Sitting of 28 February 1929

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Marriages Provisional Orders Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.
Provisional Order Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Middlesbrough Extension) Bill.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  LICENSED PREMISES (MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS).
  Sir ROBERT THOMASasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many licensed houses are steadily deteriorating in regard to the provision of meals and refreshments other than alcoholic drinks; that commercial and other travellers are being increasingly inconvenienced by this; and will he issue a circular to licensing magistrates suggesting inquiries when renewals of licences are
  2152
  applied for into standard of facilities provided in this direction?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): No, Sir; but if the hon. Member will let me have any information in his possession I will consider whether there is any action that I could usefully and properly take.
  Sir R. THOMAS: I will send the right hon. Gentleman the information.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if, seeing that since the judgment delivered in the House of Lords on the Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Company, Limited, a number of persons are being deprived of compensation, he will say if he intends to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member, I think, overrates the effects of the decision in question, but I agree that under present conditions the case of the partially disabled workman who is lit for light work only may be, and often is, a hard one, and the possibility of taking some steps to improve his position under the Act has been the subject of careful inquiry and consideration. The question is one of great difficulty-, but I hope it may be possible shortly to reach a conclusion.
  Mr. G. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are now considering the question of giving facilities for a Measure introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule to deal with the point contained in the question?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Gentleman knows that it really is not quite a non-contentious matter. The question as to whether time can be found for it is a matter for the right bon. Gentleman the Chief Whip, and I will speak to him on the subject.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary what the extra cost would be to the seven industries which have to make returns under the Workmen's Compensation Act, shipping, factories,

  2153
  docks, mines, quarries, constructional work, and railways, if the waiting period of three days, winch a workman cannot claim unless his injury keeps him from work for four weeks, was done away with and compensation paid from the time of accident?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can give no exact figure, but it is estimated that if compensation was dated back to the day of the accident in all cases lasting more than three days, the extra cost to the seven industrial groups in question would be about £150,000 to £160,000 a year. I am advised that there are no means of forming any estimate as to the additional charge which would be imposed if cases lasting three days or less which are at present outside the Act were included.
  Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the workmen's compensation statistics presented to Parliament each year do not give a complete list, and that no returns are given from agriculture, road transport, building, and many other industries and occupations; and will he say if he intends to ask Parliament to extend Section 42 of the consolidating Act of 1925 which gives him powers to call for returns from seven great industries, so that all who come under the Workmen's Compensation Act must make returns?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, the present Regulations under Section 42, which require returns to be furnished, do not extend to all industries. The hon. Member will find the reasons for this explained in the introduction to the statistics for 1908. The reasons still hold good, but the extension of the Regulations to other industries is rioted for consideration as soon as conditions permit. No fresh legislation is required for the purpose.
  Mr. TINKER: May I understand from the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has the power if he cares to use it at the present time?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.
  Mr. TINKER: And that he intends to use it later on?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The right hon. Gentleman will use it in all cases
  2154
  where he thinks that it can be done effectively.
  Mr. TINKER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we do not get the complete figures at the present time, and does he not think that for the purpose of knowing what the cost is lit would be much better for everybody that that should be done?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not the Regulations in his mind. I will send him a copy of them, and, if he is satisfied that there are not, real reasons which make it difficult to obtain the returns regarding certain industries, perhaps he will put down a question.

  DRUG TRAFFIC (HEROIN).
  Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that the heroin available for internal consumption in 1924 was 909 kilogrammes, that the manufacture and imports in the following year was 344 kilogrammes, the exports and re-exports 236 kilogrammes, and the weight available for internal consumption 108 kilogrammes, he can explain what became of the balance of 1,017 kilogrammes in 1924 and 1925, seeing that this is many times the quantity available for internal consumption in other years?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The explanation is that the figures include 745 kilos of heroin in 1924 and 15 kilos of heroin in 1925 which were not used as such but were reconverted into morphine. If these figures are subtracted from those quoted by the hon. Member as available for internal consumption, it will be found that the balance in each year approximates to the general annual average of the surplus of heroin imported and manufactured over that exported and re-exported. The hulk of the heroin so reconverted consisted of illicit consignments to the Far East which were seized at Hong Kong and sent home to this country for disposal.
  Mr. WILSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the amount here of 108 kilogrammes is not in excess of that recommended by the Committee of the League of Nations and that the

  2155
  Chinese coolies do not destroy all the heroin that is seized in this way, and whether we are making a profit out of it?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the last part of the question is that it is not destroyed but is sent over here in order to be utilised for medicinal purposes. With regard to the first part of the same supplementary question, I want to be strictly accurate. I must ask the hon. Member to put that question down, and then I will give him a definite answer.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman control the exports and re-exports of this drug from this country?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think so.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Could not that be done in any case to prevent this traffic?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, the hon. and gallant Gentleman sees that this substance is useful in certain cases for medicinal purposes, and our object is to control the use of the drug or prohibit the use of the drug except for proper use in medicine.
  Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can it be freely exported?
  Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir.

  POLICE.

    DISCIPLINARY BOARD.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Home Secretary whether he has under review the constitution and procedure of the Metropolitan Police Disciplinary Board, especially with reference to the submission of evidence, the attendances of witnesses, the recording of proceedings, and the representation of the accused?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. Certain points of procedure are at present under review. I do not contemplate any change in the constitution of the Board.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he proposes to afford the accused an opportunity of being legally represented?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have said that certain points of procedure are at
    2156
    present under review and subject to a report by the new Commissioner, and until that is supplied I cannot answer the question.
    Mr. SHORT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in connection with the constitution of the Board, he proposes to see that some independent person sits upon it to adjudicate other than a member of the Police Force?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At present I do not contemplate any change. It is very difficult indeed. These disciplinary cases are often quite trivial, and to import an outsider would complicate the proceedings. The hon. Member will remember that in cases of dismissal there is, by the Act which we passed 18 months ago, an appeal to myself.
    Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in reviewing the procedure, bear in mind the advisability of the police officer being represented by a friend, and that full freedom for the friend should be given—that he should not necessarily be in uniform and therefore in the position of being restricted in this matter?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will convey that point to the Commissioner and discuss it with him.
    Mr. SHORTasked the Home Secretary who constitute the Metropolitan Police Disciplinary Board?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Board is constituted of an Assistant Commissioner or a Deputy-Assistant Commissioner, who is President of the Board, with a chief constable and a superintendent who must not be the chief constable of the district or the superintendent of the division to which the defaulter belongs.
    Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, there is grave danger of the Board being biased if every member of the Board is drawn entirely from the ranks?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really think not. The hon. Member is making rather a serious accusation against men who have served through the ranks themselves. I think that the superintendents and the chief constable quite know the point of view of the constables in this matter.
    Mr. SHORT: Did the right hon. Gentleman riot see what happened in a recent case?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Which recent case?
    Mr. SHORT: The recent, case of Jocelyn.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That happened several years ago.
    Mr. HAYES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in order to facilitate the record of these proceedings in the future shorthand writers should be present for the purpose of recording the various questions and answers?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Again, I think, the hon. Gentleman must leave the discretion to the Commissioner. If shorthand writers were employed to report and transcribe every small case that came before the Disciplinary Board, the records would he increased quite unnecessarily.
    Mr. HAYES: In view of the fact that it is done in individual cases before they reach the board, would it not be quite simple to do it there?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think that it is necessary. If the hon. Member or any other hon. Member—I have an open mind—can convince me that it is really necessary, I will consider it.

    EX-SERGEANT GODDARD.
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether any further discovery of bank notes and Treasury notes has been made in connection with the recent bribery charges made against ex-Sergeant Goddard; and can he give particulars?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As certain proceedings are pending in respect of these moneys I should not feel justified in making any statement on the subject at present.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any fresh moneys have come to light other than those already announced?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should think not. In regard to the moneys in my possession, whatever they are, legal proceedings are pending.

    BOOKS AND MANUSCRIPT (SEIZURE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Home Secretary whether any books or other publications have, been seized and confiscated by the officers of his Department during the months of January or February, 1929, and will he give particulars; and is he considering, together with his legal advisers, any further action?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The officers of my Department have no power to seize and confiscate books or other publications. During the period from the 1st January, 1929, to 26th February, 1929, the Postmaster-General, acting in pursuance of warrants issued by me, has intercepted copies of six books and of 10 other publications of an indecent nature. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, before these books are seized, his officials have any expert literary advice as to their nature?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I think the hon. Member will see that I have seized not merely books but photographs and all kinds of matter of a very unpleasant character which are forbidden to come through the post, as I shall show in an answer to another question which I have before me to-day. I would ask the hon. Member to leave his supplementary questions over until I have answered that question.
    Mr. MORGAN JONES: Are we to infer from the answer that it is possible for the Postmaster-General to open postal communications on the chance that they are undesirable?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am dealing with that fully in reply to another question, and I do not think that it is right to take up the time of the House at this stage.
    Mr. DAY: Shall we now have the answer to the question, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, as the hon. Member on this side who has put it down is not at present in the House?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Someone will ask it.
    Sir FRANK MEYERasked the Home Secretary whether he gave instruc-

    2159
    tions to the police for the seizure of copies of the novel, "The Sleeveless Errand"; and on what ground such action was taken?
    The following question also stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss WILKINSON:
    11. To ask the Home Secretary whether he gave instructions for a manuscript of poems sent by Mr. D. H. Lawrence to his literary agent to be seized before any question of publication arose; if he will give the names and official positions of the persons on whose advice he causes books and manuscripts to be seized and banned; what are the qualifications of such persons for literary censorship; and whether, to assist authors and publishers, he will state what are the rules and regulations the contravention of which causes a book to be seized and banned by his Department?
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer at the same time Question No. 11, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson), who is prevented from being present by a family bereavement?
    Mr. SPEAKER: No. That would be creating a very bad precedent. If an hon. Member is not present, the question cannot be asked, except when time permits, and questions are gone over for the second time.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will explain the position fully to the House in order that they may understand that I do not in any sense exercise a literary censorship. The Obscene Publications Act makes it lawful for any Metropolitan Police Magistrate, or for any two Justices of the Peace, on sworn information, to issue a search warrant to search for and, seize any indecent or obscene book, picture, writing or article, and there is a Common Law duty upon the police to secure the prevention of crimes of this or of any other character. Accordingly when information was conveyed to me that the book referred to in the question was about to be published, I handed the matter over to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act he applied for and ob-
    2160
    tained a search warrant at Bow Street, in the execution of which a large number of copies were seized and are now in the possession of the police, by virtue of the Magistrate's directions.
    The procedure directed under the Act referred to is being followed with a view to obtaining from the Magistrate an Order of Destruction and a Summons to the publisher is now pending at Bow Street. In view of this circumstance it would be impossible for me to make any observation on the character of the book in question. The question whether it comes within the Statute is a matter for the Magistrate's decision.
    Sir F. MEYER: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered whether the present position of the law in this matter is the best way of dealing with clearly obscene publications, without imposing upon the police and magistrates a duty which they should not have—a literary censorship or a moral censorship?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I hope that the hon. Member does net want to impose that duty upon myself. At present, I have the magistrates to fall back upon, as it were, in a very difficult duty. While there are Acts of Parliament passed by this House, my only duty is to see, as far as I can, that they are carried out.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his action, in the first instance, is taken as if it were a censorship? If we are to have a censorship, would it not be very much better that the whole matter should be discussed in this House, and a censorship formally appointed, than, in effect, bring about a censorship by this indirect means?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When my Estimates are put down, I should be only too glad if my hon. Friend wishes, to raise a Debate on the whole question. At present, there is no censorship. It is not until a book or any other obscene document is brought to my notice that I exercise my position. A censorship would imply that every book should be read by the body of censors, which would be an impossible position.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear whose responsibility it is to put the law into operation?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Undoubtedly, the police, but I do not want to shed any of my own responsibility for my own action. In this particular case, the book was sent direct to me by a friend. I thought that it was a proper case to send to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which I did. There my responsibility ceases.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that, when he sets the law in motion, he is, in fact, exercising a censorship, whether he calls it by that name or not?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Really, the hon. Member must see that my action or the action of the police in dealing—I am asuming for the moment that it is indecent—with an indecent publication, is exactly the same as dealing with an indecent act which may be committed to the detriment of the public weal. The law has decided that these indecent publications should not be permitted, and I have to carry out the law.
    Lieut.-Commander KENIWORTHY rose—
    Mr. SPEAKER: Further discussion must be deferred until the Home Office Vote.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE(for Miss WILKINSON) asked the home Secretary whether he gave instructions for a manuscript of poems sent by Mr. D. H. Lawrence to his literary agent to be seized before any question of publication arose; if he will give the names and official positions of the persons on whose advice he causes books and manuscripts to be seized and banned; what are the qualifications of such persons for literary censorship; and whether, to assist authors and publishers, he will state what are the rules and regulations the contravention of which causes a book to be seized and banned by his Department?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I will explain to the House exactly what has happened. Under the Post Office Act of 1908 the duty is laid upon the Postmaster-General to refuse to take part in the conveyance of any indecent matter, and the Postal Union Convention of Stockholm, 1924, also prohibits the transmission through the post
    2162
    of indecent matter. In this case the typescripts were sent through the open book post from abroad and were detected in the course of the examination to which a proportion of such packets are subjected for the purpose of detecting whether letters or other matter not conveyed at that rate are contained in the packet. The typescripts were sent to the Home Office and by my directions were then forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am advised that there is no possible doubt whatever that these contain indecent matter and, as such, are liable to seizure. I have, however, given instructions that they shall be detained for two months to enable the author to establish the contrary if he desires to do so.
    As regards the remaining parts of the question, I have explained in reply to the question by my hon. Friend and Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) that there is nothing which can properly be described as a literary censorship in this country. It is a misdemeanour to publish any indecent or obscene book, and the Obscene Publications Act provides machinery by which the publication of an indecent or obscene book may be prevented or stopped if a competent Court so decides. I have no authority to discriminate between offences of this character and offences against any other part of the criminal law, and it is my normal practice, when information reaches me with respect to the publication or intended publication of an alleged indecent or obscene book, to refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who takes action in the ordinary course of his duty where the facts seem to warrant it. The publication of a book cannot in any circumstances be prevented except by decision of the Courts.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is it not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that some person or persons came to a preliminary decision that this book is of an indecent character? The question which my hon. Friend wishes to put is: Who are these persons who are entitled to give this provisional opinion, and what qualifications have they to make a literary discrimination of this kind?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: In the first place, in this ease the Postmaster-

    2163
    General makes the first determination that this is primá facie a case of indecency. He then sends it to me, and, if I agree, I send it on to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is not a question of literary merit at all, and, if the hon. Member has any doubt, I will show him this book in question. It contains grossly indecent matter.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it to be understood by the House that in endeavouring to discover these publications the Postmaster-General does not violate any sealed packet or anything sent by the letter post?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be better to put a question to the Postmaster-General on that point, but it is clear that the Act of Parliament and the International Convention both direct the Postmaster-General not knowingly to carry indecent matter of any kind. That applies to other things besides letters, and, if he finds indecent matter in the post, it is his duty, by law and by International Convention, not to deliver it.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not understood that under the Berne International Convention sealed letters cannot be opened unless by direct order by a Secretary of State? I am trying to elucidate that this sort of thing is not arrived at by a violation of that order, but simply by examination of open packets, which are always liable to inspection. I understand from the Postmaster-General that that is so.
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite clear that nobody, no official of the State, can open a sealed packet without the direct warrant of the Secretary of State.

    GENERAL ELECTION (POLLING ARRANGEMENTS).
    Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary whether in view of the increase in the electorate, he has taken steps to satisfy himself that returning officers are making adequate provision at polling booths for the greater number of voters at the next General Election?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, the attention of the local authorities and the Returning Officers has been specially
    2164
    drawn to the matter and I have good reason to believe that the Returning Officers are fully alive to their responsibilities.

    ALIENS (DEPORTATION ORDERS).
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Home Secretary how many alien deportation orders have been made since 1st January, 1929?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number from 1st January to 25th February is 27.

    EXPOSURE AND STARVATION (DEATHS).
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Home Secretary how many cases of death from exposure or starvation have been reported by the police each month during the past year up to the latest available date?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No such returns are made by the police. The hon. Member will find some information on this subject in the Judicial Statistics, Table XXIV, Verdicts Returned, column 11. In 1927 there were verdicts of death from want, exposure, etc., in the case of 76 men and 24 women. Later statistics are not yet available.

    INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (ASBESTOS DUST).
    Mr. STAMFORDasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the medical evidence submitted at the inquest in Leeds on Mrs. Lily Hemsley, who, up to four years ago, was employed at the asbestos factory of Messrs. Roberts, of Armley, and who died of fibrosis of the lungs, this being the fourth case of its kind; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the conditions under which this work is performed with a view to the adoption of more effective safeguards against infection?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir. I have seen a report by the medical inspector who attended the inquest. It appears from the medical evidence that the deceased died from fibrosis of the lungs due to the effects of asbestos dust. As I stated in reply to a question by the

    2165
    hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) on the 4th instant, the effects of this dust are already the subject of a comprehensive inquiry by the medical inspectors, one of the main objects of which is to determine the precautions necessary for the prevention of the disease.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    FACTORY INSPECTORS.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Home Secretary whether there has been any increase in the number of factory inspectors during the last six months; and is there to be a further addition during this financial year?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The number of factory inspectors actually employed is slightly larger now than six months ago owing to vacancies having been filled. I would remind the hon. Member that the question of increasing the factory inspectorate is now being considered by a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Sir V. Henderson).
    Mr. KELLY: Are we to have a report from the Committee or a statement from the right hon. Gentleman?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

    EXCISE OFFICE, CHESTER (WELSH LANGUAGE).
    Major OWENasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there is available in the office of the collector of customs and excise at Chester an official who is able to deal with correspondence in the Welsh language; and, if not, whether he will arrange for the attachment to that office of an official with a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, there are already available in the Chester area the services of Welsh-speaking officers of the Customs and Excise Department. On the occasions on which applicants with no knowledge of English correspond with the collector's office, no
    2166
    difficulty has been experienced in dealing with the matter without undue delay.
    Major OWEN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that applicants for relief from Entertainment Duty at concerts and other similar events, when they make applications in Welsh, receive a letter from that office stating that they must make the application in English, and, in view of that fact, will the hon. Gentleman take steps to have someone in that office who can deal with correspondence in Welsh?
    Mr. SAMUEL: I was not ware of that fact. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me the details, I will look into them.

  EDUCATION.

    CAPITATION GRANTS.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the President of the Board of Education whether having regard to the objections which many parents have, for one reason and another, to sending their children to public elementary schools, his attention has been directed to a proposal for giving to the parents of every child of school age an education grant, and allowing them to send the child on it to any school of an approved standard that they choose; and will he give this suggestion his consideration?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): Suggestions of this kind have been made on various occasions but, in the form in which the hon. Member now puts it forward, it would apparently involve the conversion of all grants in aid of elementary education into capitation grants. It may be worth while to point out that parents who pay Income Tax already receive from the Exchequer a relief which is approximately equal to the cost of elementary education in respect of each child.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Does not the Noble Lord think that this suggestion savours of subsidising snobbery?
    Mr. LEE: Does not the Noble Lord think that all children should go to elementary schools?

    ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, DOVER (CLOSING).
    Viscount SANDONasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the

    2167
    closing of elementary schools at Dover in consequence of the inability to keep class-rooms up to the required temperature; whether this is due to lack of technical knowledge or to the expense involved; and whether he will take steps to have the matter remedied?
    Lord E. PERCY: I am aware of the closing of elementary schools in Dover, and I am informed that this was due partly to inability to keep the classrooms up to the necessary temperature, and partly to epidemic sickness. I have no reason to think that the inability to maintain a suitable temperature in the schools was due either to a lack of technical knowledge or to a desire to avoid the expense involved. I understand that the weather at Dover was exceptionally severe.
    Viscount SANDON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Canada and the United States, where 40 degrees below zero is quite a normal winter temperature, they have no difficulty in maintaining rooms fully heated?
    Lord E. PERCY: Yes, Sir, but it is obvious that, while the schools in Canada and the United States are constructed to meet the normal temperature of the country, the schools in this country are built to meet the normal temperature of this country.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it fair to allow the statement to go out that the normal temperature of Canada is 40 below zero?
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Have His Majesty's inspectors made any report upon this matter?
    Lord E. PERCY: Of course, His Majesty's inspectors have made reports as to schools, but I cannot say whether the information that I have given to the House is based upon reports by His Majesty's inspectors, or not.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the Noble Lord aware that there are very few country schools which have central heating that do suffer in this way, and is not that an argument for having central heating installed in the schools?

    TEACHERS.
    Mr. RICHARDSONasked the President of the Board of Education the number of full-time teachers in the ele-
    2168
    mentary schools on 31st March, 1928; how many were trained teachers; and how many were uncertificated and supplementary?
    Lord E. PERCY: The total number of teachers employed in, or in connection with, public elementary schools maintained by local authorities on the 31st March, 1928, was 167,948. Included in this figure were 122,664 certificated teachers (of whom 95,906 were college trained), 32,775 uncertificated teachers and 8,303 supplementary teachers.

    SECONDARY EDUCATION, WARMINSTER.
    Mrs. RUNCIMANasked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been called to the proposed closing of the local education authority secondary school at Warminster, Wiltshire; and if he is satisfied that adequate arrangements are being made to enable the pupils now there to continue their secondary education elsewhere, and that the area will not in future be deprived of an opportunity of secondary education for those children who can benefit from it?
    Lord E. PERCY: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

    SCHEME, LINLITHGOW.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whither the scheme prepared by the education authority of West Lothian for the reorganisation of education in Linlithgow has been considered by him; and whether he can state the attitude of the Scottish Office in the matter?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The. Education Department have consented to receive a deputation from objectors to the scheme and, after the representations of this deputation have been considered, a decision will be given.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not the case that the education authority merely proposes to exercise its statutory rights in the matter?
    Major ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but I am sure the hon. Member will realise that among the statutory rights are the right

    2169
    to lay representations against the scheme and the right of the Department, to consider such representations.

