on the cost of living in urban areas, which is materially higher than in most of the rural districts of this country. It includes clothing, rent, which is relatively low in the rural districts, if it exists at all so far as the agricultural worker is concerned, rates, which the agricultural labourer seldom pays; and, as was pointed out, I think, by the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Norwich when this matter came before the House last year, harvest money has to be taken into account, and we have to admit that it is a very considerable item in the purely agricultural counties where cereals are largely grown. Harvest money amounted, for instance, in Suffolk to£6 3s. 4d.which is the equivalent of nearly 2s. 6d. per week spread over the whole year. These, no doubt, are material factors which the district wage committees have taken into account. Let me say this in conclusion. We do not pretend to consider that 28 s. is a satisfactory remuneration for a really efficient British worker, but we do feel that any attempt to stereotype any limit by Act of Parliament is bound to defeat its own ends.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am no more anxious than the noble Lord opposite to repeat the arguments which I ventured to address to you a year ago on this very Bill, but having regard to the fact that it is the same Bill as last year, it seemed to me only proper, in preparation for this debate, to read the discussion which did take place in the month of June last. As in duty bound I began by reading the speech which was made by the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, and it was with some alarm that I read the reference which he made on that occasion to myself. He said, referring to me:—
"The noble Earl is always fighting for Party gain, and trying to persuade the agricultural public that the Conservative Party is in favour of low wages."
He further went on to say:—
"He tried to fasten upon those who sit upon this side of the House the opinion that 28 s. per week in winter was a good enough wage for the agricultural labourer."
In some trepidation I turned up the remarks which I made, to see what could possibly justify this attack upon myself, and your Lordships will be surprised to
348
hear that in the course of my remarks there was no mention at all of the Conservative Party and so far as I can see there was no attempt then, any more than now, to fasten this accusation upon the noble Marquess or his friends.
I will venture to read what I said. I said:—
"I cannot doubt that if this question wore put by itself and wholly apart from any legislative enactment, there would be only one opinion upon the subject."
Meaning that I was quite sure that if we could separate it from the political questions of the day we should all think that 28 s. a week was not enough. That is exactly the reverse of what the noble Marquess has charged against me. I went on to say:—
"The only point at issue between noble Lords opposite and my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill is whether or not it is right to put this into an Act of Parliament."
I venture to think that that is the real issue between us, and I cannot help thinking that a more proper line of answer to an argument of that kind is how far it is possible that Acts of Parliament should alter economic laws, and how far it is right and proper to interfere with the natural working of economic laws by Bills such as is now before the House.
While I am sure we all congratulate ourselves upon the fact that the three counties have now been reduced to two, surely we who believe in this Bill may say that that is a great additional argument for having this Bill passed into law. The noble Lord who spoke last has, if I may say so, a little bit confused one issue. He told us that 18 s. was the normal pre-War wage, and that 31 s. 5d. was the present average. Of course it is quite obvious from that that in these counties they are now getting less than they were before the War, translated into money values.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Less than the average?
EARL BEAUCHAMP: They are getting less than the average translated into money values.
LORD BLEDISLOE: And similarly they had less than the average before the War: that is, the average for the whole country.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: That is not the point I am going to try to make, which is this. The noble Lord went on to tell us that he was anxious to impress upon the House the importance of taking into consideration at the same time the cost of agricultural produce. Surely, a little earlier in his remarks, he said that the first charge upon the industry should be the wages of the agricultural labourer, and the certainty that he was getting a sufficient wage to lead a humane and decent life. Therefore I think we should not have too much regard to the noble Lord's figures dealing with the cost of produce. What is really of importance is the actual wage which the labourer is getting translated into money values, as compared with the wage which he was getting before the War, translated into the money values of those days. Let us fix our minds upon that rather than upon the secondary consideration, which is the price the farmer gets. Of course, we on this side do not think that, this Bill is the only way in which we can benefit the agricultural labourer. I had the honour of presiding over a Convention lust week, to which Lord Bledisloe made a somewhat slighting reference in the course of his speech in a debate recently, at which unfortunately I was unable to be present. I can assure the noble Lord that we came to far-reaching conclusions as to the way in which the farm labourer may well be helped, conclusions which were agreed upon unanimously by the Conference, and of which he. will hear a great deal more in the course of next year.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not rise to make a speech at this late hour, but as the noble Earl has referred to 'some observations which I made nine months ago, perhaps he will allow me to say that I am extremely sorry that my observations have weighed upon his mind all these months, and that he has felt so acutely the charge which I made of partisan oratory. If the noble Earl had risen in his place at that time and repudiated the charge of course I would have withdrawn it, but I am quite satisfied even now to welcome his admission that there is no desire on the part of the Conservative Party to favour low wages in the agricultural industry. That is what I said then, and what the noble Earl has admitted now. There is on further observation. The truth is that
350
the present Act is working very well. It is quite true that there are a very small number of counties still below the 30 s. limit. There ware three counties last year, and there are only two now. That is to say, the operation of the Act is moving in the right direction. Why have the Liberal Party no faith in democratic institutions? Here is a system under which you have a democratic body which is called upon to settle what an industry can bear in the way of wages in the different counties of England; that body contains proper representatives of the interests involved, with an impartial chairman at the head, and it is working in such a way that in every district except three last year the wages were above the limit fixed by the noble Marquess who is responsible for this Bill; and the proper process is going on. The three have been reduced to two. When the noble Marquess brings in his Bill next year probably the two will have been reduced to one, and in the year after there will probably be none. That is the working of democratic institutions, and I commend them to the Liberal Party.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we have heard a great deal about my own county to-day, and I think I do know something about it. The fact is that this discussion has rather wandered away from the real thing. The real thing which you want to cure—and I do not know how to do it—is that agricultural labourers have to pay different rents for their cottages. You see one man working, it may be for a small proprietor, and paying 3s. per week. On the same farm there is another man who only pays£4 per annum for perhaps a better cottage. I will tell you something which happened in the first week of November. I am chairman of the bench of magistrates at petty sessions, and the case I mention relates to an iniquitous law, which ought never to have been passed. A farmer wanted to evict a man because he wanted another man to work in his place He could not get rid of him, so finally he prosecuted him. He had a very able solicitor to prosecute for him. This man was a weekly servant and a weekly tenant, and for the cottage he paid half-a-crown a week, which was deducted from his wages. And the case went on until at last they finished. I said to the man: "Don't you want to say anything?" He said: "No, my Lord." I