    DISTRESSED AREAS (LORD MAYOR'S FUND).
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Education if his attention has been drawn to the regulations of the committee appointed in the West Riding of Yorkshire for administering relief from the Lord Mayor's Fund to families in need in mining districts; if he is aware that no relief is to be given to families where the income has been more than 21s. a week, plus rent, for the last four weeks for a man, wife, and one child; that a form with 27 questions has to he filled in by the applicant before any case can be considered; and that vouchers for 5s. or 2s. 6d. are the full amounts to be given in any case; and will he say whether these regulations are in accordance with instructions from those administering the Lord Mayor's Fund in London?
    Lord E. PERCY: I understand that the income standard prescribed by the West Riding Divisional Committee for the guidance of local committees is as stated in the question. I have no information as to the precise form used for applications. The vouchers are printed in denominations of 2s. 6d. and 5s., but neither figure represents the maximum amount which may be distributed in any particular case. The details of administration within their respective areas are laid clown by the Divisional Committees, subject to the guidance of the Central Joint Committee, where necessary, on general questions of principle, but no income standard for relief has been laid down by the Joint Committee.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the Noble Lord aware that many of these local people who have to visit homes of the needy are protesting against these regulations; and can he tell me how a small tradesman, who has given as much credit as he can, is to supply a pair of boots at 5s. for a boy of 14 years of age?
    Lord E. PERCY: These vouchers have nothing to do with the supply of boots.
    Mr. LUNN: Oh, yes, they have.
    Lord E. PERCY: No, nothing at all. These vouchers are concerned with the supply of food. If the hon. Member has any complaints of this kind, I have received none. I wish he would put himself in communication with the local people and talk the matter over with them, because these matters have to he settled locally.
    Mr. LUNN: On the point that these vouchers have nothing to do with boots. Food cannot be supplied by the Lord Mayor's Fund, which is used largely for the provision of boots, and a voucher for 5s. will not buy a pair of boots for a big boy.
    Mr. BATEY: Has the Noble Lord made any inquiry as to whether these applicants have to answer 27 questions?
    Mr. LUNN: Here they are.
    Lord E. PERCY: I have no information as to the printed form, that is a matter for local circumstances, and it would be very undesirable and improper in matters of this kind to attempt to establish central control in London over the proceedings of local committees. As regards the supplementary question, I do not think the hon. Member heard my answer. I said that the vouchers were printed in two denominations, but that that did not mean that any article had to be purchased within that limit. You may have two vouchers, or one and a half vouchers.
    Mr. BATEY: Is it in accordance with the instructions of the executive Committee of the Lord Mayor's Fund that applicants should have to answer 27 questions?
    Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member would listen to my answer he would know that I have said that it is not in accordance with instructions, because the central committee does not issue any instructions.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    WATER-HEATING APPARATUS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that his Department has approved of the use of proper water-heating apparatus for bathrooms in the City of Bristol, he will

    2171
    recommend other local authorities to give special attention to this matter, so as to lessen the dangers of death from carbon-monoxide poisoning?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The hon. Member is evidently referring to my approval of by-laws submitted by the Bristol Corporation under powers conferred on that corporation by a local Act. Other local authorities have not at present power to make by-laws of this kind.

    DAY NURSERIES.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Minister of Health how many day nurseries there are in England recognised by the Ministry of Health and not yet recognised; and has he made inquiries as to whether adequate funds are being expended by local authorities for the increase and improvement of these nurseries?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There are 98 day nurseries in England recognised by my Department at the present time. I have no information as to any day nurseries which are not so recognised. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative, but I have under consideration the general question of the extension and improvement of these nurseries.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Are we to understand that it is the policy of the Department to encourage these day nurseries?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir.

    REFUSE DUMPS.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Minister of Health whether he will issue an Order or introduce legislation to amend Section 42 of the Public Health Act, 1875, to permit of scavenging and cleaning over limited areas of rural parishes and to charge the expenses to that area, and thereby control the growing heaps of insanitary household rubbish which now disfigure so many villages?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no power to issue an Order for this purpose. The matter has been noted for consideration when an opportunity for legislation arises. I doubt, however, whether legislation would be the most effective cure,
    2172
    and it is likely that improvements would be effected if local authorities would use more freely their influence and their powers.
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it within the recollection of the right hon. Gentle man that it is more than a year ago since I asked a similar question, and can he hold out any hope of something being done to ameliorate this really horrible nuisance all over the country?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps we may be able to do something in the latter part of the year.

    RIVER DARENTH (POLLUTION).
    Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, owing to the pollution of the River Darenth, the local authority has directed that a dairy farm in the vicinity of Shoreham is to discontinue using river water and to make use of company water, thus causing the owner unnecessary expense; will he represent to the local authority that steps can and should be taken to abate the pollution; and will he state what is the cause of the pollution?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the case, but the facts are not clear, and I am communicating further with the district council and am also asking the district council and the county council to consider whether serious pollution exists, and, if so, what measures can be taken by them to abate it.
    Viscount APSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the pollution of this river started about 12 years ago and that the Ministry of Transport made an inquiry and ascertained that it was not due to the road? As the cause is now known, cannot the pollution be stopped?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have stated in my answer that the facts in this case are not quite clear, and I am making inquiries.
    Sir R. THOMAS: Is it in order for any local dairy to use water?

    DOMESTIC WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. MORRISasked the Minister of Health whether he will obtain the opinion given by Sir William Willcox upon the addition of silicate of soda to domestic water; and will he publish it?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that Sir William Willcox has expressed an opinion on the subject. If the hon. Member will inform me what he has in mind, I shall be glad to consider the matter further.

  HOUSING.

    WATER AND GAS PIPES.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSONasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the danger to the health of the public and the inconvenience caused by frozen water and gas pipes during spells of cold weather, such as are now being experienced, he will take steps to see that all new houses that are erected have their piping installed in such a way as not to be subject to weather conditions, as is the practice in countries which have every winter to meet such conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am advised that the adoption of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend would add appreciably to the cost of building small houses, and I doubt if this disadvantage would be counter-balanced by the advantage secured.
    Sir H. BRITTAIN: Do not these exceptional incidents go to show that in this country we enjoy the most equable climate in the world?

    DURHAM PLACE, MIDDLESBROUGH.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE (for Miss WILKINSON)asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in Durham Place, Middlesbrough, one water tap serves 85 people; that cases are reported of 24 people living in four rooms and eight children sleeping in one bed; and whether, in view of the burdens already borne by the ratepayers of this town, he will consider increasing rather than decreasing the housing subsidy in such case?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have made inquiries in regard to the matters referred to by the hon. Member. I understand that there are 17 houses in Durham Place occupied by 71 persons, that one house has a separate water supply and that there are three other taps available for the use of the remaining houses, no tap being more than 45 feet from any house. With regard to the second part of the
    2174
    question, the corporation are aware of a house containing seven rooms occupied by 24 persons, including a couple with eight children. It is understood that, although two rooms are at the disposal of this family, they live together in one room, but that they are only in occupation of this room until they can secure more suitable accommodation. As regards the last part of the question, it would not be practicable to grant an increased subsidy in any particular case.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

    FORMULA.
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Minister of Health how the formula differentiates between two areas alike in all respects except that, whilst in one there are no unemployed persons receiving Poor Law relief, in the other there are a considerable number?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the hon. Member's hypothesis, I do not think that the general characteristics of the two areas, of which account is taken in the formula, could possibly be alike in all respects.
    Mr. WILSON: If they are alike, what differentiation is there?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think they could be alike.

    CLOTHING FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
    Mr. LONGBOTTOMasked the Minister of Health (1) whether workshops on the premises of bespoke tailors will be entitled to the 75 per cent. rate relief under the provisions of the Local Government Bill;
    (2) whether factories or workshops situate apart from retail shops, but used solely for the purpose of making garments which are sold by the owner of the factory or workshop through their own retail shops will be entitled to the 75 per cent. rate relief under the provisions of the Local Government Bill?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Premises which fall within the definition of industrial hereditament in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act will be entitled to

    2175
    rate relief so far as they are used for industrial purposes. Whether any particular premises are eligible to be so classified is a question to be decided on the facts of the case. The decision is a matter for the local assessment authorities and the revenue officer and is not one in which I am empowered to intervene.
    Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Does not the Minister of Health realise that the de-rating scheme operates most unfairly as between the small trader who has the producing part of his business over his retail shop and the trader who can keep it at a distance and away from his retail shop?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That question was debated at some length, and the House decided to pass the Bill in its present form.
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a leading counsel on rating matters has written a book on the 1928 Act upon which local officers seem to be basing their practice, and that in consequence there is likely to be a great deal more litigation than the right hon. Gentleman contemplated when the Bill was going through the House?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: When the hon. Member suggests that there will be more litigation as the direct consequence of this eminent counsel having written a book, it is not a matter over which I have any control.
    Dr. VERNON DAVIES: May I ask whether the Department has power to enforce the same decisions throughout the whole country, or will each assessment committee decide for itself?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Ministry of Health has no power to decide questions which come before an assessment committee.
    Mr. LONGBOTTOM: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making an order giving local authorities an opportunity of dealing with cases like this?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Local authorities have the opportunity.

  POOR LAW.

    ST. BARTHOLOMEW'S HOSPITAL (DEATH).
    Mr. GARDNERasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to an account of an inquest at the Court of the City Coroner, held on 18th February last, on a man found by a police constable starved and ill on the pavement outside Holborn Viaduct station; whether he is anti ire that the man was taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital because there was an arrangement not to send cases to the City of London Poor Law Hospital after 9 p.m., and that the man was refused admission and taken elsewhere and there refused and then brought back to St. Bartholomew's, and then put into an isolated room and found dead on the floor at about 1.30 a.m.; can he state by what Poor Law authority this arrangement was made and when, and whether it was known to the Poor Law inspector or at the Ministry of Health; whether any similar arrangement exists elsewhere and, if so, where: whether he will inform the superintendents or masters of all Poor Law hospitals that they must admit all cases of starvation and exposure brought by police officers without any order from the relieving officer and whether he will revive the list of starvation cases which were published from about 1870 till 1918?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second part there is not, and could not legally, be any arrangement preventing the admission of cases to the Poor Law infirmary of the City of London Union or any other infirmary during prescribed hours of the night. The arrangement made between the guardians and St. Bartholomew's Hospital is that where a bed is available at the hospital cases shall not be sent on to the infirmary during the night but shall be kept until the morning and then removed, and this arrangement seems to me a very proper one. If the patient had been sent to the infirmary he would have been admitted, as in fact I am informed that many other persons are admitted both by day and by night. As regards the last part of the question I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by a revival of the returns.

    CLUTTON GUARDIANS (CASUALS' DIETARY).
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Minister of Health whether he has received any request from the Clutton Board of Guardians for permission to alter the dietary for casuals; what were the alterations suggested; and what was his reply?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am sending the hon. Member copies of the letter from the guardians and of my reply.

    IRISH LOYALISTS (PAYMENTS).
    Sir WILLIAM PERRINGasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total claim by Southern Irish loyalists in respect to damage and loss sustained by them arising out of civil or military disturbances in Ireland; how much were the claims now settled reduced by inquiry or examined and accepted in settlement by persons making claims; and how many claims have been settled under £5,000, £10,000, £20,000, £30,000, and over, respectively?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question, which I assume is directed to the work of the Irish Grants Committee, I am afraid that, as I indicated in a reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 30th May, 1927, I could not give details of the total amount of the claims submitted to the committee, since a considerable proportion of the claims did not specify any particular sum. As regards the third part, the recommendations so far made by the Irish Grants Committee are as follow:

    Over £30,000

    …

    1

    Between £20,000 and £30,000

    …

    2

    Between £10,000 and £20,000

    …

    6

    Between £5,000 and £10,000

    …

    43

    Under £5,000

    …

    1,802

    Total

    …

    1,654

    Mr. WEDGWOOD BENNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will grant a return showing for each of the unsatisfied claims of the Southern Irish loyalists the date of lodging the claims and the nature of the damage; the
    2178
    amount originally claimed; the amount recommended by the Wood-Renton Committee; and the amount actually paid?
    Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to take this question. I have now considered both the particular suggestion made in the hon. Member's question and the more general inquiries made in the supplementary questions addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House on 26th February. There is, I conceive, no ground on which any distinction could properly be made, so far as publication is concerned, between cases in which payment has been made in full and cases in which a balance will be payable under the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 22nd of February. In the case both of the Compensation (Ireland) Commission and the Sumner Commission no such general list was published, and, in the absence of very strong reasons, His Majesty's Government would not be disposed to publish a list in the present case. No such reasons have been adduced, whilst, on the other hand, publication might very possibly be prejudicial to many of the persons concerned.
    Mr. BENN: Are we to take it that the information which convinced the Government that these claims were bad is to be withheld, because the Government decided that they must grant the claims?
    Mr. AMERY: No, on the contrary, the Government have never assumed that they were bad. The Government allotted a certain amount towards the satisfaction of all claims to be distributed among them, but never had the view that the claims themselves were bad.
    Mr. BENN: Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in possession of information of this character when he made his speech in the House last week?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have throughout been in possession of all the information that has been enjoyed by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. BENN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that he should withhold from the House information which was in his possession and which led him to take a certain decision?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Gentleman is now repeating the question which has already been answered by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. LUNN: Is it not reasonable to suggest that if people are to have money from taxation we should know who they are?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    ESTIMATES (MEMORANDA).
    Captain LODERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the advisability of issuing this year, and also in future, a memorandum explanatory of the Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments (Vote on Account) similar to those issued with the Army, Navy, and Air Force Estimates?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is, as my hon. and gallant Friend is no doubt aware, the practice to issue a full memorandum as part of the volume of Civil Estimates; but owing to the fact that it is necessary to take the Vote on Account before this volume appears, the Estimate for this Vote is issued without any explanation of the variations from the previous year. I will therefore lay before the House a brief preliminary memorandum on the Civil Estimates for 1929.

    SILK DITTIES.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of money collected for duty on silk and artificial silk for the year ending 31st December, 1928?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: As I stated in answer to a question on the 5th February, the approximate amount of revenue derived from the silk and artificial silk duties during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1928, was £6,215,000.

    CHANNEL TUNNEL.
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Prime Minister if he is yet in a position to make a statement as to the nature of the inquiry into the Channel Tunnel project; and as to when this inquiry will commence?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. THURTLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the delay in this matter is not due to any lack of co-operation on the part of the Leaders of the two Opposition parties?
    Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Terms of Reference be sufficiently wide to take into account other projects, such as a train ferry?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I think we had better wait until the Prime Minister can make a general announcement on the subject, which will be at the earliest convenient opportunity.
    Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first question?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am answering for the Prime Minister, but I have no reason to suppose that the Leaders of the two other parties would put any obstacle in the way of a fair and searching inquiry into a project of such great interest and importance.
    Mr. THURTLE: Then we may assume that whatever delay has occurred is due to the Government?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is much fairer to say that it is due to the care with which the study of a matter of this consequence should be approached.
    Viscount SANDON: Has my right hon. Friend seen a French proposal to make a canal across the Channel?

    TRADE UNIONS (MEMBERSHIP).
    Commander BELLAIRSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total membership of all trade unions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the latest date for which the figures are available, as compared with the end of 1920?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I have been asked to reply. The total membership of all trade unions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the end of 1927—the latest date for which figures are available—was about 4,908,000 as compared with about 8,337,000 at the end of 1920.
    Mr. BATEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is still a large number of trade unionists left, in spite of all the Government have done in trying to destroy them?

  AGRICULTURE.

    SMALL HOLDINGS (BERKSHIRE AND WEST SUSSEX.)
    Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Agriculture what are the average rents per acre which are changed by county councils for their small holdings in Berkshire and West Sussex; and what is the number and average size of the holdings in each of those counties?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The Berkshire County Council have provided 161 small holdings with an average area of 30 acres; the average rent is 34s. 7d. per acre. The figures for West Sussex are 122 small holdings with an average area of 17 acres and an average rent of 63s. 6d. per acre. Practically all the small holdings in West Sussex are situated in the south-west part of the county on soil of an exceptionally productive character. Although the area of the holdings is in some cases only from 2 to 5 acres, the majority comprise both cottage and buildings which has the effect of increasing considerably their rental value when expressed in terms of "per acre."

    CREDITS.
    Major McLEANasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any particulars as to the number of farmers who have availed themselves of the facilities afforded for short-time credits under Part II of the Agricultural Credits Act, 1928, and as to the nominal amount covered by the charges given?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The number of farmers who have created agricultural charges under Part II of the Act amounts to 985 up to 27th February. I have no information as to the nominal amount covered by these charges.
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Has any right hon. Friend had any complaints as to the very high cost of valuations of properties acting as a deterrent to people who might want to take up charges?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I think I have had some representations on the matter, but it is very difficult for me to form an opinion. It is a matter between the borrower and the hank and does not really arise on these agricultural charges. The complaints about valuation is more in connection with long-term credits.
    Mr. SKELTON: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence as to the restriction of other credit arising from the operation of short-term credit?
    Mr. GUINNESS: No, I have not had any information.

    POTATOES (GRADING).
    Viscount SANDONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the Ministry, the co-operative interest, and the wholesale and retail federations all agreed to a grading scheme for marketing potatoes under the national mark, he will state what were the obstacles preventing its fruition?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The scheme to which my Noble Friend refers was deferred on account of the difficulty experienced in reconciling, within the short time available, the divergent views of the growers who are, of course, chiefly concerned, on various points both of principle and detail. I may add that discussions have been resumed between the National Farmers' Union and the -Ministry's officers, and there is every hope of an agreed scheme maturing for next season's crop.
    Viscount SANDON: Is it not a fact that the growers as represented by the National Farmers' Union agreed in the first place to these recommendations?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The growers m certain parts of the country were in favour of the scheme, but in other districts they raised objections. It was impossible to bring the scheme into effect unless the growers as a whole were content with its provisions.

    FISHING INDUSTRY, CORNWALL (CREDITS).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether the fishermen's credit scheme, inaugurated before the War for Cornwall, is still in

    2183
    operation; what total sum in credit was provided; and how much of this has been repaid?
    Mr. GUINNESS: The last loans granted under the scheme were in respect of applications made in 1920. The total sum advanced under the scheme amounted to £14,828 18s. 6d., and the total sum received in repayment of principal up to the 31st December, 1927, the last date for which figures are available, was £11,857 19s. 7d.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was interest charged as well? Has the right hon. Gentleman got the figures?
    Mr. GUINNESS: I am not sure. I think interest was outside this, but I will let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.

  TRANSPORT.

    RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSINGS.
    Sir R. THOMASasked the Minister of Transport approximately at how many points in England and Wales Class A roads cross railways on the level; what sum has been allocated from the Road Fund towards the elimination of such crossings by bridging during 1929; and how many level crossings will be so eliminated?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): No comprehensive record is available, but it is estimated that on Class I roads in Great Britain there are about 250 level crossings of more than ordinary importance. During the current financial year, I have indicated grants, totalling £58,125, towards expenditure estimated at £77,500, in respect of schemes which provide for the elimination of four level crossings on important roads. I do not know what schemes may be submitted to me during the next financial year.

    GROSVENOR ROAD, WESTMINSTER.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Minister of Transport whether the Grosvenor Road, Westminster, opposite Lambeth Bridge, is to be widened during the re-building operations now in progress; and, if so, by how many feet?
    Colonel ASHLEY: When the works are completed in Grosvenor Road, the road will I understand be widened by 40 feet.
    2184
    The present average width is 30 feet. The width of the road when completed will be 70 feet, making provision for two footpaths of 15 feet and a carriageway of 40 feet.

  POST OFFICE.

    EX-SUPPLEMENTARY CLERKS (SENIORITY).
    Mr. AMMONasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Association of Executive Officers and other civil servants enjoys central recognition by his Department in respect of the seniority of ex-supplementary clerks, that the association has in membership over 90 per cent. of such clerks, and that he has received representations from the association on the subject of seniority, why he refuses to receive a deputation from the association or to submit the dispute to arbitration?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The seniority of ex-supplementary clerks relatively to other clerks was fixed over six years ago. The settlement was in the nature of a compromise, as neither of the Staff Associations concerned was prepared to give way on its own particular claims. It was not until 1928 that the Executive Officers' Association sought to disturb the arrangement on the strength of an arbitration award on the subject of pay. A deputation from the association was received by the Post Office and subsequently representations were made to me with a request that I should receive a further deputation. The settlement of 1923, which was in my opinion a reasonable one, could not at this late date be departed from without serious injustice to officers who would be adversely affected; and in these circumstances I do not consider that a personal discussion on the subject would serve any useful purpose. Questions of seniority are not proper to be referred to the Industrial Court.
    Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that when the supplementary clerks were absorbed into another class, the question of salary and seniority came under discussion and that the former point was considered and an award made by the Industrial Court, but that the second point was outside the purview of the Court; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman concede the paint as to a deputation, which is a reasonable request?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have already said that I have examined the matter and that I see no reason for altering the arrangement made six years ago. Indeed, it could not be done without serious injustice to other men.

    MISSING REGISTERED LETTERS.
    Sir H. BRITTAINasked the Postmaster-General whether, with regard to the loss of a mail bag which was discovered on the arrival of the 2.25 a.m. train from Manchester at Euston Station on the morning of 23rd February, any information has been obtained as to the cause of the loss; and what period elapsed between the discovery that the bag was missing and the notification of that loss to the Criminal. Investigation Department at Scotland Yard?
    Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. Friend has been misinformed. No such loss has occurred; but a mail hag from Manchester conveyed by the 2.25 a.m. train was found at Euston Station to have been cut. Three registered letters were missing from the bag and these are believed to have been stolen. Inquiries are proceeding, but it has not yet been ascertained how the theft occurred. The loss was notified to the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard about four hours after discovery, as soon as evidence as to the facts sufficient for the co-operation of the police had been obtained.

    EAST AFRICA (COMMISSION'S REPORT).
    Sir SYDNEY HENNasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is proposing to take to ascertain the state of local opinion in East Africa in regard to the proposals put forward in the Hilton Young Report?
    Mr. AMERY: I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

    SALVATION ARMY (FUNDS).
    Mr. COUPERasked the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge, as representing the Charity Commissioners if he will state the funds which are vested in the hands of the Charity Commissioners for the Salvation Army; whether there is more than one specific fund; and the total amount of the fund or funds?
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY (Charity Commissioner): As the answer contains a number of figures, I propose with the hon. Member's permission to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. COUPER: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me the answer to the last part of the question? What is the total amount?
    Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I can add up the figures and give the hon. Gentleman the total if he will allow me a few moments in which to do it.
    Following is the answer:
    The following sums of stock held for the general benefit of the Salvation Army or for special purposes in connection therewith are now standing in the name of the Official Trustees of Charitable Funds:—
    Charity and Stock.
    "Trust Property in connection with the Salvation Army":
    £535 6s. 4d. 5 per cent. War Stock.
    Gifts of Mary Jane Fowler for Homes for Aged Women and Children:

    £8,000 2½ per cent. Console.

    £16,055 14s. 1d. 2½ per cent. Consols.

    £419 13s. 7d. 4 per cent. Consols.

    £2,488 London Midland and Scottish 4 per cent. Debenture Stock.

    £11,250 London Midland and Scottish 4 per cent. Preference Stock.

    £1,000 New Zealand 4 per cent. Consolidated Stock, 1929.

    The General of the Salvation Army Fund:

    £9,701 8s. 11d. 5 per cent. War Stock.

    £815 London Midland and Scottish 4 per cent. Guaranteed Stock.

    £2,000 India 2½ per cent. Stock.

    £418 United States and General Trust Corporation Limited 4 per cent. Debenture Stock.

    £800 Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company, Limited, 4 per cent. Debenture Stock, 1938.

    £4,139 3½ per cent. Conversion Stock, 1961.

    £1,115 15s. 0d. 4 per cent. Funding Stock.

    Gift of Saria Seare for free meals for the poor of the Civil Parishes of St. George the Martyr, Southwark, and St. Saviour's, Southwark:
    £463 14s. 3d. 4 per cent. Funding Stock.
    Gift of Gabriel Williams for the benefit of the Salvation Army in Bridgwater.
    £1,079 9s. 5 per cent. War Stock.
    Blackmore Missions Fund for rescue of fallen women in the County of London:
    £1,704 6s. 11d. 2½ per cent. Consols.

    MILITARY TANKS (EXPORTS).
    Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many military tanks have been exported, and to what countries, during 1925, 1926, 1927 and 1928?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I regret that my right hon. Friend is not able to furnish this information.
    Mr. WILSON: Is it not possible to obtain this information?
    Commodore KING: I think it is unobtainable. There is no separate heading for it.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the War Office got these figures?
    Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is it not the case that military accoutrements can be exported only under licence; and has not the Board of Trade full particulars?
    Commodore KING: I think the hon. Member had better put a question down.
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to my question? Has the War Office not got these figures?
    Commodore KING: I am not answering for the War Office.

    MERCANTILE MARINE (HEALTH).
    Major-General Sir RICHARD LUCEasked the President of the Board of Trade if the necessary sickness and mortality statistics are available or in process of preparation for the use of the joint committee appointed by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health to consider matters affecting the health of the mercantile marine?
    Commodore KING: In addition to the statistics published by the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths, there is an annual return published by the Board of
    2188
    Trade of all deaths which occur on ships registered in the United Kingdom. The question whether these statistics can be improved or supplemented is being considered by the joint advisory committee.

    AIR SERVICES (KARACHI AND CAPE OF GOOD HOPE).
    Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for Air what progress with the proposed air services to Karachi and the Cape of Good Hope, respectively, has been made; and when the first complete service will be inaugurated?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The air service to Karachi is due to start about 1st April next, and all the necessary steps have been or are being taken to that end. As regards the service to the Gape, the proposals to which I referred in my reply to my Noble Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) on 13th February, are now being examined at the Air Ministry, and I hope to be in a position to make a further statement on the subject in the course of the Debate on Air Estimates.
    Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether on 1st April the last part of the journey will be made from Basra to Karachi? Will the aerodromes be ready then?
    Sir S. HOARE: Yes, Sir, I certainly hope they will be ready.

    DISABLED EX-SERVICE MAN'S PENSION.
    Mr. SHEPHERDasked the Secretary of State for War whether there is any trace of rheumatism in the Army medical history of Mr. G. J. Ross, Louisa Street, Darlington, late trumpeter, Royal Artillery??
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The medical records of soldiers are confidential documents, and it would be contrary to the established practice to disclose details from them.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Seeing that the implications are so very serious in this case, surely it is a fair question to ask?
    Mr. COOPER: It is a perfectly fair question to ask, but it is a very good practice to maintain, without making any exceptions, that records of this sort must be confidential.
    Mr. SHEPHERD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it means ruination to this particular soldier?
    Mr. COOPER: The fortunes of the soldier could not possibly be affected by the reply to the question.
    Dr. DAVIES: Does not the hon. Member see that, in the case of an appeal, a person is handicapped if he cannot get any particulars of the medical history of the case? He is placed in an absolutely impossible position.
    Mr. COOPER: The previous history is open to the people hearing the appeal.
    Dr. DAVIES: The hon. Gentleman has just indicated that it is not.

  INDIA.

    MILL STRIKE, BOMBAY.
    Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the strike inquiry committee, set up to inquire into matters connected with the dispute leading to the prolonged mill strike in Bombay last year, has made any Report; and if negotiations are still in progress between the millowners and the workers in the mills with a view to the final settlement of the dispute?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The Government of Bombay state that the Fawcett Committee's Report is expected in the middle of March, and that negotiations between millowners and workers have terminated on the main issues but still continue on minor points.
    Mr. KELLY: Does that mean that work has been resumed and that matters are going on satisfactorily?
    Earl WINTERTON: It is rather difficult to answer that question. As I understand it, the position is that strikes in particular mills have been settled and have then broken out again. Therefore, I think that the hon. Member must not understand more than is con-
    2190
    tained in my answer, namely, that the main issue has been settled between the millowners and the workers and that certain minor matters are still under discussion.

    BUTLER COMMITTEE (COST).
    Mr. KELLYasked the Under-Secretary of State for India the total cost of the inquiry conducted by the Butler Committee into the questions concerning the relationship of the Indian Princes and the Paramount Power; whether this sum is to be borne out of the revenues of British India without any contribution from the revenues of the Indian States; and whether an opportunity has been given to the Central Indian Legislature to consider this item of expenditure?
    Earl WINTERTON: The total expenditure incurred in connection with the Committee is estimated to amount to about £16,000. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, the expenditure has been classed as non-voted under Section 67A of the Government of India Act, and is therefore not subject to the vote of the Indian Legislative Assembly.
    Mr, KELLY: Has any approach been made to the Indian Legislature as to bearing some part of this cost?
    Earl WINTERTON: No, because the matter is, as I say, classed as non-voted under Section 67A of the Government of India Act. Therefore, there would be no reason to approach the Legislature.
    Mr. KELLY: Who has made the decision that it comes under that Section?
    Earl WINTERTON: It is a question of the interpretation of the Act. That is a matter for the decision of the appropriate authorities.
    Mr. KELLY: As a matter of information, who are the appropriate authorities to decide?
    Earl WINTERTON: Any constitutional lawyer.

    MOCK AUCTIONS
    Mr. WOMERSLEYasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that within the last few weeks fresh mock-auction

    2191
    establishments have been opened in the centre of London, notably in Fleet Street and the Strand; that chief constables throughout the country are desirous of having further powers to check this evil, and that a representative of Scotland Yard has expressed similar views; and, seeing that there is unanimity amongst political parties and also amongst professional and commercial organisations as to the need for legislation to prohibit mock auctions and rigged sales, will he state why his Department are opposed to legislation designed to remedy this evil?
    Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not possible for me, even if it were proper, within the confines of an answer to a question to express an opinion upon a legislative proposal which is under consideration in another place.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Mr. BUCHANAN: I rise to make a personal explanation, which will not take more than a few moments. The other day I found, to my surprise, that my name appeared on the back of a Bill called the Housing Act (1925) Amendment Bill, backed by an hon. Member whose Division I do not, for the moment, remember. It was due to no fault of his, but to a misprint, and I rise to correct that, because of the fact that I am very much opposed to the principles contained in that Bill. Neither the hon. Member concerned nor anyone else is to blame for it. It is one of those accidents that occur from time to time, but for which I do not think anybody can be held responsible. I only rise, as I say, to make this correction, as I feel myself very much opposed to the principles in the Bill.
Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the Bill in question will be reprinted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. MacDONALD: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what business it is proposed to take next week?
Mr. CHURCHILL: On Monday, Civil and Revenue Departments, Vote on Account, Report stage. A Debate will take place on matters affecting the Post Office.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, Local Government (Scotland) Bill, Report stage, comprising the first and second Allotted Days.
On Thursday, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on Air Estimates, and to consider Air Votes A, 1, 4, 3, and 8 in Committee.
The business for Friday will be announced later, and if there is time on any day, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not putting down for next week the Supplementary Estimate for the Lord Mayor's Fund?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it is not down for next week.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday he promised to make a statement, in reply to the hon. Member, regarding this Supplementary Estimate? Is he not in a position to do so?
Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir, I am not.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on the Business of Supply be exempted" at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Churchill.]
The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 79.

Division No. 245.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon

Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

Albery, Irving James

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

Briggs, J. Harold

Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)

Briscoe, Richard George

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

Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish.

Brittain, Sir Harry

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

Berry, Sir George

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

Birchall, Major J. Dearman

Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

Apsley, Lord

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

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

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

Boothby, R. J. G.

Buchan, John

Atholl, Duchess of

Bourne, Captain Robert Crott

Campbell, E. T.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

Carver, Major W. H.

Barclay-Harvey. C. M.

Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Beamish, Bear-Admiral T. P. H.

Braithwaite, Major A. N.

Cazalet, Captain Victor A.

Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)

Brass, Captain W.

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)

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

Perring, Sir William George

Christle, J. A.

Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis

Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Hurd, Percy A.

Raine, Sir Walter

Churchman, Sir Arthur C.

Hurst, Gerald B.

Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

Ross, R. D.

Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.

Iveagh, Countess of

Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Conway, Sir W. Martin

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

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cooper, A. Duff

James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

Rye, F. G.

Courtauld, Major J. S.

Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William

Salmon, Major I.

Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

King, Commodore Henry Douglas

Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

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

Knox, Sir Alfred

Sandeman, N. Stewart

Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

Sanders, Sir Robert A.

Dalkeith, Earl of

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

Sanderson, Sir Frank

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

Loder, J. de V.

Sandon, Lord

Davies, Dr. Vernon

Long, Major Eric

Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

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

Looker, Herbert William

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

Elliot, Major Walter E.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera

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

England, Colonel A.

Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

Skelton, A. N.

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

Lumley, L. R.

Smithers, Waldron

Fairfax, Captain J. G.

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

Southby, Commander A. R. J.

Faile, Sir Bertram G.

Macintyre, Ian

Spender-Clay, Colonel H.

Fermoy, Lord

McLean, Major A.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser

Fielden, E. B.

MacRobert, Alexander M.

Tasker, R. inigo.

Foster, Sir Harry S.

Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)

Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

Fraser, Captain Ian

Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-

Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

Gates, Percy

Malone, Major P. B.

Tinne, J. A.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton

Margesson, Captain D.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Glyn, Major R. G. C.

Mason, Colonel Glyn K.

Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

Gower, Sir Robert

Meyer, Sir Frank

Wallace, Captain D. E.

Grant, Sir J. A.

Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.

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

Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Moreing, Captain A. H.

Warrender, Sir Victor

Grotrian, H. Brent

Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)

Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive

Wells, S. R.

Gunston. Captain D. W.

Murchison, Sir Kenneth

White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairympie

Hanbury, C.

Nelson, Sir Frank

Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

Hartington, Marquees of

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

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

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

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

Womersley. W. J.

Henn, Sir Sydney H.

Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley

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

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

Wood, Sir S. Hill. (High peak)

Hilton, Cecil

Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert

Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

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

Nuttall, Ellis

Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

Hopkins, J. W. W.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

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

Perkins, Colonel E. K.

Major Sir George Hennessy and

Major Sir William Cope.

NOES.

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

Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Purcell, A. A.

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

Hardle, George D.

Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

Ammon, Charles George

Harris, Percy A.

Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)

Batey, Joseph

Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

Bellamy, A.

Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

Shepherd, Arthur Lewis

Benn, Wedgwood

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Shield, G. W.

Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

Shinwell, E.

Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

Kelly, W. T.

Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

Broad, F. A.

Kennedy, T.

Sitch, Charles H.

Bromfield, William

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

Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Lawrence, Susan

Snell, Harry

Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)

Lawson, John James

Stamford, T. W.

Buchanan, G.

Lee, F.

Stephen, Campbell

Cape, Thomas

Longbottom, A. W.

Strauss, E. A.

Charleton, H. C.

Lowth, T.

Sullivan, J.

Connolly. M.

Lunn, William

Taylor R. A.

Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)

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

Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)

Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

Thurtle, Ernest

Day, Harry

Morris, R. H

Tinker, John Joseph

Dunnico, H.

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

Wellock, Wilfred

Gardner, J. P.

Murnin, H.

Westwood, J.

Gibbins, Joseph

Oliver, George Harold

Whiteley, W.

Gillett, George M.

Owen, Major G.

Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)

Palln, John Henry

Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

Windsor, Walter

Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

Ponsonby, Arthur

Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

Potts, John S.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm the creation and issue of rupee shares, and to define the respective rights of the holders of sterling shares
2194
and rupee shares in the capital of the Asiatic Steam Navigation Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Bill [Lords].
And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Lancashire Electric Power Company; and for other purposes." [Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Asiatic Steam Navigation Company Bill [Lords],
Lancashire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1929.
    SIR L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS' STATEMENT.
    Order for Committee read.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Despite the military text books, I have deprived myself of the advantages of surprise by circulating a very full memorandum with the Estimates which, while discounting the interest which may be felt in any speech I might make, has also armed my opponents with the opportunity for criticism. In Vote A, I am asking this year for 150,500 men against 153,500 last year, a decrease of 3,000. Half this decrease is due to the withdrawal of Indian troops from Aden, and is therefore more apparent than real. The remaining half is mainly due to the withdrawal of the garrison from Sierra Leone, reductions in China, some adjustments in the establishments of the Royal Artillery and Royal Army Service Corps due to the substitution of mechanical vehicles for horses, and the disbandment of the West African Regiment. The disbandment of the West African Regiment removes from the Army one of its youngest units after a life of only 30 years. It was raised in 1898 and was twice on active service, first in the Ashanti Campaign of 1900, and again in the Cameroons Campaign of 1914–16. Much as I regret the necessity for this disbandment, the fact that it has been possible to withdraw the garrison from Sierra Leone and dispense with the services of that regiment, is a testimony to the settled conditions in that Colony and our good relations with other Powers.
    4.0.p.m.
    Apart from progress with the conversion of two cavalry regiments into armoured-car regiments, to which I alluded last year, there has been no alteration in the establishment of the cavalry or the infantry. The net money total for which I am asking is £40,545,000, that is, £505,000, or, say, half a million less than last year. In the abstract, on
    2210
    pages 4 and 5, the difference in each Vote between the current year and the coming year is set out in detail, and at a later stage I will answer any questions which may be addressed to me upon these Votes. Meanwhile, if it is to the convenience of the House, I will indicate the chief savings and the chief increases compared with last year. A saving of £345,000 arises from the larger numbers receiving the reduced rates of pay. The fall in the cost of provisions, forage, fuel and light, accounts for a saving of over £200,000.
    Notwithstanding the ruthless reduction in the Vote for new works and lands which has already taken place, it is now possible to effect a further reduction of £192,000 this year. The total amount of the Vote for works is still very large, nearly £3,000,000 net, but only absolutely necessary services are included. For example, I can no longer delay the replacement of obsolete barracks, and I am making a start this year on new barracks at Aberdeen. It is true I expect to spend £1,000 only this year, but the ultimate cost will be. £140,000, to be spread over 16 years. It is also necessary to continue at various stations the provision of new quarters for married officers at a cost of £117,000, and of similar quarters for other ranks at a cost of £91,000. Some of this expenditure ought not properly to be debited to Army Votes, because in many, places the building of the quarters or purchase of houses is forced upon us by the shortage of housing generally, and the impossibility of hiring suitable accommodation The disbandment of the West African Regiment, to which I have already alluded, and the cessation of any payment from Army funds for the Channel islands Militia, account for a further saving of nearly £100,000.
    Now let me state the chief increases in expenditure. There is an inevitable rise of £124,000 in the charges for retired pay of officers and pensions of noncommissioned officers and men, and gratuities on retirement. The normal growth of the Army Reserve accounts for an increase of £215,000. I make provision this year for an increase of 15,000 men bringing the total in the Reserve up to 124,000. On the other hand, the supplementary Reserve shows a saving of £35,000. I have, estimated for a rise in the numbers to 790 officers and 17,000 other ranks by the end of the year, at a total cost of £357,800.

    2211
    The saving is really due to an over-estimate last year, as we did not get the numbers for which we had hoped. After allowing for India's share of the cost, there is an increase of £45,000 in the payment we make towards unemployment insurance, to give the soldier a free insurance against unemployment for a year and a half after he leaves the colours: that is, to put him in the same position as a civilian. The net expenditure on health, widows' pensions and unemployment insurance charged to Army Votes amounts to £424,000. Of course, that counts as a military expenditure.
    War stocks are being rapidly reduced, and the exhaustion of stocks entails an increase of £130,000. We are spending £99,000 more for mechanical vehicles for the fighting arms, and their garages. These are the principal decreases and increases. Hon. Members who follow them in the book of the Estimates may find that the net figures that I have given do not quite correspond in the abstract, on pages 4 and 5 of the Estimates, but that is because I have given cover elements of the Votes, and also because there are variations in the Appropriations-in-Aid, which account for the difference. Nevertheless, I have given the House the principal increases and decreases.
    I see that there is on the Order Paper a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. March) and a similar Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico), which, I understand, is to be moved later in the evening. The Motion urges His Majesty's Government to put forward and support proposals at the preparatory commission for the Disarmament Conference at. Geneva for the drastic reduction of personnel, and for the limitation both of military expenditure and of material. I propose, therefore, to take this opportunity of comparing our expenditure with that of other countries, and for that purpose I must trouble the House with another set of figures, which, I hope, will be useful to hon. Members when they come to discuss the Motion later in the evening. As seen in the White Paper which I have circulated, the Army Accounts are divided into two portions. The first provides for the expenditure on effective services, that is to say, on the pay, maintenance and equipment of the Army, the Territorial Army and the
    2212
    Reserve Forces, and the second relates to the non-effective services, that is to say, the retired pay, pensions and super-annuation allowances of retired military and civil officers and men. The non-effective charges, broadly the pension charges, are due to the terms of service of the individuals, and no economy can be made in them. They are not really current expenditure, and in many countries these payments are not even included in the Army Votes. Any reduction in expenditure, therefore, has got to be made in the amounts attributable to the effective services, and if a proper comparison is desired with the Army expenditure of other countries, the expenditure on the effective services alone ought to be taken into account.
    I have set out in the White Paper the expenditure since 1922 on effective services, and hon. Members will see that there has been a continuous reduction throughout the period but if we take the Estimates of this Government for the last five years, in 1925, the effective Vote was £36¼ million; in 1926, £34½ million; in 1927, £331/3 million; in 1928, £32¾ million; and in 1929, £321/3 million—a reduction in the effective Vote in the lifetime of this Government of 11 per cent. The reduction is the more remarkable if we compare it with the expenditure of other countries.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the comparable figure for 1913–14?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will do so later if I may. I would rather not interrupt the sequence of comparisons I am now trying to make. I want now to compare our expenditure, reduced as I say it has been, with the expenditure of other countries during the same period. For example, the United States has increased its comparable expenditure from £51,000,000 in 1925–26 to £59,000,000 in 1928–29. In all the figures I am now giving the local currencies have been converted into pounds sterling. Italy has increased from about £18,000,000 in 1925–26 to about £28,000,000 in 1928–29. Germany has increased from about £20,000,000 in 1925–26 to about £25,000,000 in 1928–29. France has increased from about £34,000,000 in 1925 to about £58,000,000 in 1929. The Soviet Socialist Government of Russia has more than doubled its ex-

    2213
    penditure on its military Budget which, however, includes its Navy as well as its Air Force, and I am not able to separate the items, so that I cannot make a close comparison. Nevertheless, it has more than doubled its expenditure, and it is now spending £40,000,000 more than in 1924–25.
    Mr. TINKER: Is it £80,000,000 now as against £40,000,000 previously?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is £84,000,000 now, which shows an increase of £40,000,000 over the amount spent in 1924–25. Belgium, Switzerland and Japan all show some increases in the same period. We are the only nation which has continuously reduced the expenditure on its Army. I hope, therefore, that when Army expenditure comes to be made the subject, of platform oratory, the public will be given the true facts, and will be told that we alone amongst the nations of the world, large or small, have curtailed our military expenditure. I should not be able to produce these reduced Estimates unless I had the whole-hearted support from the Army Council and the officers under them in the War Office, in the Commands and in the Army itself. They have combined to cut out waste and to preserve what is essential by sacrificing everything in the nature of a luxury, and by postponing all expenditure not immediately necessary and urgent. I have had the greatest assistance from Field-Marshal Sir George Milne, who is the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. He himself checks and weighs every class of military expenditure, recommending which shall take priority owing to its degree of urgency on military grounds.
    I would like to say a few words about the progress of mechanisation in the Army. I think the best way to bring that progress home to hon. Members will be to make a comparison between the present position and the position as I found it when I first became Secretary of State for War in 1921. In 1921 the equipment of the Army and its effectiveness for modern war differed little from that of 1918, except in numbers. The only branches in which mechanical vehicles existed for transport purposes were the Anti-Aircraft Artillery, the Royal Tank Corps and the Royal Army Service Corps. The Royal Artillery had
    2214
    only some 15 anti-aircaft lorries, of an old type. The Royal Tank Corps was equipped with old-time war tanks and four-wheeled armoured cars. The Royal Army Service Corps possessed four-wheeled lorries only, mostly of the three-ton type. Since then very definite advances have been made. Now each cavalry regiment has a mechanised machine-gun squadron, and the mobility of the horsed squadrons has been greatly increased by transferring some of the weight from the horse to mechanized transport. We are experimenting this year in the cavalry with an armoured 303 machine gun carrier. In addition, two cavalry regiments have been converted into armoured car regiments, and some 22 six-wheeled armoured cars of the latest pattern have been purchased as part of the equipment of one regiment.
    In the infantry we have increased the number of machine guns, so that each battalion has one company of 16 guns, of which 12 are manned in peace. In three battalions these companies have mechanised transport, and I hope to be able to equip three more this year. The small armoured 303 machine gun carriers also form part of the equipment of these six infantry machine gun companies. In the artillery I have reorganised the medium artillery, so that we have now five medium brigades in existence in peace time. Those brigades are all mechanised on various scales. Two of the five will in 1929 be on a thoroughly satisfactory scale, and equipped with a standardised machine. In addition, two field artillery brigades have been mechanised, and a third will be completely mechanised in 1929. This has been done with various selected machines, but we hope as the result of this year's experiments that we shall be able to select and standardise one type for field artillery draught. This year we are commencing mechanisation of the light artillery and are producing four mechanised light batteries for trial with troops. Two brigades of field artillery have been equipped with radio-telephony and four more will be so equipped this year.
    In the Royal Tank Corps a modern type of tank has replaced the old wartime tanks, and we have carried out experiments and research on a large scale, and with such success that we can confidently claim to lead the world not only in our equipment of tanks but

    2215
    also in our ideas as to their use in War. The Royal Engineers have been equipped with a new type of pontoon, and suitable transport has been evolved for it. The bridging portion of the field squadrons of the cavalry division is being given this equipment this year. Portions of the Royal Corps of Signals have also been equipped with mechanical transport. The Royal Army Service Corps during this period scored a great success. They have evolved the War Department design of six-wheeled lorries, and the success has been so great that it has been adopted by civil manufacturing firms as the most efficient type. By the end of this year 40 per cent. of the Royal Army Service Corps transport will be of the modern six-wheeled type. I think it will be agreed that enormous strides have been made in the modernisation of the Army during the lifetime of the present, Government. In the next few years even greater progress should be possible, owing to the sure foundation which has already been laid.
    In the last few minutes I have tried to give a brief description of the Army of to-day in the midst of its evolution in comparison with the Army when I first became responsible for it, and I have tried to show that the money voted is being used on a definite and progressive plan. Now I should like, if I am allowed, to refer to the experimental side of our mechanisation policy. As the House will know, for many hon. Members were present to see it with their own eyes, we assembled on Salisbury Plain two years ago a mixed armoured force from which we have obtained most valuable experience, which could not have been secured otherwise. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff reports to me that the efficiency of the units in the force has steadily increased. The officers and other tanks have been constantly on the strain, and have shown the greatest interest in their work, which has entailed much more exertion and fatigue than the ordinary course of training. It is interesting to find, as we expected would be the case, that the development of armoured forces is following much the same lines as that of other formations.
    We have, in the first place, a demand for something of great mobility which can undertake distant missions, and
    2216
    which, in that respect, is the mechanical equivalent of the independent cavalry of former days. These formations will consist principally of armoured cars or light tanks, or both combined, and though incapable of undertaking a serious offensive will have quite enough fire power to give a good account of themselves. In the second place, we require another type of formation which is intended to combine great hitting power and armoured protection with sufficient mobility to allow of manoeuvre rather than of frontal attack. It will consist of medium tanks with light tanks and armoured support weapons as auxiliaries. We anticipate that this organisation of light and medium armoured brigades, when combined suitably with cavalry and infantry formations, should provide us with a force suited for every type of country and for every form of manoeuvre which may be necessary, from the passive defence to the attack the wide turning movement or the headlong pursuit. The arrangement by which last year's armoured force has been dispersed is only temporary, in order that we may use the personnel and units concerned for other experiments.
    This year, profiting by the lessons learned from the experiments on Salisbury Plain, and by the result of research and experiments with new designs of vehicles, we are forming two experimental infantry brigades, one at Aldershot and the other at Tidworth with which units of the armoured fighting vehicles will he incorporated. Our object is to decide on the best composition for an infantry brigade, and with this intention we are trying out various forms of battalion and brigade organisation. We intend to try armoured carriers for machine guns and anti-tank weapons, mortars and light howitzers, the inclusion of light tank units in the infantry brigade, and the use of mechanised transport for administrative purpose in the battalion. As a result of the experiments of the last two years, the General Staff have been able to prepare draft war establishments for modernised and armoured formations. These, together with instructions for their administration and tactical handling, will be issued during the spring, and will form the base of theoretical discussion and practical handling during

    2217
    the current year. This is noteworthy as the first attempt to crystallise our ideas upon these questions.
    I will not give the House in detail the various specific questions which we hope to answer by the work to be done by these new experimental formations, for they are technical military questions, but just as the coming of the internal combustion engine has created first-class problems, still unsolved, in civil life, relating to our railways, our roads and even our week-end habits, so its coming has created problems of user in military operations not less difficult to solve expeditiously and completely.
    I feel that the country and the Army are fortunate at this juncture to have as Chief of the Imperial Chief Staff so able a soldier and so good an economist as Field Marshal Sir George Milne. Under his steady and farseeing guidance good progress is being made in the adaptation of the Army to these new conditions. He will complete four years in his appointment as Chief of the Imperial General Staff in 1930, but I am glad to say that he has agreed to continue in that post until 1932, so that we may hope to secure continuity in military policy.
    I would like to say a word or two about the Territorial Army. I need not detain the House long, as my report is entirely satisfactory. Six thousand two hundred more recruits joined the Territorial Army last year than in the previous year, so I hope the economy effected by the substitution of a proficiency grant for the training bounty has now ceased to affect recruiting. The total strength, after allowing for a heavy run-off of time-expired men, shows an increase of 108 officers and 121 other ranks. Nearly 88 per cent. of the officers and men attended camp last year. That is better than the previous year, and is extremely good if we take into account the necessary absences through illness and business engagements. As I have stated in the White Paper, the infantry battalions in the Territorial Army will be organised similarly to the infantry battalions in the Regular Army, that is to say, there will he a headquarters wing, a machine gun company and three rifle companies. I am giving as great elasticity as possible. Battalions may
    2218
    adopt this organisation at once if they choose, or they need not do so until 1st April, 1930. It means a reduction in establishment of about 52 men in each battalion, hut this reduction need not entail discharges, for it may be postponed until the numbers are reduced by wastage in the ordinary way.
    The number of artillery brigades of the Territorial Army that train on a mechanical basis increases each year, hired lorries being used as tractors. I am advised that the Territorial Army contains the best possible personnel, and that though some battalions are woefully under strength, taken as a whole, it is well trained and efficient. At the moment, quality is more important than quantity in the Territorial Army, as it is the future leaders that we desire to train. The taxpayer certainly owes much to the Territorial Army, for if it was not the reliable second line that it is our Estimates could not have been reduced in the way they have been.
    I should also like to pay a tribute to the loyal manner in which the County Territorial Associations have discharged their often difficult tasks. I have received the greatest assistance from them in carrying out those changes in the direction of mechanisation which the progress of military science demands. These changes often mean a break with long-standing traditions, and the advice and help I get from the County Associations in this connection are invaluable. The House may not perhaps appreciate the extent to which men of eminence in their respective professions are willing and anxious to place their experienced advice and expert knowledge at the disposal of the Army Council. It is impossible to mention them all by name, and it is invidious to particularise. Perhaps I may be allowed to express the country's indebtedness to the scientists, engineers and others who serve on the technical committees. It is indispensable to our ordered progress in military organisation that we should keep abreast of civilian research, and we fully appreciate the interest and the work which Fellows of the Royal Society and other distinguished gentlemen devote to helping us in the solution of the many problems which confront an army in the process of evolution.