351
said: "Do you want a cottage?" He said: "I have got one." I said: "Where are you working?" He said: "I am working not very far from where I used to work." I said: "Are you married?" and he said "Yes." "How many children have you?" He said he had four. I said: "Your rent is half-a-crown?" He said: "Now it is half-a-crown, but when the wages were put up from 28 s. to 29 s. I had to pay another 6d." And if you put up all the wages to 30 s. to-morrow they will have to pay another 6d. in the same way. That is what I want to try to make clear, and I think it is most important.
The other curse, though it is dying away, is that of letting farms with a certain number of cottages, all at an inclusive rent. I have one, I found out, but I could not get rid of that man except by giving him notice to quit. I have got rid of them all except that one, and my cottages, which are of the best kind, are let separately as cottages at£4 a year. With regard to this proposed minimum wage, I never would consent to have a minimum. I think it is the maddest thing in the world. You will never know when
Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly: Bill to be Read 2a this day six months.
it is to be a minimum and when it is not to be a minimum. Norfolk is a large County, and I think I know every yard of it, but I look upon it as a County of oases, and there is a lot of very poor land, almost desert. You hear people talking the biggest rubbish, saying that all this land ought to be cultivated. I would not cultivate some of that land if you paid me£10 an acre to do it. You cannot lay down a lot of grass there as you can elsewhere. One thing that I bitterly regret is that my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire spoke in the way he did about the chairman of the Norfolk Committee. That gentleman has only just ceased to be Lord Mayor of Norwich, and he is looked upon as being one of the ablest men we have had for a very long time. He was asked to take this post, and I believe that he will be exceedingly valuable in that position. I do hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill, and that there will never be a minimum of this sort established.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Aberconway, L.

Morris, L.

Anslow, L.

Pontypridd, L.

Bethell, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Saye and Sele, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Shaw, L.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Charnwood, L.

Southwark, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cowdray, V.

Marshall of Chipstead, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

Leverhulme, V.

Meston, L.

Terrington, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E. [Teller.]

Hanworth, L.

Spencer, E.

Harris, L.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Hawke, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Marlborough, D.

Burnham, V.

Jessel, L.

Sutherland, D.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Kilmaine, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Lambourne, L.

Knutsford, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Novar, V.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Newton, L.

Airlie, E.

Annaly, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L. (L. Mereworth.)

Ancaster, E.

Atkinson, L.

Clarendon, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Dartmouth, E.

Biddulph, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Eldon, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Grey, E.

Carson, L.

Kimberley, E.

Clinton, L.

Raglan, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Redesdale, L.

Midleton, E.

Cunliffe, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Morton, E.

Dynevor, L.

Swansea, L.

Northbrook, E.

Ernle, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wavertree, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wittenham, L.

[From Minutes of February 24.]

KIDDERMINSTER AND STOURPORT TRAMWAYS BILL. [H.L.]
Presented, read 1a;and referred to the Examiners.

ISLE OF WIGHT RURAL ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1926.
Special Order in respect of part of the rural district of the Isle of Wight and for other purposes: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
WOLVERHAMPTON ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
ABERGELE AND PENSARN ELECTRI- CTTY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE ELECTRICITY SPECIAL ORDER, 1925.
NEWARK GAS ORDER, 1926.
SOLIHULL GAS ORDER, 1926.
CARLISLE GAS ORDER, 1926.
Special Orders Committee to meet on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven o'clock.