    2219
    Perhaps I may be permitted to draw special attention to the assistance which is given to us by members of the medical profession. The Army can derive nothing but benefit from a good understanding between the civilian and the military branches of the medical profession which I am happy to believe is the aim of both, and which displays itself in their fruitful co-operation on many of the committees. I hope that as the scope and attractiveness of the Army Medical Service become better known through their advocacy, the present welcome increase in the number of candidates may continue. I must confess, however, that we are still suffering from a serious shortage of candidates for commissions in the regular army. The shortage is, I believe, mainly due to economic reasons. Uncertainty as to the future is the greatest deterrent. Discussions on disarmament have undoubtedly had an unsettling effect. Great reductions in number have already been made, and I can only say that, so far as I can see, in no conceivable circumstances can any further reductions be made in the number of officers in our attenuated military forces.
    I believe that the Army offers just as good a career as ever it did. There is a further possibility that some exaggerated references to promotion by merit may have created a sense of insecurity, but on this point I wish to emphasise that there is no question of extending this policy any further than at present, and that practically every officer who makes himself reasonably efficient can depend on rising, in the normal course, to the rank of Major. A measure of selection is introduced from Major to Lieut.-Colonel and a large proportion of Majors do, in practice, receive promotion.
    There will be no Army manoeuvres in 1929. Collective training will be on much the same basis as for 1928 except that the Fourth Division will not he concentrated. Divisional training will be carried out in the Aldershot and Southern Commands, and will culminate in some exercises specially designed to test out the experimental infantry brigades, and the other experiments to which I have referred. We propose to have a number of exercises without troops which will be conducted by the War Office.
    2220
    I want to draw attention to something which I have already referred to in some detail in the White Paper, and that is the substantial and highly satisfactory progress that is being made in the educational training of the Army. The extent of this effort at adult education in the Army is perhaps not generally appreciated. We endeavour now to educate every soldier up to a standard of education equivalent to the highest attainment of an elementary school. We insist on certain ranks reaching the standard equivalent to the school leaving certificate. The Army is providing education for some 200,000 men, and the success which has been attained is remarkable, as is shown by the figures which I have set out in the White Paper.
    Let me remind the Committee that on the 28th January, 1929, the number of educational certificates held by the Army was as follows: 3rd class, 67,703; 2nd class, 85,561; 1st class, 13,164. The 1st class certificate is equivalent to the school leaving certificate, which is not a bad standard at all. There is also a special higher certificate equal to matriculation, and 628 hold that certificate in the Army. This advance in education is having a great influence on the training of the Army. Intelligent, disciplined, individual initiative, so necessary in modern war, requires a soldier to be educated. The education he is receiving will increase his value in the Army. We send to civil life every year some 30,000 men who are better educated through their Army service, and they go out of the Army with a better education than many people in civil life.
    Mr. AMMON: Are these men or boys, and ought they not to have received that education before joining the Army?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am talking about men.
    Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Have they not all been to an elementary school?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Many of them have not had the school leaving certificate or the matriculation certificate, and I think this is an enormous advance on the teaching they have had at the elementary school. I wish I could say that all were also skilled at a trade, but, as I have shown in the White Paper, some 1,600 men passed

    2221
    through the courses at Chisledon, Hounslow and Aldershot last year. There are many well-educated and well-conducted men leaving the Army each year.
    I think I have now dealt with the many features of Army expenditure, and I fear that I have tried the patience of the House. In conclusion, I will restate the problem that I have been grappling with during the last few years. It is how to use our limited resources of men and money so that we may not destroy our immediate strength while developing our plans for securing, by means of appropriate machines, that ultimate accession of mobility and power which the Army of the future must undoubtedly possess. This development is proceeding without dislocation and without friction, notwithstanding the cramping effects of constant economy. The internal combustion engine is being made a useful servant and auxiliary of the incomparable officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men of the British Army, and, in spite of all the difficulties, psychological as well as material, the Army of to-day maintains unimpaired its high standard of efficiency.
    Mr. LAWSON: The Secretary of State for War has made an explicit statement, but, in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is able to use figures and terms concerning mechanisation as no one else in this House can do, it is evident that there is a quickened spirit in the House, and the Amendments placed on the Paper by my hon. Friends behind me have given a touch of colour to the Army Estimates. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that, while it is necessary for us to discuss the various services in detail from the business side, there has been a growing feeling that on one day at least during the year the three fighting services should be discussed together. I find an echo of that on the benches behind the Government in the shape of a Motion which deals with the co-ordination of contracts, and perhaps that is the only way in which that subject can be dealt with here to-day. Last year, the Prime Minister gave quite a multitude of details concerning co-ordination, demonstrating what the Committee 01 Imperial Defence is doing in that direction, but, both from the business point of view and the point of view of efficiency, as well as the welfare of the nation, it is absolutely neces-
    2222
    sary that we should discuss these questions as a Ministry of Defence or in some other form. The time must soon come when we can discuss the whole of the nation's obligations in this respect on one day. If that had been so, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would have been quite so sure of his ground. He is on quite good ground as far as the Army is concerned, but when it comes to the other services, taking them as a whole, the expenditure of the country is growing, and, what is more, the destructive forces that are being evolved are growing in an even greater proportion than the expenditure.
    I was curious to know, when I got the Army Estimates, exactly in what respect the expenditure was increasing as compared with the pre-War period. I have often heard it said in this House, when the expenditure was being compared with that of pre-War times, that the increase was due to the increased pay of the men and officers. The House will be surprised to know that this year the total pay that we are asked to vote amounts to exactly the same sum, within a few pounds, as in the last year before the War; It is true that there were more men before the War; I think that something like 186,000 were then borne on the strength, as compared' with 150,000 now; but, as I have said, within a few pounds the amount voted for pay, etc., was the same in 1914 as it is to-day, and yet the expenditure as a whole has increased by some 40 per cent. We naturally ask where that extra amount—£12,000,000, I think it is—is going. The House must understand, too, that the Estimate for the last year before the War, whatever may be our views upon it, was growing because of what the Government of the day thought was potential strife.
    I find on investigation that the non-effective services have exactly doubled since the War. The amount for pensions and so on was something like £4,000,000 before the War, and to-day it is round about £8,000,000. I asked a question last year as to the possibility of a limitation of this obligation, and I understood that it was stated that we had about reached the limit in that respect. The non-effective services were up by a small amount last year. I am not going to say say that we should not honour our obligations. We must. But that is indeed

    2223
    a growing burden upon this country which, when compared with social needs, is a rather serious matter.
    I also notice that, as compared with pre-War times, the maintenance charges or the War Office have doubled—that is to say, while the Estimates have increased by 40 per cent., the cost of the maintenance of the War Office has increased by something like 100 per cent. It would be interesting to know the real reasons for that. I have often heard it said that, owing to the increased improvement of mechanical processes in the Army, it has been necessary to increase the staff at the War Office to a certain extent. On the mechanical side there is an increase this year, but the number is not really great—I think it, is about 46. Therefore, it would be interesting to know how it comes about that the cost of the War Office has at least doubled as compared with 1914.
    That, however, after all, only accounts for something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of the total increase since the War, and I find that in the main it is going towards the maintenance of the active forces, and, particularly the development of the mechanical side of the Army's affairs. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed, of course, that he has done more in that respect than almost any other Minister, and that is quite true. He has familiarised us with that 'awkward word, "mechanisation." He did not coin that word, but he underlined it, and he certainly has given a good deal of time to that subject. He gave us an opportunity last year of seeing a demonstration of those forces, and I want to say—I think it is the least that we can say—that the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office made very great and perfect arrangements for the convenience and comfort of all those Who went from this House to see that demonstration, and for that he is entitled to our thanks. Members of this House, taking all views in regard to the armed forces, availed themselves of that opportunity to go down to Salisbury Plain.
    There was one impression that was left upon my mind, at any rate. There used to be, during the manoeuvres and similar demonstrations by the armed forces, a little colour and some dash and fire which in a way compensated for the grimmer
    2224
    side that one saw, but, when these gloomy metal monsters came along, one felt that even the poetic side of the armed forces was disappearing, and, it their grimness in actual fact is at all in proportion to their appearance, it is time the League of Nations had a few au-night sittings to deal with the matter. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the point that they do not seem to be getting the number of officers to take on in the active forces that they desire. He gave some reasons for that, and he also gave us one of the remedies that he proposes. I understood him to say that it is partly due to a sense of insecurity caused by the growing number of rankers. I understood him to say that they were going to limit the number of rankers—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No; I did not mention rankers. If I let that pass, it might be misunderstood. I never said a word about ranker officers, and I never said a word about limiting the number of commissions from the ranks—not one word.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am extremely sorry if I made such a mistake as that, but was not the only one on these benches—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: You will see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. LAWSON: I am prepared to give credit to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that, while he has developed the armed forces and has emphasised their mechanisation, he has also given some consideration to the question of the vocational training of the soldiers themselves, and naturally we on this side are interested in the human side of the soldier. I appreciate very much the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has enlarged Chisledon and intends to use it on a bigger scale next year, but there is one thing that I think he ought to reconsider in that respect. I think the requirement that 7s. 6d. per week should be paid by the average soldier is a hindrance to soldiers coming in for training. It may seem a small amount, but, out of a soldier's actual pay, it is really too much. I trust that even greater emphasis is going to be laid on this side of the Army's activities than has been the case in the past. One of the gravest problems that the Army has to meet is

    2225
    that of recruiting. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman referred to that—
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is in the White Paper.
    Mr. LAWSON: It is true that it is in the White Paper, but the Army Report contains one of the gravest statements, made in official form, that has ever been made to this House. It is to the effect that only 36 per cent. of the young men who offered themselves for service were accepted. The young men who come to offer themselves for service in that direction are not, as a rule, of third-rate types, but are men who think themselves physically fit and feel that they can do the job, and yet only 36 per cent. are accepted. The Financial Secretary to the War Office, answering me last year, told me that the smallness of the number accepted was due to the fact that the standard was very often raised as the rush of recruits increased. That cannot he so this year. The dental standards are lower, while the actual height standard has been lowered from 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 2 inches, and, taking the age at which these men come in for the infantry, 5 feet 3 inches is not really an excessive standard of height. The Report points out, also, that the average gain in weight when they are in the depot for about six months is from seven to eight pounds. That is quite a natural thing; one can understand that. Exercise, fresh air, and varying conditions certainly do tend to increase the weight of the youth. The Report says:
    "As a result of good food, exercise, and fresh air, recruits develop both physically and mentally during their training at depots. The average increase in weight during this period of five or six months is eight pounds. In one squad from a northern district the average increase was no less than one stone."
    5.0 p.m.
    That, indeed, is a very cryptic comment upon conditions beyond the boundaries of the Army. We can increase and improve our defences as we like. We can improve our tanks, our battleships, and our airships, but in the long run our real defences are at home in the condition of the people, and no more damning document was ever given to any Parliament, no stronger condemnation was ever made of any Government policy, apart from ser-
    2226
    vice policy, than that record in the Army Report.
    The total that is asked for this year is some £40,000,000, and the right hon. Gentleman tells us, of course, that it is a reduction. That is true, but he is also asking for a Supplementary Estimate which neutralises the reduction. The significant thing about the last few years is that, while the right hon. Gentleman is improving on the mechanical side of the Army, and has also reduced the Estimates at the same time he has had to ask for Supplementary Estimates which have almost offset the actual reductions on the other side. We shall vote against that Supplementary Estimate, because it does not matter what the circumstances are. As long as the social conditions of the people are as they are, this country cannot afford any increased Estimates for expeditions in different parts of the world.
    Colonel APPLIN: Let your people die there. Do not rescue them!
    Mr. LAWSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong. What we mean is that we have to pay first attention to our own people and, after that, we can afford to consider people in other parts of the world.
    Viscount SANDON: The hon. Member forgets the number of people who are dependent on trade with China, and earn their livelihood from it.
    Mr. LAWSON: We cannot tell the value of the right hon. Gentleman's emphasis on the mechanical side. I do not suppose even he himself can tell. I do not suppose there is a layman in the house who can speak as to the real value of what is known as mechanisation. Critics are abroad already, and there are those who are not quite as sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman himself. On the other hand, it is true that, in view of world conditions, he cannot afford to take any risks. When the whole of the Estimates are lumped together, amounting last year in' actual expenditure to £117,000,000 for the three services, and when we consider that the service that costs least of all is the most destructive, we say, whether it be Supplementary Estimates or Motions dealing with reductions or with general disarmament, there is nothing else we can do but to go into the Lobby in support of those

    2227
    Motions. I trust the day is not very far distant when the House is going to get an opportunity of facing the real cost of defence. We talk about £40,000,000 and a reduction of £500,000, and the House of Commons, like the country, forgets the real cost. When we do get an opportunity of discussing the cost of the three forces altogether, this country will give more emphasis to its obligations to the League of Nations and to a general policy making for peace than it does to Estimates of this character.
    Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his very lucid, though brief statement on the Army and this year's Estimates. Last year was particularly interesting on account of the change in organisation which has taken place in the War Office with regard to the development of the mechanised force. We were all extremely interested to hear of the development that is taking place in that particular part of the Army. We who had the privilege of going to Tidworth were extremely interested in all we saw there, and in the various types of vehicles. At that time a certain amount of criticism was raised on the score of vehicles that were obviously out-of-date. I understand that more efficient vehicles are now being brought into service, and the more ancient and dilapidated ones are being thrown out. That is all to the advantage of the service as a whole. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how far the workshop part of the mechanised force is being developed. Obviously, if and when we have to employ force in the field, all questions of workshop development must be of very great importance, because I can visualise a force being very heavily weighted by the growth of the enormous number of workshops which will be necessary for the repair and possible replacement of vehicles that are knocked out. We should like to hear some account of what has been done in the way of that development.
    The development of six-wheeled vehicles is extraordinarily interesting. Anyone who has seen them and knows about them realises that for going over rough country with heavy weights they are extraordinarily useful. I should like to
    2228
    ask how far that vehicle has been adopted by commerce, because we might get better value by subsidising the use of these six-wheeled vehicles in the commercial world, thereby, perhaps, reducing the capital cost of vehicles to be kept ready for Army requirements. I notice that the amount in the Estimates for subsidies remains fixed at £40,000 a year. It shows that there is no great advance along that line at present, but perhaps the War Office have under consideration plans for approaching big commercial firms, seeing that, as heavy commercial vehicles are now moving on the roads to a greater extent than before, we might cheapen our expenditure by means of subsidies.
    I was extremely interested to hear about the movement going on as regards infantry battalions formed with mechanical units at Aldershot and Tidworth. How far are those mechanical units to be used for the actual conveyance of troops, in other words, for the quick movement of troops across country? These mechanical vehicles can pierce a line, but they are sometimes put to hold a line, and I should like to know whether the battalions are being organised with the idea, not only of pushing up behind an attacking force, but actually carrying men quickly to a point of vantage. Any information on that would be extremely interesting. Generally speaking, undoubtedly the progress of mechanical vehicles is going on very fast. We can see it all round us in the civil world and the movement in the affairs of the Army is extraordinarily interesting. It is undoubtedly a factor that must be used in the future, and with our small Army, we are well advised to spend all we can in research and investigation of the best methods of making ourselves really efficient with this type of vehicle for war purposes. Therefore, the country is receiving good value in expenditure in this direction, because it needs a small, quick moving Army which would make itself felt if and when required.
    I was very interested to hear of the expenditure on housing accommodation for married officers and other ranks, because undoubtedly that is a grievance that has been very much felt by our officers at outlandish stations. Housing for our officers is as necessary as it is

    2229
    in our large cities. The suffering, discomfort and general disadvantage for some years has been great, and I am very glad to see this progress being made. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the system of insuring men against unemployment for a year and a half after leaving the Service. How far is the money used to help men who have gone through vocational training to get into trades? Some of these men have to be apprenticed before they can he accepted into the unions as skilled tradesmen. I heard the other day of certain men who found it extremely difficult to get into the trade in which they had had training, because of the difficulty of maintaining themselves during the earlier period. I should like to ask a question with regard to the compassionate grant administered by the committee at Chelsea. They handle certain sums of money in dealing with hard cases outside the Regulations, eases of men possibly who, though they have had 21 years' Army service, have done broken service—left it and come back to it—and they are not entitled under the Regulations to a pension. Then there are cases of hardship where men have been hurt abroad. I know of a man who was hurt at football and it was proved that he was not actually hurt in performing military duties. How far does the committee deal with cases of hardship of that kind and is the compassionate grant being utilised as it might be?
    I regret to see the reduction in the amount of money spent on the Territorial Army. I look upon the Territorial Army as the real second line of our forces. I have felt for many years, and I have expressed the opinion both in this House and before I came into it, that the Territorial Army is not yet sufficiently knit into our proper Army system. It could, I think, by the reorganisation of our Army, be much more closely connected with the Regular Army. What I mean by that is, that brigades might be formed partly of Territorial units and partly of Regular units rather than having complete brigades of Regular units. If this were done, we should have the great advantage of a definite home inside the Regular unit to which Territorial officers and others could go and obtain training, and we should get an interchange which
    2230
    would enable the Regular officers to work with the Territorial Army. In the same way we should get a great advantage in in regard to the instructional staff, the non-commissioned officers. Also, if we could get a particular Territorial unit and a Regular unit associated with the civil population in a particular area, it might prove to be a great asset in time of war in connection with recruiting.
    At the present time the Territorial Army suffers from a lack of touch with the Regular Army. Certain officers do get into touch with the Regular Army, but on the whole this could be very much improved. I know that the absence of touch is very largely due to the location of our barracks in the country. We have barracks at places like Aldershot away from the civil population, and also at Cannock Chase and Tidworth. If the War Office proposed to embark upon a reconditioning of barracks it might be considered advisable to construct barracks near large centres of population, so that those barracks could get into touch with the civil population, and thereby assist in the creation of complete brigades comprising Regular and Territorial troops. This would not in any way interfere with what may be called the taking away of Regular troops for small wars. We could always take them from the brigades of the Regular armies and use them when a small expeditionary force was necessary. If we came to a big war—which I hope we shall not—we should have the great advantage that we should not lave to break up organised brigades, as we did in the Great War, by bringing a less experienced type of battalions into the regular formation. If we had brigades formed in times of peace, partly Territorial and partly Regular, we could get an efficient organisation in wartime. I have felt for a long time that a movement for the closer knitting together of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army would be an advantage in bringing the Army into the minds of the people much more than is the case at present. The Navy is in the minds of the people largely because of the relationship which the mercantile marine bears to it. I do not see why we cannot do something on those lines for the Army.

    2231
    I would like to know how far the Officers' Training Corps is fulfilling its function of providing officers for the Territorial forces. Are officers really coming to the Territorial forces from that corps? This is a thing which ought to be closely watched and encouraged in every way possible. I notice in the White Paper with some misgivings, I will not say alarm, that our recruiting has been somewhat uneven. How far does this affect the balance of the Army as regards discharges and incomings? Has the incoming flow during the last two years at this distance from the Great War become balanced so that we have a regular inflow and a regular outflow from the Regular Army? Is the Special Reserve, which I notice is larger than it was last year, considered sufficient in case of mobilisation? Supposing our Regular forces had to mobilise to-morrow, are we in a satisfactory position, especially with regard to the technical side or the technical units? Is there any reserve now behind the Territorial Force? Have we any reserves coming along behind the Territorial Force? If not, possibly it might be advisable to move in that direction. I have no doubt that many people, even without remuneration, would like to keep touch with the Forces in this way.
    Viscount SANDON: There is the Territorial Force Reserve.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: I want to know exactly to what extent that reserve exists and how it is progressing. I now come to the question of our troops abroad. I am concerned regarding some of the accounts which I have heard of the great fatigue that the troops have experienced during their period of residence in China. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to China. Is he satisfied now as regards the percentage of the troops there who may be in hospital? To what extent are troops being changed over from their garrison in China and given a tour in other places? I am glad to see that there is a reduction in the force and that generally it is contracting. I have heard of one or two cases of hardship to officers, who, after serving out there for two years and longer, have been ordered to India for additional service. Is it the policy of the War Office to send certain officers to India for additional service for three years before
    2232
    allowing them to come home? I should be very grateful for information on that subject, because it is rather hard that these officers and men who have suffered from being quartered out there, in some cases in rather poor cantonments—huts were put up in smelly quarters in Shanghai—should now be sent to India, and not be allowed leave at home.
    Lastly, I want to refer to the question of the War Office. I notice here that although there have been decreases in the amount of money to the Territorial Force and in other directions, the administration at the War Office shows an increase. I know it will be said that they have to handle mechanised forces and other things. I have heard a criticism made by those who are well fitted to express criticism, that the staff of the War Office has not really been reduced as it might have been. This refers not so much to the military side as to the civil side. Undoubtedly reductions have been made in the lower grades of clerks and others, but the higher grades remain excessive. I pass on this criticism for what it is worth. I would suggest that the cases of those who receive basic salaries of over £800 might be looked into. We might get economies there, and equally efficient work done.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) that it is a pity we cannot discuss the three Services together. We had a very useful discussion last year on this subject, and it certainly was extremely useful crystallising ideas on the subject. I am satisfied that we shall get no real progress towards cutting down the expenditure on the Services unless we examine them as a whole. We have the Imperial War College, which, I know, is doing good work in educating officers for the three Services for the higher appointments. I am satisfied that those facers ultimately will be extraordinarily useful in forming a collective staff to administer the three Services combined. I do not for one moment say that it will be desirable to have what has been called a Ministry of Defence. We might run the Services by means of a Board. Why not have a Services Board and run the Services in that way?
    At any rate, I think the House feels that it is a pity that under our procedure we have to discuss the individual Estimates each year without any relation

    2233
    to the other Services. We feel sure that in that way economies could be carried out. We know that on the supply branch alone economies could be carried out. Efforts are being made at the present moment towards co-ordinating supplies, and undoubtedly by co-ordinating supplies economies could be obtained by standardisation and by bringing in various economies we could undoubtedly get a saving. I hope that in the next Parliament this very important subject will be thoroughly tackled and thrashed out, and that thereby we shall make an advance towards additional economies. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the state of the Army. He ought to be proud of it and of his administration of it. I think we on these benches feel that he and his staff have taken a very great deal of trouble to do everything they can to make it efficient and at the least possible expense.
    Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Like other Members of the House, I have listened with great interest to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. He put, perhaps, rather more stress on the mechanised side of the Army than he did upon personnel, and it is about the personnel that I want to ask a few Questions. We read in -the White Paper, and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) drew attention to the fact, that in order to get the requisite number of troops, it was found necessary last October to reduce the dental standard, and, again, in the middle of December to reduce the height of recruits from 5 feet 3 inches to 5 feet 2 inches. Those seem to me rather deplorable facts. I should like to know the official explanation as to why in a year when there is so much unemployment in the country, and when there is such universal distress, there is not a greater rush of desirable young men to join His Majesty's Army. The War Office is going on the right lines in increasing, as far as possible, vocational training. A reason which keeps young men from going into the Army, is the want of any certainty of a career after the short term of years which they serve. They see old soldiers, who have been very good as old soldiers, out of jobs all over the country, and that naturally discourages young men from enlisting. I hope that the right hon.
    2234
    Gentleman—I trust he will long continue at the War Office—will look into this question, and increase vocational training in the services as much as possible.
    Perhaps it would help the soldier to get into touch with civil occupations if it were possible to localise the Army more than it is. I know that is a very thorny question. In every other Army that I have known abroad, the regiments are localised definitely in peace stations. We have gone on the other line. It is, of course, impossible for us absolutely to localise our regiments, because we have to feed the battalions abroad, but to a certain extent they might be more localised. That would save expense both to the officers and the men, and it would enable the men to get more into touch with jobs which they might occupy when they leave the Army.
    What is the actual position as regards Sandhurst? I know that there has been a lack of candidates at the entrance examinations. When I went to Sandhurst, which was a good many years ago, the proportion of candidates to vacancies was five to one. At the present time I believe there is great difficulty in getting sufficient candidates to fill the places. That is deplorable, because the Army for its officers and staff will have to depend upon Sandhurst. What is the reason for this lack of candidates? In recent years, there has been introduced higher pay for the married officer over 30 years of age. A boy who is choosing his career at the age of 18, does not take into consideration, or he ought not, whether he will be able to marry.
    I have heard from the Liberal Benches strong pleas that marriage allowances should be given to Naval officers. I agree that if marriage allowances are given to Army officers, there is far stronger claim for such allowances being given to Naval officers. Personally, although many of my friends would be against it, I should be in favour of taking away the marriage allowance from Army officers, and spreading it over all the officers, including the younger officers. Why should we give a special allowance to an officer because he is married? When an officer becomes married he is Trot nearly as good a regimental officer. He is much more efficient as a regimental officer when he is not married. Why should His Majesty's Government pay a

    2235
    man for becoming less efficient for his job than he was before? It would be much better to take the money from the married officers and to spread it out. That would attract more young men to the Army.
    Then there is the question of promotion. There has been terrible stagnation in regard to promotion. I would suggest the possibility of moving some of the higher ranks. We have very capable officers in various top jobs in the Army, and I would suggest that some of them, every three or four years, might go by a sort of rotation. At the present time they go round from one very high job to another. I suggest that some of these officers might retire. That would give some hope to some of the younger officers. Although some of these higher officers are very good in their jobs, it is a mistake to think that there are not probably younger officers sufficiently capable to fill their places.
    As regards the mechanisation of the Army, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the fact that any form of mechanical transport which we introduce always goes very rapidly out-of-date. If we are going to spend a very large sum of money in getting these machines, it may well be that some new invention will arise and our machines will have to be scrapped. Another question which arises is whether we can get the necessary mobility with a mechanical force if we are to have sufficient offensive power. I am afraid that if we are to have sufficient offensive power, we shall lack sufficient mobility. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will reply to the points which I have raised.
    Mr. TINKER: I listened to the very interesting statement of the right hon. Gentleman. As long as we get successive reductions of the Army Estimate we are on the right lines. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned other countries and the increases in their armaments. That, of course, is very alarming. It may be possible that those other countries may be reviewing our armaments in regard to our armed services. It may be that in bringing their estimates before their Governments they are pointing to our Air Estimates and our Navy Estimates as evidences of increase on our part. It
    2236
    would be far better if we could discuss the whole of our Fighting Service Estimates together, and then we should be able to make a proper comparison.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Could the hon. Member give a better example to other countries of reduction in armaments than the reduction of the British fleet since the end of the War?
    Mr. BECKETT: Yes, the German example is much better.
    Mr. TINKER: I do not want to get into controversy. I wish to keep to the real facts of the situation. If we could discuss the whole of our armaments together, we should have a better idea of things. I am not prepared to see our Army scrapped, while other countries have their armies. I should like some explanation with regard to the proportion of officers to men. We might ask ourselves whether we have not too many officers in comparison with the number of men. We could make economies in that direction. I have worked out some figures, and I find that in the Territorial Army we have 6,932 officers to 132,244 men, or one officer to 19 men. Could we not decrease that proportion of officers? One officer to 19 men appears to me to he excessive. In the Regular Army we have 7,117 officers of regimental establishments to 132,252 other ranks, or one officer to 18 men. In miscellaneous establishments we have 786 officers to 4,543 men, or one officer to six men. I can understand the greater number of officers in the latter case because these are more in the nature of teaching establishments. Taking the whole of the figures, for the Regular Army we have one officer to 15 men. Could not the War Office reduce that proportion, and have more men to one officer?
    Along with other Members of Parliament, I witnessed the manoeuvres on 12th July, and I was much impressed with the mechanisation of the Army. It is a dreadful thing to see the engines of war that we have at the present time. That example might well be enough to convince anybody that the time has come to do away with every kind of engine of war, if possible. One dreads the idea that nations might have to fight each other by these means. The sentiment and the spectacular side of war is being wiped out, and probably that is all for

    2237
    the best. Although we have to maintain fighting services, one hopes that the time is not far distant when we shall be able to do away with the Army altogether.
    Countess of IVEAGH: It might seem unusual for a woman to intervene in an Army Debate were it not for the fact that this is a general discussion on the activities of the War Office, which gives me my only opportunity of raising a matter which may seem small in regard to the whole activities of the Army and which may seem small to this House, but which is of very great moment to those whom I have the honour to represent. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Memorandum, mentions the great increase in the size and range of our heavy artillery. Of course, during the manufacture of those heavy pieces it becomes necessary for the guns to undergo tests, and those tests are carried out quite close to London. Shells are fired from a spot in Kent, right across the Thames estuary, to the other side of Essex, and they pass over the large and populous county borough of which I am the representative in this House. It is not necessary for me to expatiate on the effect of shells passing immediately overhead. Hon. and gallant Members will certainly understand what it is like when shells from 16-inch guns are passing overhead, and they will realise the cumulative effect, of that when it continues, as it does during these tests, for 10 or 12 hours.
    The borough which I represent lies along the coast. It happens to be, I think, the largest provincial borough in the matter of population returning a single Member to this House. It lies along the coast to the extent of six miles and right along the whole of that radius these shells pass. The result is, and must necessarily be, considerable damage to the inhabitants of that very populous area not far from the Metropolis. The damage is of two kinds—damage to health and damage to property. I should like to mention, first, the damage to health as being certainly the more important. In that connection I would point out that some 20,000 of my constituents come up to London every day to work. Their chief reason for living at what is rather a considerable distance from their work is in the majority of cases that they have a member of their family who is not strong, who is delicate
    2238
    in some way, and has been recommended to live by the sea, on medical advice. It is a very great boon to people of small means, who earn their living in London, to be able to live at the seaside, in a health resort, and yet be able to follow their employment in the Metropolis.
    This matter affects the whole population of London. It is largely the custom for doctors in London to recommend less wealthy patients who are in need of rest and a period of convalescence to go to Southend-on-Sea, where they can get, at a moderate cost and at no great distance from their homes in London, rest and air which, as I can vouch from my own experience, is second to none. A very large number of people depend on this borough as a health resort, and this heavy gunfire has a very deleterious effect. I hold in my hand a letter signed by 34 medical men practising in the borough. I will not trouble the House by reading the whole of it, but I should like to quote the concluding paragraph, which puts the case much stronger than anything I can say:
    "Instances in which definite injury has resulted in such patients are within our experience, while ill-effects on children have been frequently brought to our notice. A continuance of the heavy gunfire from the Isle of Grain will, in our opinion, injuriously affect the reputation of the borough as a health resort and will cause serious hardship to numerous residents engaged in business in London who, for reasons of health, have been compelled to take up residence within the borough, but who in the interests of the health of themselves or of their families will he forced to leave should the heavy gunfire continue."
    Then there is the damage to property. That is of less moment, but it might easily, some day, result in loss of life and limb. It is not only a question of broken windows, but also of falling ceilings. These are cases which I have verified for myself; they are not exaggerated. In one case the ceiling of a house fell down lust as the people were leaving, and in another case the ceiling fell on a child's bed, fortunately unoccupied at the moment. This means a great deal in a borough where the inhabitants depend for a livelihood on letting their rooms to those who come for a holiday or for health. It is not very likely that visitors who have had this experience will wish to repeat it.

    2239
    I know, of course, that the testing of these guns is a national necessity. My right hon. Friend has assured me that it is difficult to find any other suitable locality for carrying it out, and I quite appreciate how convenient it must be to have a place for testing these guns so close to Woolwich, and how convenient it must be for the experts who have to go down to superintend to be able to go there with the smallest inconvenience and loss of time. I should like to ask him, however, whether it is not possible to deflect the firing so that it should not pass immediately over the town—I find, on inquiry, that the ill effects are not felt at a comparatively short distance from the town itself—or carry out experiments in sound deflection? I hope I shall not have to tell my unfortunate constituents that my right hon. Friend cannot hold out a crumb of comfort, or grain of hope, and that they must expect, as science and research will possibly produce even larger weapons of war, the damage from which they suffer to increase rather than diminish.
    Mr. BECKETT: The Noble Lady is the first woman Member to join in a Debate on Army Estimates since I have been a Member of the House. I was hoping to hear from her the views of the wives and mothers of this country, protesting against a conclave, consisting mainly of ex-army officers, cheerfully proposing to spend £40,000,000 on preparing for the next war, when they cannot find as many pence for dealing with the social problems of the country. Instead of that she complained about the noise of gunfiring in Southend. I have great sympathy with the people of Southend in that matter, but in my opinion it would be a good thing if the Secretary of State for War would give instructions that other towns in England besides Southend should have the benefit of hearing our preparations for war. Shells are extremely unpleasant when going overhead, but they are even worse if they stop before they have gone overhead. It would be just as well if Woolwich and Oldham, and other industrial towns and health resorts, could appreciate the advantages for which they are paying something like 5s. 9d. in the pound in taxation. If the Financial Secretary could prevent Southend having this constant noise and enable other districts to share it, it might
    2240
    make the country a little more determined to spur on the Government to a more strenuous and active disarmament policy.
    It is perfectly ridiculous and Gilbertian, all these years after the War, for us in this House to discuss enormous Estimates of this kind. I am not a pacifist at any price. I am not prepared to say that in no circumstances must men rise to defend themselves, their homes or their country. I can quite conceive circumstances which would justify the use of force. I am not expressing the point of view of those who say "Peace at any price"; that if a man hits you on one cheek you must turn to him the other cheek. I do not preach that doctrine. The Minister takes credit because the numbers of men actually serving have been reduced. He might do that, but we have to take into account the new conditions of modern warfare, and also the two other fighting services for which the House is responsible. Modern warfare does not need so much personnel. A comparative handful of men, invested with the most scientific modern weapons, can do much more damage than many hundreds and thousands of men a few years ago. It is possible, under modern conditions of warfare, to lay down a far greater aggressive frame for military operations within a comparatively limited expenditure, and it can be expanded into a great aggressive instrument at short notice. It is much easier to do that now than it was before.
    I am not blaming the Secretary of State for War. I blame this House which forces him by the policy it pursues to provide a greater military aggressive weapon than we have ever had before in our history. If there was the slightest sign of our having to fight for anything worth fighting for, I should not oppose it, but there is not a Member of this House, looking with a spy-glass all over the world and examining most minutely every diplomatic negotiation, who can point out any enemies whom we are likely to be called upon to fight in this generation. The Chief Whip of the Liberal party, even in the fire-eating mood with which he preached the principles of retrenchment, goodwill and reform, could only talk about little wars. As I listened to him I quite understood his indignation at the suggestion that he was engaged in a pact with the party opposite. I can

    2241
    see no reason why the party opposite should oppose him. His speech was certainly more militaristic than anything from the Government Benches, and he has just cause at being angry with us for suggesting that there has been a pact.
    We are not only voting away this enormous sum of money for an instrument which we are not going to use on anybody—everyone is agreed upon that—but we do not even use the Army, the great and efficient internal organisation of the Army, for the purposes of the country. I notice that one eighth of this £40,000,000 is for miscellaneous items, supplies, road transport, and remount services, and as I went through the items I was struck with the enormous amount of service which could be rendered to the community by these military resources. An hon. Member who spoke has warned the Government to be careful how they spend large sums of money in new forms of mechanical transport and appliances in view of the fact that these are constantly changing. It would be much better if we could use all these trained engineers and drivers, and all this mechanical transport, for the service of the country. In the summer apples rot and fall to the ground. Some are eaten by wasps and bees, but in every town there are little children who need food and who cannot get apples because they are too dear. Farmers cannot get them to the towns because the cost of transport is so high. If we must spend £40,000,000 on the Army why not use the transport services of the Army to bring that food into the towns and give it to the women and children who want it? I commend that suggestion to hon. Members opposite who are anxious to popularise the Army.
    6.0 p.m.
    I want to raise one or two small administrative points. The first is the question of taking boys into the Army. This is sometimes done in a wholly unsatisfactory way. I doubt whether a single Member of the House could say that he has not had at least one case brought to his notice of a boy under age who has been taken into the Army without his parents' consent under what appear to be extraordinarily peculiar circumstances. I and my colleagues on these benches have come across a large number of these cases. I am afraid that the War Office is not above suspicion in the matter, because it will not adopt the only safe-
    2242
    guard that is possible. That safeguard is that, in cases in which there is the slightest doubt about a boy's age, he must bring the written consent of his parents to his joining the Army. It is all very well to say that we must get recruits to maintain the personnel of the Army. I would like any hon. Member to visualise a boy of his own who has run away to join the Army, and has been accepted although under age. That hon. Member would be faced with every kind of red tape and considerable expense in trying to get the boy out of the Army. The Financial Secretary knows as well as I do that sometimes, even when we can convince the War Office that a boy ought to come out, there is delay and difficulty before we succeed in getting him out. We should have more confidence in the bona fides of the War Office if the War Office would say definitely that it would not accept boys unless they had the sanction of their parents. Compliance with that request could be granted without imperilling the Empire. We do not depend on the kidnapping of boys in order to save the country.
    Then there is the question of the circumstances in which serving men are invalided out of the Army. I have had the cases of men with a number of years' experience who were making the Army a career. They were beginning to make their way upwards, when they were discharged on medical grounds without adequate reason. The two cases I have in mind are of men who served overseas. When they came back to England the civilian doctors declared that the illness for which they were discharged did not exist. The Financial Secretary may remember that I saw him about one of these cases, and he was very considerate. It was the case of a man who had given many years to the Army, was told he was suffering from tuberculosis, and was discharged. He was examined at home by all sorts of specialists, who said that ha had not a vestige of tuberculosis. The man then tried to get back into the Army, but the Army would not have him. I wrote to the Financial Secretary and he sympathised with the position of the man but he could not do anything because there was no proper court of appeal. A lot of kind things are said about Army doctors. I daresay they are true. My own experience was at an

    2243
    abnormal time of rush, and I may have been prejudiced. But at the same time, however adequate the average Army doctor may be as a general practitioner, he is not the ultimate authority when it comes to dealing with the question of a serious and deep-rooted disease.
    Even worse things happen quite frequently when men are discharged. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) who asked in this House what was the number of men, discharged for tuberculosis, who got a pension. I am sorry that I do not remember the exact figures, but I know that I was impressed at the time with the very small number of those who, having been discharged because they had tuberculosis, got no pension. The Minister, in his reply, said that the trouble was that most of these men had the roots of tuberculosis within them before they joined the Army, and that the disease was not due to their Army service. What is the position? A man goes into the Army. He spends seven or eight years serving, a medical board having declared him "fit." He serves overseas, and conies home with tuberculosis, and the disease is said not to be due to his Army service. That man has no appeal. We are always being led to believe that the senior service is the strict and the rigid service, and that the Army is much more lenient. The Admiralty have given way on this point, and have agreed that these men shall have the right of independent appeal and adjudication. When the citadel of the Board of Admiralty has fallen, surely it is not beneath the dignity of the Secretary of State for War to do justice in these cases. It is not fair that men whose careers are ruined by illness should be dismissed from the Army without pensions and without any independent appeal.
    Another matter that I want to raise relates to the using of soldiers for work outside their military duties. Members on both sides of the House must have been considerably concerned the other day at the extraordinary answers that were given by the Secretary of State in reply to questions about serving soldiers being used in London theatres. In one West End theatre—unfortunately, the production had not the run that its promoters anticipated—a considerable num-
    2244
    ber of serving soldiers were apparently to be employed every night, and at that time a long run was anticipated. We were told by the Secretary of State that, provided the work did not interfere with military duties, these men were free to take on any engagement they liked, and that the question of remuneration or anything of that sort had nothing to do with the War Office or with the men's commanding officer. That was an extraordinary statement to make, and the Secretary for War hastened to limit it. He was asked whether serving soldiers could take on any occupation that they liked, and he replied: 'Oh, no, certain occupations would not be allowed," although less than a minute before he had told the Rouse that he did not even know these men were being employed and that their commanding officers did not know, and so on. I should think that hon. Members opposite would view with great alarm some occupations, which I need not specify here, but which they can imagine if they have in their minds what is said by papers that deal with what is called the Red Peril. On our side those particular things do not cause alarm, but I am alarmed at the prospect of men who are supposed to be serving being released from all kind of guard duties and night duties, and being free to go off in the morning for rehearsals, and in the evening to play their parts, and at the same time being part of the Army, and drawing Army pay. It seems to me to be an improper interference with civilian labour and that if soldiers can be spared to do this kind of work, they can be transferred to the Reserve and spared altogether from being a burden on the taxpayers of the country.
    I am sorry to have detained the House so long. I ask the House to make it clear to the Government that these inflated and ridiculous Estimates have to be stopped, and that the spending of £40,000,000 of money in order to arm against somebody that we do not know, is bad business. It is not tranquillity, it is not business government, and it is not common sense. It is wastefulness, it is extravagance, it is squandermania and it is ridiculous, and, what is mere serious, it is a very grave danger to the peace of this country and of the world.
    Major GLYN: The House must have listened with a certain amount of sur-

    2245
    prise to the speech of the last speaker. I was reminded of the fact that very often the speeches that he delivers in the country do not congratulate the Government on their foreign policy in the way that indirectly he has congratulated the Government to-day. If his speech meant anything it meant that the Army is not necessary, because the foreign policy of the Government has been so successful and there are no war clouds at all.
    Mr. BECKETT: I can explain that by saying that my audiences in the country have a sense of humour.
    Major GLYN: I trust that no Member of this House says on public platforms what he would not say in this House, because if we speak at all we ought all to speak the truth whether inside or outside the House. I do not follow the hon. Member's explanation. The hon. Member also seemed to think that the expenditure of the War Office is excessive, and he used a great many adjectives to show that it is ridiculous and bad for the taxpayer. Surely it is time that we understood one thing—that we ought to consider defence as a whole, the three Services together, somehow or other; and also that we must consider that it is not for us to blame those who have to frame the Estimates when they put forward what they consider necessary. Estimates are framed in accordance with the policy of the Government. If this country, through the League of Nations or any other organisation, accepts foreign liabilities which in certain circumstances would involve our participating in hostilities, in our doing something to check a wrong-doer among the nations, what is the use of our promise to come to the assistance of any country if we have not the wherewithal to carry out that promise? It seems to me that either we ought to recognise that we have no business at all to pledge ourselves by Locarno Pacts or anything else to do certain things, or else we ought to say that we believe so tremendously in peace that we will have no defence at all. I do not believe in that, and I do not think there is a single hon. Member who believes in it.
    We all remember what happened in this House in 1914. It was then that those gentlemen who had been so sure that we were wrong to have any armaments
    2246
    at all made themselves very scarce, and the country recognised that the policy which, while not wanting war at all, yet saw to it that we had adequate means of defence, was indeed the only policy which any great nation could pursue. The statement of the Secretary of State for War is satisfactory. I do not think we can expect, during this period of evolution, to have a satisfactory armed land force at a cheaper price. There is, if I may say so with great respect, an unfortunate habit growing up for the responsible Minister in the Cabinet to be absent from the House when the Estimates are being discussed. It is only on one day of the year that these Estimates come up. It is the only chance we have and yet, for instance, the speech made just now by the Noble Lady the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) was missed by the right hon. Gentleman—although I am sure it will be conveyed to him by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. But some of us feel that, while this question of defence may not be popular to-day, we have a right to ask that the responsible Cabinet Minister should make it convenient to be in the House. That was always the custom, as far as I know, in previous Parliaments.
    There is one matter which I wish to emphasise in regard to vocational training. We all regret the absence of the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the War Office during the period of office of the Socialist Government. We are sorry for the reason of his absence, and hope he will soon be restored to health. He was one of the most able and popular Secretaries of State the War Office has ever known—I think that fact ought to be known up and down the country—and he was most ably supported by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson). It is right to point out that it was through the policy of that party when in office that the Catterick scheme was started. The Catterick scheme was successfully initiated then and recently it has been moved to Chisledon. May I say how delighted I am to see the Secretary of State for War again in his place, because I am going to say something which I should hate to say behind his back, but which I am sure he will not mind my saying before his face. I believe that the vocational training which

    2247
    has been pushed forward by successive Governments has in it the germs of something great and good for the Army. The right hon. Gentleman has said that our Army is small and that we must have the very best type of men that we can get. If we are to get good mechanics, good engineers and men who will make the Army what it ought to be, namely, the most scientific force that any country could possess, we must give them not only good conditions and good pay while they are in the Army, but we must do everything we can to see that they have prospects when they leave the Army. That is the very least for which one can ask.
    The training centre at Chisledon happens to lie close to where I live, in my constituency. I have had the opportunity of seeting it on several occasions, and I hope that before it is too late the Secretary of State himself will find time to visit it. It is, in my opinion, the best organisation which exists in the Army to-day, and it has achieved increased notoriety by reason of the fact that the British Legion have sent there 40 families who are receiving training of the most admirable kind. I have visited various training centres in this country under the Ministry of Labour and other organisations, and I say, without hesitation, that the Chisledon scheme of training is infinitely superior to anything else I have seen. That is largely due to the energies of the very wonderful individual who is in charge of it. If he could be repeated one hundred fold up and down this country and bring his powers of organisation to bear, we should soon find it possible to attract into these training centres families who are suffering terribly by reason of trade depression and give them such preparation as would make them almost certain to succeed overseas.
    I was lucky enough to be at Chisledon on the day after these 40 families arrived there. I have never seen men and their wives and families in such a terrible state. They came from every part of the country. The children had not had enough food, and the men themselves had not enjoyed a decent square meal of meat for a very long time. Nobody who saw them could fail to be impressed. I cannot help agreeing with an hon. Member who has spoken on the Opposition side that the recruiting returns this year
    2248
    constitute a terrible condemnation of the social conditions in this country. If that be so, is it not all the more reason to utilise this wonderful experiment at Chisledon, organised by the Army, and make it an example and a pattern that might be followed elsewhere? This, I have no doubt, would be the wish of hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members of every party, and if on some other occasion, instead of a visit to the tanks on Salisbury Plain—interesting as they were—the right hon. Gentleman would organise a party from this House to visit Chisledon, we should have an opportunity of seeing a very important side of Army administration and appreciating the wonderful work that has been done in connection with this branch of the War Office's activities.
    There is one point on which I am afraid one must speak in a rather critical manner. If we are going to take men into the Army and if we are, towards the end of their service, going to encourage them to go overseas and settle down; if we are going to have men and their families trained under the auspices of this organisation at Chisledon, and the British Legion, then they must have a fair deal. I am satisfied that the War Office intend them to have a square deal, but I draw attention to a matter of serious concern about which I have heard something from one of these men. In the White Paper circulated by the Secretary of State, it is said that the policy of Chisledon is to settle men and their families on farms. When this scheme was originated at Catterick. Australia was open for colonisation and settlement. We have here an example of watertight methods of government to-day. The War Office have this splendid scheme, but what is being done by the Oversea Settlement Committee and the Dominions Office? It seems to me that the whole object of such a training centre is to have continuity. By the grace of Providence the British Empire is such that the most suitable time to send men to Canada is April, and the most suitable time to send men to Australia is the autumn. Therefore it is no use having a centre only able to work for six months—which is the period of time in which these men and their families receive training. We should, after the Canadian contingent have gone, be able to open up Australia so that the next batch could

    2249
    go to Australia, and we should be able to give them equal chances in each Dominion.
    Since 1926 not a single family has gone to Australia. The Western Australian group settlement scheme has been closed down. The reasons have never been fully explained to the House by the Secretary of State for the Dominions, but those of us who try to keep in touch with these matters know that there has been some difference of opinion between the Western Australian State Government, and the Government of the Prime Minister of Australia. In Canada the position is still more complicated. There, the Canadian Government in Ottawa say that they have sovereign powers over some of the provincial governments and they have taken over complete charge of the settlement of persons in the prairie provinces. In the paper entitled "Memorandum on the 'Service Families Scheme' for Migration to Canada in the Spring of 1929," which is issued by the War Office, dated May, 1928, is the following sentence:
    "The underlying object of the Dominion Authorities is to place each family on a farm selected for its suitability as offering the best prospects of the early success of the family."
    It goes on to say:
    "The main consideration of the Dominion Authorities in allotting farms is the prospect of success of each family."
    These are admirable sentiments and they are in accordance with the War Office's wish. But what happened? A representative of the Government of Canada went to Chisledon and made known to the men who were going out facts in regard to the classification of farms for British settlement in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Having described the acreage, situation, buildings, etc., he went on to say:
    "Owing to poor methods of cultivation, many of these farms have become greatly infested with the more serious noxious weeds such as sow thistle, wild oats, couch grass, etc. Under such conditions the growing of profitable grain crops is not possible until the land has been restored to a reasonably proper state of tillage. In other cases the soil has been overcropped, and the same condition applies. Restoration of the land must take place through manuring or raising crops such as sweet clover, alfalfa, etc."
    When we have a scheme such as we have at Chisledon, we should see to it that these men are settled on farms where
    2250
    they can make farming a success. They must not be farms such as other people in Canada will not touch. We have a direct responsibility in this matter and the War Office, when its attention has been called to these points, ought to make itself responsible with the Canadian Government and see that the farms, to which these families go in Canada, are suitable in every way. We should also, through the Dominion Office, take such steps as will enable land in Western Australia or other parts of Australia to be opened up for these people. I was in the Army for some years and I do not believe that the House of Commons is the place in which to, discuss technicalities which are far better known to the General Staff then to us. It is for us to say that we vote the money and that we can criticise anything that is wrong, but the matter to which I have just referred is in a different category. The War Office is the War Office and we are all aware that it cannot be like a "jack of all trades." Therefore, a scheme of this kind is our responsibility. We in the House of Commons ought to see that the proper Government Department makes such a scheme a success.
    I feel acutely about this matter, having seen what the British Legion can do in Canada and are doing here. I believe we have here something of which, if we nurse it, if we cultivate the proper spirit and co-operate in every way, we can make a huge success. The members of the British Legion in Canada and Australia, tell one how much they will do for ex-service men and for service men's families. Here is a means of making these people useful and happy citizens when they go abroad. I ask hon. Members not to allow any blunder to wreck the scheme. Do not let us have men going out there and becoming depressed and disappointed and creating the impression that the whole thing is a failure. I know, and hon. Members opposite who follow the question of vocational training know, that the Oversea. Settlement Committee is not a success as it works to-day. Government interference has been bad in many respects in all the Dominions, but we can do a lot to develop the schemes by linking up the ex-service men through the British Legion and by giving the War Office all

    2251
    the support we can in this House. We can encourage these schemes, feeling, not only that it is good for the Army to do so, but that it is doing something to repay the obligation which we owe to a great many families, who are in distress through no fault of their own, and only want to be settled down properly in order to make good overseas.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I do not propose to detain the House with any detailed criticism of these Estimates, but I feel it my duty, especially as these are the last Army Estimates in this Parliament, emphatically to put the Communist party's viewpoint on the subject of the Army. I readily accept that, as the world is situated, however much we may deplore and regret the fact, force and violence seem to play an inevitable part in human life on many occasions. I am not submitting the viewpoint, which hon. Members opposite sometimes seem to take, that we want to leave this country defenceless. The point which I wish to submit, quite seriously, is this, that here you are spending £40,000,000 in order to create an instrument of evil, not of defence. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. J. Beckett) and other hon. Members on this side—and this is amply proved by the history of the last 100 years and more—there has not been a nation in this world during the last 120 years which has landed a battalion or even a band of 12 armed men on these islands to attack the people of this country, but during the same period there is scarcely a country in the world which the Army of Great Britain has not attacked and invaded and in which the Army of Great Britain has not murdered innocent men, women, and children in the case of African tribes, Indians, Chinamen, Burmans, Malaccans, Persians, Afghans who have not the remotest chance of coming here to attack the people of this country, a British Army has been sent out into those countries to murder their innocent people in their own countries. This is the Army that we are creating and keeping up.
    I go further, and I emphatically declare that there is no need of national defence. I will give the example of small countries like Switzerland, or even like Albania. Those countries, without keeping armies
    2252
    to invade other people's countries, the world has left quite alone and independent, and there is no reason why the people of Great Britain should be attacked if they did not keep on attacking other people. At the same time, I am practically certain that, while there is no need of national defence, there is a great and growing need of class defence. Here are the people in this country, by the millions, extorted once a week by a fellow knocking at the door calling himself a landlord's agent and asking them for what he calls rent.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that these are the Army Estimates.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I submit that, if I had to organise an army for the defence of the people of this country, I would organise an army to see that every landlord's agent was taken care of and kept away from the doors of the people.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This seems rather remote from these Estimates.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I admit that, in the present mentality of this House, it looks so, but I consider that the Army is needed to defend the blackmailed population from the extortions of the landlords. Here are a million and a half persons, with their families, making many millions, who are simply, by force of law or by force of arms, put out of their right to work, and the Army of Great Britain is unable to defend those millions of human beings from the starvation which is created by the capitalist employers. We do need an army, but that army should be a workers' army while the world's cruel needs remain, in order to defend the workers against the rapacious demands and the oppression of the landlords, the employers, and the other tyrannical blackmailers. Here we see continually, every Saturday afternoon, on market day, the women, the white women. If they were attacked by Afghans or Persians, you would send a battalion to punish them, yet here we have millions of white women robbed by profiteers and shopkeepers and merchants week after week.
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is too far-fetched for the Army Estimates.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am making my point that the world is perhaps not so

    2253
    advanced as not to need an army for defence, but that in Great Britain the Army is never used for the defence of the people who suffer by the million, but it is always used as an instrument for murdering the people of other countries, to go and murder abroad, and I submit that, from this point of view, we have reached the stage when national armies are not required for national and international wars, but that, in the transitional period before complete peace, an army, if required at all, is required internally, as a workers' army, in defence of the suffering workers against the rapacious class that imposes upon them.
    Lord APSLEY: When the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) organises his army, I hope he will lend me some of them to defend myself against the tax collector, whose extortions are infinitely worse than those of the landlord. There are two items on these Estimates upon which I would like to comment. The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) commented on one, and that was the Estimate for the expenses and salaries of the War Office, which shows an increase of £8,000 this year. The sum, it is true, is a small one, but at a period when practically all the Departments are showing increases in administration costs, I think the public would be glad if the Financial Secretary would tell us in what respect this small increase has been caused. The other sum is one of £141,000 for general stores. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) mentioned this question of stores, and I think the House would be very glad of an opportunity to debate it some day, from the point of view of the possibility of getting greater co-ordination in buying stores between the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force. Perhaps next year, when the same right hon. Gentleman may be speaking on these Estimates, he will be able to show that on this item there is no longer an increase, but a very considerable decrease, due to the co-operation with the Army of the Navy and the Air Force in buying those materials which, after all, they often use in common, thus getting a very much cheaper contract and saving considerably in the expenses of administration.
    2254
    The House feels great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War in his difficulties in showing economies every year, as he is requested to do, and at the same time, during this very difficult transition period—periods which, by the way, occur after every War—in showing no decrease in the efficiency of the Army; and I think they may rightly congratulate him in that no great decrease in efficiency has occurred. All the same, I think I must mention that there are opinions at variance with some of those which we generally hear. I have heard the opinion indeed expressed that, owing to our anxiety to think for the future and to experiment for that future, the actual present condition of the Army is such that, were we now to be engaged in operations with our Expeditionary Force against a mobile enemy, well equipped with aircraft, with large numbers of mounted troops able to operate without being tied by their communications, and equipped with mechanical artillery, out own forces as now constituted, would find themselves pinned to their objectives and possibly immobilised—as indeed General Chetwode's Force was on manoeuvres the year before last—and then possibly put on the defensive and even surrounded and gradually mopped up. That is an opinion, and the reason is that, in spite of the increased mobility given by our mechanical forces and the mechanisation of all forces, the Army, as at present constituted, is losing very greatly its offensive power.
    I would ask permission to mention one or two reasons for that opinion. At this time last year the Secretary of State for War mentioned the question of automatic rifles, and he told us that experiments were being made with one. I understand that the American Army is almost entirely, or very largely, equipped at the present time with a highly efficient automatic, rifle which they have found satisfactory for both infantry and cavalry. I believe that weapons of a similar nature were tried over here, but that when they went down to Hythe—this is according to my reports, and I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—it was found that the bore was different, and Hythe immediately attempted to put our own 303 bore barrel on to the automatic rifle, with the result that the rifle proved useless owing

    2255
    to getting too heated. I quite understand the reasons that made them do that, but it is a curious repetition of history. The rifle came into use during the Peninsula War, and yet in the Crimean War, 50 years later, the infantry of the line was still using the old Brown Bess, and almost entirely owing to the fact that the rifle used a different bore and different ammunition. I think it is a possibility that we have got to face the fact that the 303 rifle, which was, in the opinion of many, obsolescent during the late War, is now altogether obsolete.
    During the late War the cavalry were using the Hotchkiss gun and the sword almost entirely, instead of the rifle, and hardly fired a shot with the rifle in Palestine towards the end of the campaign. In France the machine guns and bombs were equally taking the place of the rifle. With an efficient automatic rifle in view, even though it may be with a smaller bore supplied first to the Rifle Brigade, then the cavalry, and then the light infantry, it is possible that we shall be able gradually to replace the present 303 rifle altogether. In regard to machine guns, as the right hon. Gentle man mentioned last year, the Tank Corps has evolved a species of light tank called by some "the Tankette," which was to do the reconnaissance duties for the armoured force and possibly replace altogether the use of the horse. When this was tried in the manoeuvres last year, they found that they could not replace the horse at the present moment for reconnaissance duties and intercommunication in tactical operations; but, at the same time, they found that this small, light, armoured tank was most useful in supporting troops on reconnaissance duties, for which it was converted into an armoured machine gun carrier, and proved most useful. Now I gather that all arms are beginning to want this armoured machine gun carrier, both infantry and cavalry. They find in it an excellent means of carrying their machine guns into action, being able actually to fire, having protection so that they can use direct fire, even in open country.
    It is going to raise a difficult question whether this carrier is to become an Army weapon for all arms or for the Tank Corps only. At the same time, it
    2256
    raises this further difficulty. At the beginning of the War, the machine gun was a regimental weapon; there were, it is true, only two per regiment. During the War they were brigaded, and later the Machine Gun Corps was formed in order to supply the machine gun units with officers, men and material. This was not done without reason. It is difficult enough in peace to train and maintain machine gun companies and squadrons in each unit, but in war it is almost impossible. Apart from the tactical reasons that caused machine guns to be better handled by the Brigadier, it was found impossible to replace officer and men casualties with trained officers and men in the rush of battle conditions from the regimental organisation. That is the reason why the machine guns were put in the hands of the Brigadier, and personnel and material found by the Machine Gun Corps. Would it not be better to employ a similar organisation, or, better still, to put all formations using Vickers guns under the Tank Corps. These armoured machine gun carriers would thus be a brigade unit with one regiment per brigade administered by the Tank Corps and manned and officered by the Tank Corps.
    Then arises the question of the offensive power of the cavalry. The establishment of the cavalry brigade at the present moment, I gather, is two cavalry regiments and one armoured car regiment, and the establishment of each cavalry regiment is two sabre squadrons and one machine gun squadron, making only four mounted sabre squadrons to the brigade. Does that give very much offensive power in the cavalry brigade? It must be remembered that in countries consisting of forests, mountains, bogs, stones or, for any length of time, mud plains or heavy sands, no wheeled vehicles could accompany the cavalry. General Buffin's corps in its attack on Jerusalem was not able to avail itself of any wheeled transport and only one pack battery. The advance of the Fifth Cavalry Division on Aleppo was made without any wheeled transport whatever. Mounted troops are always faced with this possibility and these conditions. Only mounted troops can operate in countries like that—that is what they are for—yet if they are to have only foul squadrons per brigade, they will find all

    2257
    their machine gun squadrons being left behind, and they will be left with only four possibly weak squadrons to do operations for which you would expect them to have at least 12. In my opinion, the cavalry regiment should consist of four strong squadrons, and they should be backed up by mounted reserves at home, perhaps utilising the Yeomanry and Territorial organisations. There should be one machine gun regiment per brigade and one armoured car squadron. One squadron should be sufficient seeing that armoured cars are largely used for strategic reconnaissance purposes. In addition, there should be one self-propelled battery, of which we have not heard much lately.
    In that way the offensive power that cavalry ought to have would be maintained, and they would be able to act at once when required. At the present moment, I believe we should have to wait until the Australians could come; they have kept their mobility as they did during the War. They had troops of 40 men, and were not so much tied by convention as our regular cavalry are, I am afraid, apt to become. Their methods were simple, their objectives were also simple, and their language was plainer, too! It they could not get their objective, they cleared off and did something else instead! After all, what is the use of a mobile army unless it has mobility? It has not only to get there, but it has to get there first. If the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) went to Mexico carrying each a large gun on his hip which they were apt to brandish at any moment, and yet which it was plain for anybody to see that they were not loaded, what would be the result? They would certainly get shot! It would be better for them to go entirely unarmed. Then they would not get shot; they would merely get robbed. If you have any form of protection, you must make it clear that you know how to use it. The important factor of a mobile army of any sort is that it must be ready to move.
    I will give an example, which may have had a great influence in the later war. By the end of August, 1914, the first and second mounted divisions of yeomanry were fit to go abroad. The men and horses were of a fine type, and
    2258
    the recruits consisted mostly of old soldiers or young men who had been through an officers' training corps. They had had over four weeks' training. It is true that they were messed about to some extent on the East Coast instead of doing intensive training, such as was given later on with men of very much less capacity, but they were ready to take to the field, and if these two divisions had had equipment with which they could have taken the field, undoubtedly they would have been sent to France. At that moment, if two mounted divisions could have been placed on the flank of von Kluck just at the time when the Germans had shot their bolt, it would have exercised considerable influence on the whole conduct of the War, and have prevented the stagnation of trench warfare which took place immediately afterwards. The reason the mounted divisions were not sent out was that they were not properly equipped. They had been neglected before the War; they were only Territorials and had to take what they could be given. The saddles were of an ancient pattern which would have given every horse a sore back; the rifles were of an obsolete pattern; and they had practically no transport, and it was considered that they would be immobile and that it was not safe to send them out. It is a dangerous thing for a mobile force to be immobile, and yet the same applies to the yeomanry to-day. Take those units which are armoured car units. If they are to be armoured car units, they should be able to move now, and not have to wait until cars are manufactured. It is surely not an economy to keep the ancient cars, which in-petrol and repairs cost a considerable amount. It would be better to buy second-hand Rolls chassis and fit them with armoured bodies so that these units could take the field at once when required.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the armoured force and the experiments which were carried out last year, some of which Members of the House had pleasure in witnessing with great interest. This year, I gather, they are to be confined to operations with other troops, about which I am glad; I do not believe, however, that these experiments with armoured forces are much use in country

    2259
    such as Salisbury Plain, which we are not likely to meet in many parts of the world. Further, it is country they all know by heart now. It was very well in the early days when we wanted to create enthusiasm- for the new mechanised arm to have these set pieces that could be played off in front of King Amanullah or the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or other people interested, but if you are to get real training value out of operations, the War Office should go to places like Devonshire or Yorkshire where the country is rough and broken and not known to the troops, so that each unit would have to have its own reconnaissance. Then there would be real value in the reconnaissance and communication experiments of the armoured force. I hope that there will be some possibility of doing that, though I know financial considerations make it difficult.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: I cannot follow the Noble Lord in the detailed examination which he has made, but I would like to say a word about the astonishing example which he gave when dealing with the use of the cavalry and wheeled transport. He thought first of the town of Jerusalem as a place from which he could draw conclusions on the question which we are discussing. He must have had the Old Testament dispensation in mind, and how he could bring in Jerusalem in the matters which we are discussing almost passes comprehension. I am sure that the other parts of his speech were better founded; I do not understand them as he does, and I must leave them to him and the right hon. Gentleman. I should like to refer to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) and the question of education in the Army. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has understood what I had in mind when he was speaking. From what the right hon. Gentleman says, it appears that the Army are aiming to secure two things. They are trying to get from the mass in the Army a standard of education which is equal at the end to an elementary school training, and then for a few, but only for a few, they aim to secure further training that would take them to the matriculation level. When 64 per cent. of the applicants for recruit-
    2260
    went are excluded and when a specially selected body of youths is going into the Army, whom it can be assumed will retain a considerable amount of the education that they have already received in elementary schools, I cannot understand why the Army should be satisfied with the standard of education for the mass of the soldiers of just elementary school level.
    7.0 p.m.
    The training facilities and the higher cultural work that is being done with some of the soldiers should be extended so as to affect other men in the Army. All soldiers, from the point of view of full training, should be enabled to have at least the education standard which is aimed at in the secondary schools, unless of course, you want to keep the soldiers as mere takers of orders, as men with in initiative who are always to be looked upon as in some inferior position. I also agree with the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon, especially with regard to the relationships of the Army and its soldiers with Canada, that greater care should be taken to get men on to decent farms where there would be a decent opportunuity for them. In the long run, probably, this question can only be dealt with as part of the wider question of migration as a whole. I had the privilege, as I stated when we discussed the general question of migration, of seeing what happened in Canada. I heard of extremely satisfactory results having been obtained in cases where soldiers since the War and in connection with the settlement scheme had gone on to Canadian farms. But it is true that there are many cases where soldiers have gone on to land of an extremely unsatisfactory character and where there has not been anything like effective arrangements made beforehand; and I submit that the Army should turn some of its energy and expenditure in the future to getting better arrangements with the Canadian Government, so that those who go on to the land should have a better chance.
    I want to say that in spite of the fact that a case has been made out by the right hon. Gentleman that we are spending continuously less during these last five years on the Army as a whole, his speech went to prove that the Army is a more efficient instrument for war than

    2261
    ever it was. The Army is part of a general military scheme in which also the Air Force and the Navy play their part, and it is of no use trying to make us believe that a step is being taken towards disarmament because there have been certain reductions in the Estimates; it is no use trying to make us believe that that is any practical contribution towards disarmament. If you sign a Kellogg Pact and publish to the world in Article I that the high contracting parties, including yourself, solemnly declare in the names of their respective countries that they will renounce war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations one with another, if you do that it is impossible to go on as you are doing to-day keeping up an Army, not merely for the purpose of defence, but for the purpose ultimately of war abroad. It is not possible to make speeches of that sort logically and pretend that you attach any value to the Kellogg Pact to which you have now put your signature. If we are to be regarded as acting with sincerity in regard to peace and disarmament, and if we are to expect nations to attach that importance to our word which we would like them to attach to it, then we must do mare with the Army in the matter of reduction.
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr Duff Cooper): I will now reply to some of the questions raised in the course of the Debate, but I do not propose to deal with the question which has just been raised by the last speaker, namely, that of disarmament. That will be dealt with later on in the Debate. I propose now to reply to some of the more technical questions arising out of the discussion on the Estimates. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), who contributed an interesting speech to the Debate, criticised the increase in our Estimates in comparison with those offered to the House in 1914, but, when putting forward that criticism, he did not allow for the diminished purchasing power of the pound. If that is taken into consideration, then, so far from there being an increase, a decrease will he found to have occurred. There is a difficulty in obtaining an authoritative opinion as to the exact amount of that
    2262
    decrease, but it would be a fair estimate to say that it is two-thirds of what it was in 1914, and on that basis we find we are now spending 11 per cent. less in spite of the rise in wages and rise in pay, and in spite of the necessarily increased expenditure owing to mechanisation. He referred also to the continual increase in expenditure on the non-effective services, and correctly stated that last year I held out a hope that we were approaching the peak line. We are still approaching it, but we have not yet reached it. It is a matter over which we have really no control. We have obligations which we cannot get out of, and they will perhaps still increase for a short period" but ultimately they will inevitably decrease.
    He also referred to the question of the deduction which is demanded from those men who go in for training at Chisledon. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) for the tribute he paid to the admirable work performed there by Colonel Stibart. There is, of course, a great difficulty after you have trained people for work on the land in finding proper land on which to put them in our Dominions. That, however, does not primarily affect the War Office, our business being to train the men, although it is incumbent on us to do what we cart to find a suitable opportunity for them overseas. In this respect, we are doing what we can, and already we have been fairly successful. We will take note of the suggestion put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon and others who have spoken and will endeavour to improve the machinery whereby this Department and the Overseas Department and the Dominion Office work together in order to find those outlets for the men which are necessary after they leave Chisledon.
    With regard to what the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street said about the 7s. 6d. per week being a large sum to ask these men who are undergoing training to pay, I would point out that the object of the charge is to make sure that those who take advantage of this training centre have a real intention of being trained and are not merely using it in the last few months of their time in the Army as a pleasant place in which to live away from the ordinary duties and discipline

    2263
    to which they would otherwise be subject. We do not want them to waste their time, and we look upon this payment as a kind of guarantee that they are serious in the matter of going through with the training and that they intend to make the best of it. It does not discourage them as the hon. Member seems to suggest, for we have no difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of recruits for the training centre. By the method adopted, we think that we are getting the best men who are likely to take full advantage of the facilities offered to them.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) and the Noble Lord the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) also referred to the increase in expenditure in the War Office. The actual staff at the War Office has been reduced by a small number, and the increased expenditure has been largely due to the institution of a new section which has been set up with the intention of studying new methods of production on mobilisation and possibility of simplification and acceleration. This new service is partly responsible for the extra £8,000 which is demanded this year, and I believe that it will result in economy and will therefore justify itself. The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose also asked a question with regard to the mobile workshops. This question has been under consideration in detail for the last six months, and a complete scheme has been evolved.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Does that apply also to the petrol supply?
    Mr. COOPER: Yes, it will be considered by the War Office this summer, and it will be tested at divisional training. The proposed organisation covers all the cost of repair in the field and the provision of spare parts. He asked also about the compassionate grant. That grant is generously distributed. The particular case to which he referred was, I understand, that of a man who had been injured while playing football abroad and who had come hack in the normal course of events, and he asked if he would receive a grant and be treated as a man who had received injuries in the carrying out of his ordinary duties.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: As a matter of fact, the man died as the result of injuries to his leg while playing football.
    Mr. COOPER: I do not know what treatment he or his widow received, and I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend knows that; but in the ordinary course of events he would be treated as a man who had been injured while carrying out his duties. The hon. and gallant Member put forward an interesting suggestion with regard to the necessity for bringing the Territorial Army and the Regular Army closer together. We are always conscious of that necessity and fully alive to it, and we do all we can to promote that end. The hon. and gallant Member suggested that we should build more barracks in large centres of population. The difficulty about that is the old difficulty of who is going to pay. If you build barracks in a densely-populated area, not only do you have to pay very much more for the land than if it were in the country, but the position is far less satisfactory from the point of view of the training of the troops, because obviously it is more difficult to obtain the necessary space for that purpose. Therefore, while I entirely sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member's desire, I do not think that particular proposal is really practical.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: I said "near" centres of population, not inside the towns.
    Mr. COOPER: The same argument would apply in that case, because the nearer the barracks were the more ex, pensive they would prove. Then the hon. and gallant Member asked about the Officers' Training Corps, and whether they were fulfilling their functions. He will see on Page 63 of the Estimates a full account of the number of officers both of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army drawn from the Officers Training Corps, and I think he will regard the figures there given as extremely satisfactory. Regarding another matter which he raised, as to recruiting, he asked how the inflow and outflow balance. I can say they are now practically normal. They were not normal a year ago, but now we can say they are practically normal and the position is satisfactory. He asked, again, what reserve there was behind the Territorials. There is a reserve of ex-Territorial officers, but behind that, of course, there is no further reserve, and, so far as I am aware, there never has been.

    2265
    The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) asked a great many questions which are extremely difficult to answer. He asked why there were not more young officers. That question has been largely dealt with by the Secretary of State in his opening speech. He asked why older officers would not retire earlier in order to make room for younger ones? He had better put that question to the officers themselves. He also suggested, or seemed to suggest, that young men when joining the Army never had the idea of marriage present to their minds, arid that, therefore, we were wasting time and money in encouraging them to marry by giving them an allowance if they did so when over the age of 30. He seemed rather to suggest that they ought to be penalised because they would make less efficient officers. I do not think the adoption of his suggestion would advance the cause which I know he has so much at heart, or that it would stimulate the recruiting of more officers if we were to inform them on joining the Army they would have to put marriage out of their thoughts, and that if they did marry it would be treated as an offence. He also asked a question, which was not at all a new one, with regard to mechanisation, saying how could we ever be sure that when we adopted a new invention for use in the Army it would prove to be the last word, and that something better would not be invented next year. I can assure him that that consideration has been present to the minds of the Army Council ever since the first mechanical invention was put upon the market, ever since inventions existed. It is, if I may say so, the whole difficulty of the position at the present time, a difficulty which was ably summarised in the last paragraph of two of the speech which the Secretary of State made this afternoon. We never know quite where we are with regard to mechanisation. We are somewhat in the position of a man who is gradually changing his clothes, but at any moment has to be fully dressed. That is the real difficulty of the problem at the present time.
    The lion. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) suggested that we were suffering from an excess of officers, and his suggestion was that we should economise by cutting down officers. He referred par-
    2266
    ticularly to the number of officers in the Territorial Army as compared with the men. I would suggest to him that in the kind of Army we are forming today, a small Army and a highly-trained Army, we do not want vast numbers of men, but we want as many trained men as possible who are capable of leadership in an emergency, of men who, if it ever again became necessary to call upon the whole country to support the Army, as was the case in the late War, would be able to step into the places of senior officers and fill their roles. I, for one, think it would be a great mistake to try to reduce the number of officers in order to increase the number of men, or to reduce the officers in proportion to the number of men. I think exactly the opposite is the correct policy from the War Office point of view.
    Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Does that not amount to paying people for doing nothing?
    Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member's knowledge of military affairs is not very accurate if he thinks officers are paid for doing nothing, any more than the men are. With regard to the complaint of the Noble Lady the Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh), I hope she is aware that the War Office are fully alive to the genuineness of her complaint, and the hardships of her constituents in Southend. We have done our best to find elsewhere a suitable place where this firing could take place, but at present we have not been able to discover it. All the consolation I can offer her is that we are still doing our best, still looking elsewhere to see whether we cannot find another suitable locality for this firing. It has to be carried out in a place near to the seashore. We do our best to warn the inhabitants before firing takes place, and the only reason why it has to go on for very long spells at a time—sometimes, as she said, for 12 hours at a stretch—is because the climatic conditions of this country—and even at Southend it some times rains—render the days when the visibility allows firing to be carried out very rare, and we have to take full advantage of any opportunity which presents itself. The Secretary of State is fully alive to the hardships which the people are suffering in this matter, and, if it be possible to find another place for

    2267
    this firing, I can promise the hon. Lady that we shall do so.
    The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Beckett) made various suggestions, including one for popularising the Army, though, in view of the other sentiments he expressed, I should have thought it was the last thing he wanted to do. He suggested that soldiers should be set to picking apples in the autumn. The hon. Member himself was at one time in the Army, and I wonder whether he can recall sufficient of his military experience to formulate in his own mind the kind of reception such instructions would receive from the men of any ordinary battalion —if they were told that for the next six weeks they were going to be put on to the work of picking apples. He also asked about the recruiting of boys, and said they were recruited under age and without their parents' consent. But we do not do that. If a boy joins the Army, appearing to be more than 18 years of age, though really he is under 18, if he be under 17 he is immediately discharged on the fact being proved. If he is between 17 and 18, and at 18 would be eligible to join the Army, we only allow him to leave if he can show real reasons why, upon compassionate grounds, we should grant his release. I really do not think there is any hardship in this matter. I do not think that either the boys or the Army suffer, but rather that both are better off.
    The hon. Member also criticised the reply which was recently made by the Secretary of State with regard to the employment of soldiers yin theatres. I really cannot follow what ground of complaint he had. How can he expect that the Secretary of State, or the commanding officer of a battalion, should say to the men, "You are not in your hours of leisure to do work of which I do not approve, perhaps in that way keeping some unemployed man out of work." Soldiers have considerable leisure, have a considerable part of the day to spend as they like, and it is only fair to allow them to earn money if they are able to earn it. A great many have recently been employed in a theatrical production in London, and the suggestion is that if they had not been engaged some of the unfortunate men who are without work might have been taken on.
    Mr. SAKLATVALA: Are the police allowed to do what they like in their leisure time? Can they take employment?
    Mr. COOPER: The police are not under the control of the War Office, but I should not imagine that they would be prevented from filling in their spare time. These men were engaged to play in a production in the West End of London. The hon. Member knows a great deal about the theatre, and knows probably that these men were particularly suitable for the part of soldiers which they had to play. Nothing on the stage appears more absurd than a man pretending to be a soldier who has never had any military training, and possibly it would have been quite impossible for the manager to find unemployed men for the purpose required. I do not think what has happened constitutes any genuine grievance at all.
    My Noble Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) made various interesting suggestions and gave us, as usual, a great deal of information. On one point I think he was slightly inaccurate, and that is with regard to the present force of a cavalry brigade, which consists of three cavalry regiments each of two sabre squadrons, and one mechanised squadron, a total of six sabre squadrons and not four, as he stated. As to automatic rifles, we are, as he is probably aware, experimenting in the endeavour to obtain the best type, and the same difficulties apply in this case as apply to the adoption of all other new inventions. We do not want to be hasty in adopting a new one until we are confident that it is the best, and that something better may not be invented shortly afterwards. We have at present a considerable number of 303 rifles in our service. It would be a very serious step to scrap them all at a moment's notice, but the Noble Lord can rest assured that we are keeping the question in our minds, and we hope finally to obtain a suitable automatic rifle. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) criticised the educational advantages offered by the Army. I do not think he was quite fair in his statement. He said, "Why should not every-

    2269
    body who goes into the Army leave ft with the highest possible form of education."
    Mr. J. HUDSON: Up to matriculation.
    Mr. COOPER: He says we select the best type of young men in the country; but we select men rather for their physical than for their mental qualifications. They have not had the opportunity of reaching the final stage. The figures which have already been given show that 13,000 of them reached a standard equivalent to the school leaving certificate; 85,000 reached the highest standard of secondary schools and 67,000 reached the lower standard. These figures are very much better from the education point of view than they have ever been before.
    Mr. LAWSON: What does the Financial Secretary mean by the school leaving certificates? Is it merely the elementary school standard?
    Mr. COOPER: No, it is the public schools certificate which is a very much higher one.
    Mr. J. HUDSON: The term "elementary school leaving certificate" has been used and that is misleading.
    Mr. COOPER: I think I have now cleared up that point and I do not think there remains any need for me to say anything further at this stage.
    Mr. MacLAREN: What is the difference between the old military pitch and philharmonic pitch? Is it necessary for the development of jazz music? The cost is distributed over a considerable number. Could the hon. Member tell us the difference in the pitch?
    Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member has succeeded in getting me out of my depth. If I knew the difference I could only tell the hon. Member by humming it, and I am afraid that would be out of order. All the expenditure will be borne by the bands themselves.
    Sir R. HUTCHISON: Can the Financial Secretary say anything about the troops in China?
    Mr. COOPER: I would rather deal with that question later on, but I may say that there is an improvement in the health of our troops in China.

    DISARMAMENT.
    Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to move, to leave out form the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
    "this House considers that national security, and therefore international peace, can only be assured by international agreement for a substantial all-round reduction in military forces, and accordingly urges His Majesty's Government to put forward and support proposals at the preparatory commission for the Disarmament Conference at Geneva for the drastic reduction of personnel, and for the limitation both of military expenditure and of material."
    The Minister for War has told us that there is to be a slight reduction in the expenditure on the Army for the current year. I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies, but after all that reduction is altogether meagre and inadequate, and, if the present rate of progress be maintained, it will take something like 50 years to bring the Estimates down to what we consider is a reasonable figure. It is not my intention to discuss the Army Estimates in detail, because I have always contended that in the end the amount of money spent upon armaments is dependent on other factors. Those points have already been discussed by others, and I want to approach this question rather from the point of view of economy and peace.
    May I associate myself with the expressions of opinion which have come from all parts of the House that the method of discussing these Votes is altogether unsatisfactory. I think it is very unfair that the three essential parts of our military and defensive services should be kept in watertight compartments. How is it possible for this House to discuss adequately and intelligently Army Estimates apart from their relationship to tile Navy Estimates and the Air Estimates? I hope in response to the general feeling, which has not been confined to any one party in this House, that in future it may be possible to have a general discussion upon the whole of our defensive services without being restricted in this way to one arm of the services.
    The resolution which I have moved affirms two or three things. In the first place, it affirms in simple terms that national security, and therefore world peace, cannot be secured by any increase in armaments not even by maintaining armaments at their present level, but only by a drastic reduction in armaments.

    2271
    In the second place, this Motion affirms that the best method of securing a drastic reduction is by a general agreement among the various countries and the various Governments. In the third place, my proposal suggests by implication that in the opinion of this House the Government have not been as diligent, zealous, earnest, and sincere in their efforts to secure disarmament as they might have been, and as some of us think that they ought to have been.
    This disarmament problem is by no means a new one. The records of this House will prove that again and again the question of securing the seduction and limitation of armaments by agreement has cropped up. On the whole, those attempts have not been very fruitful, and yet there are one or two instances where beneficial and fruitful results have accrued. One might use as an illustration the striking example of disarmament by agreement or arrangement by which 3,000 miles of frontier between Canada and the United States of America were demilitarised in 1818 by agreement and mutual understanding. Another instance is that of the frontier between Norway and Sweden which was neutralised by agreement in 1905. One would have thought that the fruitful results which have accrued in those cases by mutual understanding and agreement would have resulted in further and more determined efforts being made in that direction. Although this problem was discussed in this House before the War, since the War it has assumed a new importance and a new significance.
    I want for a moment or two to prove that, for reasons of honour and reasons of security itself, this country is under an obligation to secure drastic disarmament by agreement. First of all, I will deal with the obligation of honour. We are pledged to secure disarmament. We are pledged to do so by the terms of the Armistice which was based upon President Wilson's 14 points. The fourth of those points was:
    "Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will he reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety."
    Then, under the Covenant of the League of Nations, Article VIII, we are pledged in the following terms:
    2272
    "That the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations."
    We are also pledged in the Peace Treaties. Before signing the Peace Treaties, the German delegation declared that they were
    "prepared to agree to the basic idea of the Army, Navy and Air Regulations…provided that this is a beginning of a general reduction in armaments."
    The reply of the Allies to that declaration was:
    "To make it clear that their requirements in regard to German armaments were not made solely with the object of rendering it impossible to resume her policy of military aggression. They are also the first step towards the reduction and limitation of armaments which they seek to bring about as one of the most fruitful preventives of war, and which it will be one of the first duties of the League of Nations to promote."
    Now I come to the Disarmament Chapter of the Treaty of Versailles, which opens with the declaration that:
    "In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of armaments of all nations (Germany) undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses."
    Next I come to the Locarno Treaties, in which we promise to give
    "sincere co-operation to the work relating to disarmament already undertaken by the League of Nations, and to seek the realisation thereof in a general agreement."
    Lastly, I come to the Pact of Paris in which war as an instrument of international policy is repudiated without any qualification, and in which we have promised without any reservation or equivocation to seek a peaceful solution for differences of whatever nature or origin. The other day in this House there was intense feeling and excitement which almost resulted in the overthrow of the Government on the question of the pledged word and of honour. I submit that the Government and this nation through the Government is pledged by its word of honour to seek in every possible way to secure drastic disarmament by agreement. Our complaint is that so far that pledge has not been honoured, and the Government have not taken the trouble or shown any zeal or earnestness to fulfil that solemn pledge.
    The reason why we are putting forward this Amendment is because up to the

    2273
    present we have had conferences which have been largely futile, and we have had commissions which have failed to agree. We have had a number of Pacts and Treaties the value of which are largely hypothetical, but we have had no real advance towards disarmament and we are no nearer achieving our object today than we were seven, eight or nine years ago. Our indictment against the Government is that it has not pursued that policy with the earnestness and zeal that it ought to have done. In the second place, we say that there is an obligation resting upon the Government to pursue the policy of disarmament because of the appalling burden which it places on the backs of the people. The Financial Secretary has tried to show that we have made considerable reductions in the expenditure on the Army, and I think I am right in saying that he told us that there was a reduction in the Army Estimates this year of something like 11 per cent. as compared with the 1913–14 Estimates. I do not dispute that statement, although I think it could be proved without any exaggeration that at the present time, after making every allowance for the increased cost of living, the amount of money now spent on the Army is about the same as it was in 1913–14. I would ask the hon. Member, is he satisfied with that rate of progress?
    Since 1914, we have fought a great war to end war; we have lost a million British soldiers; nearly 2,000,000 men have been maimed; we have spent a colossal sum—thousands of millions—upon a great war. Thousands of men went into that war and laid dawn their lives, loathing war or hating war, because they really believed that it was a war to end war, and I cannot understand the mentality, I cannot understand the moral position of anyone who gets up in this House, after all that this country has passed through, and takes pride in the fact that we are simply standing in 1929 where we stood in 1914, after the enormous sacrifices we have made to make a warless world and create a condition of affairs which ought to he a wonderful improvement upon the old days. I submit to the hon. Member opposite, I submit to the Secretary of State for War and to the Government, that the only way in which we can pay our debt to the dead is to pay it to the living, by creating a world of that
    2274
    character for which a large proportion of those million men who died gave up their lives. The greatest indictment that can be made against the present Government is that they can stand up in 1929 and take pride in the fact that they are only spending as much money as was being spent in 1914, after the tragedy and horror that we have gone through in order to try to crush militarism and create a saner international order than that which existed when war broke out.
    Dealing with the question of money, I think I shall be in order in referring to one particular expense which everyone who reflects upon it seriously would like to see ended at once, namely the expense incurred by maintaining an Army of Occupation in the Rhineland to-day. I was in Germany not many weeks ago, and I had opportunities of discussing various matters with some of the most representative public men and statesmen in that country; and the point that they put to me again and again was that the only thing which gave a semblance of popularity to the militarists in Germany, who are in a hopeless minority, was the presence of foreign troops upon their soil and the failure of the Allied Powers to fulfil their obligations with regard to arriving at a satisfactory disarmament policy. I feel that the money spent in maintaining that army there is not, only wasteful and useless but is creating a vast amount of irritation which must be destructive of good will and must prevent the spread of peace in Europe.
    We are under an obligation to urge forward drastic disarmament on the ground of security itself. Armaments can never give security. The more armaments you have, the less security you have. This failure to reduce armaments is not giving this country greater security, but is really weakening our security. The old policy of "If you want peace, prepare for war," is a played-out policy. If you want peace, you must prepare for peace. It, is far more important that we should prepare for peace than that we should prepare for war, because, as the right hon. Gentleman the leader of a party which has not a single representative here at the moment, but which claims to be a lover of peace, and will go about the country parading its love of peace—the right hon Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said, with

    2275
    regard to the last War, that no one really wanted it; they drifted into war. A nation can drift into war, but a nation can never drift into peace. You must prepare for peace. Peace must be based upon the solid foundation of good will, and competitive armaments are the negation of good will; in fact, they make good will impossible.
    It is to me a tragic thing that at the present moment the countries of Europe are spending as much in one year upon armaments as would maintain the annual budget of the League of Nations for 600 years. That is the acid test. In preparation for war, the nations of Europe are spending in one year 600 times as much as they are spending upon the promotion of peace. I am not here to-day to say that absolute and total disarmament is possible at the present moment. Whatever may be our ideals in regard to that, we are face to face with the facts. But I do believe that, given the will, the determination and the desire, a much more drastic reduction of armaments could be secured at the present time. Because we believe that, and because we believe that the Government have not done what they might have done, we move this Amendment. If the Government, as they have claimed through the voice of the Secretary of State, do believe in this policy and are prepared to carry it out, it would be an act of good will on their part to come into the Lobby and support this Amendment, which, after all, lays down a policy which they themselves profess to be following. We are disappointed; we are dissatisfied; and, to register our protest and dissatisfaction, I have pleasure in moving the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Mr. WELLOCK: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I should like, in the first place, sincerely to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the very frank and clear statement that he made this afternoon. It is not often that we have so graphic and truthful a description of the state of affairs, and I think that, if the House were taken more frequently into the confidence of Ministers in this way, we should he likely to make more progress than we do. I was very much astonished, and also gratified, at some
    2276
    of the confessions that were made by the Secretary of State. He referred to the fact that the War Department were not securing the number of officers that they desired, and he gave, as the first and most important reason for that the disarmament Debates that had taken place, I suppose in this House and also in the country. No statement that the right hon. Gentleman could have made could be more gratifying to the forces that are standing for anti-militarism and what we call pacifism. I am sure it will give tremendous encouragement to the forces for peace throughout the country, and will also stimulate those Members of this House who for many years have been keenly pursuing this propaganda.
    The right hon. Gentleman made a further statement with reference to the same subject, and I do not think it can have been very gratifying to many hon. Members of this House. He stated that promotion by merit was preventing the usual number of candidates from coming forward in the ordinary way, and he gave a guarantee that anyone who joined in the usual way should at any rate be assured of promotion as far as the rank of major. It seems to me that that is a very serious reflection upon the state of affairs, and is not very encouraging to the democracy of this country. The most interesting part, however, of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, was, in my view, that part in which he dealt with the question of mechanisation. It was during that part of his speech—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico). He must not go into the whole administration of the War Office.
    Mr. WELLOCK: I thought that I was within the bounds of the Amendment. I wanted to deal with the question of mechanisation, because I want to deal with the question of the strength of our Army in relation to its total cost and its actual fighting power, which seems to me to be a vital question in this connection. The question with which I want to deal is the important question whether or not we have disarmed. This Amendment maintains that we have not disarmed sufficiently. The Secretary of State maintained that we had disarmed,

    2277
    and I want to deal with that aspect of his speech, which, I submit, is germane to this matter. He gave some figures, and said that he hoped that those who would be speaking to this Amendment would take cognisance of those figures and deal with them, and it is with that part of his speech that I want particularly to deal at the moment.
    If we examine carefully the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the development of armaments in other countries, I think we shall recognise that his figures are not really very germane to the matter that we have in hand. As has already been pointed out, we cannot deal adequately with this question of militarism unless we are permitted to take into account all of the three arms; that is to say, if we are making comparisons with other countries, we can only do so adequately if we take account of all their arms. Apart from that, however, it can be very well maintaine, that, owing to the change in the nature and composition of armies, and the secrets of their strength, we must come to the view that the amount of money that we spend upon our armies does not matter so much as it did in the old days. It may be that we are cutting down our expenditure a little year by year, but that does not mean that we are disarming. During the last few years, the total amount spent upon the Army has been reduced from £45,000,000 in 1924 to £40,000,000 in 1929. Of course, in the meantime, there has been a gradual fall in prices, which would account for the greater part of the decrease, but we must recognise that the Secretary of State in his speech this afternoon laid stress upon the question of mechanisation, and waxed eloquent in dealing with that subject.
    8.0 p.m.
    I am inclined to think that I should not be very far from the fact if I were to say that, as a result of the increased mechanisation during the last five years, the fighting power of the Army has increased by 100 per cent. I think that is not an unfair statement to make. Thus for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that, as the result of reducing expenditure upon the effective force by 11 per cent. during the last five years, we have disarmed while other countries have not is entirely misrepresenting the situation.
    2278
    Everything goes to show that the fighting strength of the Army is very much greater than it was last year and infinitely greater than it was three or four years ago, and, whatever may be the amount of money the country is spending in relation to other countries upon war, he distinctly said, in regard to the effectiveness of our Army and the progress in mechanisation, we could give a distinct lead to the whole world. I also notice that practically all the reductions in the Estimates this year are in regard to provisions and allowances in lieu, and the increasing expenditure is in regard to such matters as warlike stores, tanks, armoured cars, and so forth, and education, which also is part of the process of increasing the efficiency of the Army.
    In these circumstances, we are led to ask: When is the idea of peace and disarmament going to come within the purview of our War Office? When, for example, is the League of Nations to be given a chance? It is quite obvious that the Minister believes our Army to-day is at the very minimum that we can afford to allow it to go. That is also the view of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Last year, the Prime Minister, speaking in that important Debate upon the possibility of combining the three Services, made this statement:
    "The Services exist, however, not for peace, but for war. That is their raison d'etre. It is quite true that our armaments to-day are maintained at the very minimum necessary to meet the obligations of our Empire. There will be few who would object to that statement. They are little more in the world to-day than a police, force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1928; col. 1023, Vol. 215.]
    He went on to say they were just the machinery under which we can organise ourselves if there should be another war. We noticed in our newspapers to-day that the Home Secretary yesterday said:
    "Until you have altered human nature you can never be certain against the risks of war. We have disarmed to the very limit."
    That appears to be the view of the Cabinet at the moment, and there is no prospect whatever that we shall have any substantial reduction in our armaments as long as the present Government exists. When are we going to face realities? Not one of us dare face the prospect of another war. We all say

    2279
    the next war must not take place, and yet here we are, each country sitting on a powder barrel, and through this fact alone we are preventing the League of Nations functioning. It cannot function, because, as soon as the bigger Powers come across any difficulty in their relationships, they refuse to allow the League of Nations to interfere, and they fall back upon their armaments and simply will not allow any outside interference. Under these conditions, there can be no real growth in peace; there can be no guarantee for peace, and there can be no effective working of the League of Nations. It is an ostrich policy, and it is the militarists, and not the anti-militarists, who are burying their heads in the sand. At almost any time it will be possible for a war situation to develop in almost exactly the same way that it did in 1914.
    What happens is that we come across a very difficult situation, and, if the bigger Powers are involved, before many days have passed in any controversy that is taking place, we find fear is being stimulated and nerves are becoming taut. Before very long we find that someone is rather overstating the case, there are false rumours, and then we have mobilisation and counter-mobilisation, next we have the newspapers with paragraphs about national honour and so forth, and then in the excitement of the situation one nation puts a light to the powder barrel. Then we have the reign of Hell and, after that, the judgment. As a matter of fact, there is really nothing in the policy of this Government which can really save the world from such a situation as that, for the simple reason that the greater Powers are still relying upon their armaments and not upon the full effectiveness of the League of Nations.
    In the quotation which I have just given, the Home Secretary referred to human nature. That arises in nearly all these discussions. We are constantly being told that we cannot do this or that because of human nature. As a matter of fact, if the Home Secretary had been Home Secretary 100 years ago he would have found a very different sort of human nature from that of to-day. People were sent to the gallows for about 70 different offences, and it was said at the time that they could not abolish
    2280
    hanging, human nature being what it was. That was the argument then. It is the argument to-day, and it has been the argument on this question ever since the days of the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden there was the idealist and the pessimist. There were people who said "Man has now sinned, and he will sin for ever." Idealism crept in very soon afterwards, and it was said and believed that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. There were idealists and pessimists even among the cannibals. There were cannibals and anti-cannibals. The anti-cannibals said: "We must give up eating our enemies, and then our enemies will give up eating us." The cannibals said: "No, that will never do seeing that human nature is what is it. We must eat our enemies so that our enemies cannot eat us." That is the state of affairs in every crisis, and wherever any sort of advancement is sought to be made, and it has been so from the beginning of the world. It might germane to read what Mr. Mr. Benjamin Kidd, in his very remarkable book "The Science of Power," has to say on the matter:
    "So far from civilisation being practically unchangeable only through influences operating slowly over long periods of time, the world can be changed in a brief space of time. In the lapse of a single generation it can undergo changes so profound, so revolutionary and so permanent that it will almost appear that human nature itself has been completely altered in the interval."
    That is a view which I should like the House to consider, and we shall discover that human nature to-day is ready for a big advance in regard to this question. The Minister of War a few days ago gave some statistics in regard to recruiting, and he had to make the confession that, so far at any rate, as London is concerned, during last year 71 per cent. of the recruits came from the ranks of the unemployed. That shows that there is no disposition in the minds of the community generally to join the Force, that there is a strong disbelief in war, that there is a strong belief growing in peace, and a desire that the instruments of peace shall be very greatly implemented in order that they may be made effective. I wonder what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in mind when he made a speech recently in opening some institution in connection with the British Legion? He

    2281
    made this statement, referring to the use of the new premises that were to be opened:
    "While you fight your battles in the new club house over again and dwell on the deeds that have been done, celebrate the triumphs which have been gained awl the deeds of prowess which adorn your annals, I trust you will continually resolve chat nothing like what happened in 1914 must ever darken the world again."
    Of course, that is a sentiment that we can all express. Nevertheless, when he is advising these men to see that this state of affairs does not recur, what means are at their disposal to see that it does not recur? There are only two, as far as I can see. One is to refuse to take, part again in war and the other is to use propaganda in various forms to see that we get a public opinion that is opposed to it.
    I should like to emphasise the point raised by my hon. friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico), who moved the Amendment when he referred to the boundaries, for instance, between Canada and the United States and between Norway and Sweden, where a process of demilitarisation has taken place. Why cannot that process of demilitarization take place between all countries? We need not say that there is more affinity between Canada and the United States than between any other countries. As a matter of fact, recent events have proved that there has been more likelihood of war, or at least of the events that lead to war, between this country and the United States than between this country and any Eastern State. That only shows the possibilities of the outbreak of war, and yet they have overcame those conditions between Canada and the United States, and, if they can do it—and they are competitors in world markets—there is no reason why it cannot he done between any number of countries in the world. If there is to be advancement along the lines of peace, someone must take the initiative, and we on these benches believe that not nearly sufficient initiative is being taken by our own Government to see that these steps are taken whereby the League of Nations is really made effective, and it can only really be made effective by very drastic disarmament. We cannot expect other people to undergo the process of disarmament unless we do ourselves. We are not saying that our country is better or worse than other countries, but altogether we
    2282
    are leading, through this process of increased mechanisation—and one could elaborate upon other armaments as well—to a position where, if war breaks out, it certainly means the break up of our civilisation, and the only way to avoid that catastrophe is to develop the peace mind. We must develop the peace mince and we must adopt a different psychology, and we have to take our faith in both hands.
    The Minister has told us that the amount spent upon armaments in Germany is increasing. That is a tragic fact, but the situation is being brought about by the fact that the other countries which were parties to the Treaty of Versailles have not disarmed. The result is that we are driving Germany into the vortex of armaments, and the likelihood is that before many years are past, unless there is serious and very important disarmament in the other countries of the world, we shall have Germany back into the old position, with the greater likelihood of war by adding one other industrial nation to the list of those which are developing huge armaments. Although we sent our forces to China, I for one was opposed to that process, because I believed that, as long as we were willing to give up the unequal treaties with China and the old Boxer Indemnity, there would be no more trouble in China. As a matter of fact, other nationals in China, far away from the protection of our own forces, were quite safe in that country. If we base our policy upon universal justice and preparedness to accept an outside tribunal for the settlement of our affairs, I maintain that there is no reason whatever why any nation should have any armaments at all.
    The way is quite open for a drastic curtailment of armaments both in regard to this country and other countries. That is all that we are asking; that it shall be done internationally. But I believe that it is probable that ultimately we shall find that the only way to get that done will be by a drastic curtailment of our own armaments. That was the view of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office, who I am glad to see is going to reply on this question tonight. I know that he is personally sympathetic, and always has been, as far as my knowledge of his past goes. He has been very seriously concerned about

    2283
    this question of armaments.. I distinctly remember hearing him speak on this question soon after I came into this House, when he said that he did not think that they could achieve anything by disarmament agreements. He was in favour of this country taking the risk of disarming and setting an example to other countries. He also said:
    "I believe that, both from the point of view of this country and from the point of view of the world at large, it would be a sane and a wise policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1927; col. 2267, Vol. 203.]
    That is, of course, disarmament by example. I do not think that he can say as far as the Estimates which have been given to the House today are concerned that that wish has been carried out. Although there has been a slight reduction in cost, the effectiveness of the British Army to-day is infinitely greater than it was before. Just as in the industrial world we are having increased mechanisation or rationalisation, and increased mass production, so the destructive power of our armaments is growing and growing beyond all conception. The country and mankind at large do not realise the extent to which our military power is growing as a result of the processes of mechanisation that are taking place. In my view, the great need today is simply one for greater trust in justice and a greater trust in humanity. I believe that the world is ripe for that trust, and that the nation that has the courage to manifest it will be the leader of future civilisation and will be regarded in days to come as being the saviour of the race.
    Me. RENNIE SMITH: In rising to support this Amendment. I want especially to draw attention to the second part of it, namely, that we want to
    "support proposals at the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference at Geneva for the drastic reduction of personnel and for the limitation both of military expenditure and of material."
    It is a very opportune time to introduce an Amendment of this character. The Financial Secretary to the War Office will remember that questions have been put to his chief on two or three occasions since the month of August last as to what effect the signing of the Kellogg Pact was going to have on His Majesty's
    2284
    Estimates for the Army for the current year. On the last occasion when we spoke on this matter and questioned him, he would not give us any answer, but said that he would make his answer on this very important matter in due course. That moment has arrived today. In the Kellogg Pact, which was signed by His Majesty's Government, the nations have undertaken to settle all disputes of whatever character or of whatever origin by pacific means. There is no reservation whatever about the matter. The practical answer of His Majesty's Government, so far as the War Office is concerned, is that they are not prepared to reduce their Estimates by one penny piece. I think the Financial Secretary will agree that if no Pact had been signed in August of last year we should have had exactly the same Estimates submitted to the House this afternoon. The little details of reduction do not concern anything in principle at all. They are upon such matters which do not affect this major proposition. His Majesty's Government have entered into an agreement to contract out of all war, and in practice they do not find it advisable to reduce their war Estimates by a penny piece. The Financial Secretary knows, in handling the Estimates which we are discussing this evening, and realising their historical aspect that there is no change whatever in the attitude of mind of His Majesty's Government towards the principle of peace.
    The figures which have been quoted at that Box this afternoon imply that no League of Nations exists, that we have not contracted out of war to the extent which we ought to have done under the Covenant of the League of Nations, that we have not entered into the Pact of Locarno: and they show perfectly plainly with historical precision that in practice, when it comes to actual facts, His Majesty's Government are doing to-clay precisely what they did before the Great War broke out, and precisely what they did before the Boer War broke out. The figures in relation to the Army show that in this country in 1898 we were spending a little more than £23,000,000. In the intervening period of peace between the Boer War and the World War, we stabilised our expenditure on the Army round a figure of £32,000,000. In 1913–14 the figure was

    2285
    £32.9, nearly £33,000,000, The Minister said at that Box this afternoon that he proposes to spend £40,500,000 during the current year. Making all allowance, therefore, for the diminished value of money, we can see that in substance we are exactly where we were, that is, ruling out of account the vital new Air Service which has developed since the War. As far as this one arm goes, we are to-day as a nation doing exactly the same kind of things with relatively the same amount of expenditure we were doing before the Boer War, and before the World War. We are behaving just as if the League of Nations does not exist, just as if we had not entered into any commitments or obligations or covenants; just as it we had learned literally nothing from some of the most heartrending experiences that the world has ever been called upon to endure.
    I want to be very precise in the few suggestions that I have to make to the Financial Secretary. I desire to discuss with him whether he cannot make better representations to the Preparatory Commission, next April, on this issue. He may reply, with real justice, that from the point of view of His Majesty's Government making serious recommendations for international reduction of armaments to the Preparatory Commission of the League of Nations, the War Office is easily the minor of the three Service Departments; that the War Department does not need to worry much about the Preparatory Commission at Geneva until the Naval Department has shown its hand, and until the new Air Department has made its declaration for, on balance, the War Department occupies the best of the three positions, and gives, relatively, the best of the three examples to the world.
    I can imagine the Financial Secretary saying that it is not relatively of great importance that we as a nation should make any specific recommendations for all-round reduction of land forces, and that our great contribution as a nation is to make recommendations in regard to navies. I accept that position, but I would point out to the Financial Secretary that just because our contribution towards general disarmament will be relatively less in respect of land forces, then precisely we are more detached and we ought to give a more careful and
    2286
    more precise contribution. We are not so much involved in land arms. For us the question is, relatively, the least important. It ought, therefore, for that reason to be possible for us to make the most far-reaching contributions in the way of suggestions and proposals to the Preparatory Commission at Geneva. The Financial Secretary will recollect the one proposal that we made, as a Government, to the Preparatory Commission. Our proposal and the French proposal are still the only proposals in the field for serious discussion.
    Let us consider the British proposal in respect of land force armaments. The only substantial proposal that was put forward by our representative, 18 months ago, was that we were prepared as a nation, in agreement with other nations, to limit the number of effectives—the number of our troops who were actually serving in the Army. There were two subsidiary proposals dealing with the proportion of officers to men in the Regular Army and also affecting what are described technically as warrant officers and sergeants. The major proposition was that we would enter into an international agreement, for the restriction and limitation of the number of troops actually serving in the Army. In the matter of Reserves, we gave a certain amount of qualified support, hut we have withdrawn from that position in the recent Anglo-French understanding. T do not know where we are now, hut it is a matter of the greatest importance from the point of view of Army disarmament that that position has developed since the original proposal was put forward by His Majesty's Government.
    Does the Financial Secretary conceive that a proposal of that kind, coming from the most important member of the League of Nations, coming from His Majesty's Government, restricted to a, one-point programme of limitation in the number of troops, without any hard and fast bearing on the matter of conscription, without any hard and fast bearing on the reserves of troops outside the Regular Army, is really a serious and worthy contribution on the part of His Majesty's Government? The Financial Secretary has heard the speech of his chief to-day. The Secretary of State for War has not been very much concerned about the num-

    2287
    ber of troops in the British Army. He has been overwhelmingly concerned, and I understood him to be as happy as a sandboy, because of what he called the mechanisation of the British Army. He knows that the Germany Army of 1914 did not cut its way through Belgium like a grocer cutting through cheese, and did not get within a stone's-throw of the gates of Paris, because it had 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 troops, but because of its precise mechanisation; because of the marvellous technical equipment which each soldier had to his hand. It was precisely for that reason that, when we came to disarm Germany in 1919, whilst we paid considerable attention to the number of troops in the German army of the future, we paid at least as much attention to the question of the kind of technique which that reduced army would have at its disposal.
    I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the late Sir Henry Wilson and Marshal Foch, who were set apart to take charge of that great and distinguished body which worked out the disarmament proposals for the Germany army in 1919, knew very well what they were about. If Sir Henry Wilson had brought a proposal to Paris, saying: "We shall be quite content if Germany has an army of 100,000 men. They can use the same kind of cannon that they used in 1914. They may have unlimited opportunity to develop and improve, and they can use all the new types of armoured cars that come along. They can develop tanks to their heart's desire." If he had put that proposal forward, they would have said: "If you are limiting us to a choice of evils, let the Germans have 1,000,000 men, but keep the proposals for control over mechanisation and technique." They did, in fact, say that. If the Financial Secretary wants to make a proposition that is really serious from the point of view of influencing international opinion in regard to land disarmament, he must pay attention to the neglected factor in the first proposal that His Majesty's Government put before the Preparatory Commission.
    In respect of rifles, carbines, howitzers, machine guns, trench mortars and field guns, the German Army was very precisely regulated in respect of number. The German Army cannot use a gun more
    2288
    than four inches in size. To-day, the hon. Member for Southend (Countess of Iveagh) referred to the 16-inch guns which disturb the sleep and injure the health of His Majesty's subjects at Southend-on-Sea. The German limitation is to four-inch guns. The German Army is not permitted to have a single tank. The Secretary of State for War to-day gloried in the fact that we were leading the world by the Royal Tank Corps at the present time. The late Sir Henry Wilson and Marshal Foch, with that great and distinguished group of soldiers, after months of labour worked out the only scheme of land disarmament that the world possesses. They were not primarily concerned with inflicting humiliation upon a defeated enemy. Their primary concern was to prepare the way, as they said in their text, for the application of general disarmament. The overwhelming importance of what was done in 1919 does not lie in the fact that it was done to one particular power, at a particular time, to gratify certain subjective emotions. The overwhelming importance of this lies in the fact that this was the right product of the thinking of the best land experts in military matters the Allied Powers could produce and was devised as a preparatory instrument, a guide and a model, for other nations to adopt and apply in order that a general limitation and reduction of armaments might follow.
    I feel specially happy in being able to talk with the Financial Secretary this afternoon. He is a member of the League of Nations Union. So am I. He has made pronouncements that even I, a Pacifist and a Socialist, would have hesitated to make in respect of this matter. I am pleading to-night that His Majesty's Government will implement the first and only proposal they have made before the Preparatory Commission in respect of land armaments, and I am suggesting that he should take into account the material side as well as the man power side of this problem. Of the two the material side is more vital and more significant than the man power side. Suppose the time comes when Germany says that she will not be bound any longer by the Disarmament Treaty; other Powers have violated it, it is never applied; and that she does not feel morally bound to keep it any longer.

    2289
    They will not be worried about getting a million men into the army. They will use exactly the same reasons which the right hon. Gentleman has used this afternoon. Germany will say that all she wants are highly trained men and a proportion of one officer to 15 men, or perhaps a little less. Germany will not be keen about man power, but she will be tremendously keen about a Royal Tank Corps, about armoured cars, about machines which run on six wheels, about the right to use 16-inch guns. These are the things about which she will be keen. The Army problem can be viewed by us as a nation with relatively philosophic calm. It is not an urgent and vital thing with us, it is a side line, and I beg the Financial Secretary to see if he cannot get away with a real League of Nations point of view and get something across which will put a practical drive into the question of land disarmament when we meet once more at Geneva.
    I should like to say a word on the Question of Budget limitations. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State draw attention to the fact that the German Government had in known ways—of the unknown ways we cannot speak—increased her Army Estimates from £20,000,000 to £25,000,000 within the last four or five years. I suggest to the Financial Secretary that it ill becomes him or His Majesty's Government to raise any point of complaint. This £25,000,000 is £15,000,000 less than His Majesty's Government is proposing to spend this year, and Germany is a land power, not a water power as we are. In the second place, we are not giving them any encouragement to economise in the constricted army we have compelled them to keep. Their representatives at Geneva have been saying for the last three years that disarmament obligations are not being carried out. What is the greatest obstacle to the development of the League of Nations in Germany? What is the greatest hindrance to the peace workers there? What is the greatest problem that the Socialist party are up against in Germany? It is this; that their militarists, their die-hards, the true descendants of the late Kaiser, are flinging into the teeth of the best progressive men and women in Germany the taunt that other Powers are not in earnest, that this paper document on
    2290
    disarmament is merely paper, and will never be anything else; that the salvation of Germany in the future does not depend on the League of Nations, but on the power of her own right arm.
    They are being advised all the time to keep a big Army and Navy and Air Service in such ways as are open to them, and it ill-becomes His Majesty's Conservative Government to start throwing stones at the increase in their military expenditure. If the Financial Secretary is really interested in checking the growth of German expenditure on armaments he can repair an omission of the 1919 situation, because it was one of the regrettable features of the endeavour to cope with the German situation that we did not introduce into the 1919 standard of German disarmament the principle of Budget limitation. If he is really in earnest in wanting to help Germany over this bad pass he might incorporate in the second draft proposals of His Majesty's Government this principle of Budgetary limitation.
    In the last place the Financial Secretary might consider the relation of his Department to the development of education in the country. One of the Clauses in the 1919 standard of disarmament was that there should he no military training in the universities and educational institutions of Germany. I am not so blind to all manner of quasi illegal activities in Germany in this particular as to suggest that the universities in Germany have suddenly become the embodiment of pure education. I am not prepared to support the position that Germany through her educational institutions is bringing up a new generation of men and women in whom the war mind and war psychology is conspicuously absent. Not at all; but I suggest that the relation of his Department to the educational institutions of this country is a matter of considerable importance. The Secretary of State for War boasted this afternoon of the loyalty and devotion of the scientists of this country to his Department. He was boasting of the very great assistance that he was getting from the institutions of learning. I suggest that he might re-read the 1919 Treaty from the educational point of view, and see whether he cannot bring in a proposal in respect of education which might be

    2291
    of real service if it were generally applied and mutually agreed to.
    This is the last time that we shall have an opportunity of addressing the Financial Secretary in his present capacity. This is the last chance that the Government will have of trying its hand in this matter. I have the impression that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs feels very humiliated because all the great moral and international value of Locarno has been dissipated. Even a man like Lord D'Abernon, who did more than any man living to get this thing done, has been crying out from the German journals that "Back to Locarno" is the only way to probity and international sense and goodwill. Since then we have had this Anglo-French business. We have had the breakdown of naval conversations with America. We have got the worst psychological relationship with the other Anglo-Saxon-speaking nation that we have ever had. I am not going to appeal and to plead, but I suggest that we are standing at a very critical juncture. We want, if we can, in the last three months of this Government's term of office, to prepare the way for the next Government. Therefore I ask the Financial Secretary, who will remain a member of the League of Nations Union when he ceases to be Financial Secretary, to take the long view and to decide whether between now and April he will not gather a little group of people together, and see if it is possible to make a fresh proposal for land disarmament—not the miserable thing that went out 18 months ago, but a solid and detailed contribution which will show that this nation really has learned something after being a member of the League for 10 years, arid after having signed Locarno three years ago and having willed war out of existence as recently as 19th August last.
    Captain FAIRFAX: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is absent for the moment, but I would like to congratulate him heartily on these Estimates, and on the reduction that he has been able to make. I followed the figures as carefully as possible—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dennis Herbert): The hon. and gallant Member does not quite realise what is before the House. We are discussing an Amend-
    2292
    ment to the original Motion, and he must confine himself to the Amendment and to disarmament.
    Captain FAIRFAX: In the part of the Debate on disarmament that I followed it, struck me that many of the speeches of hon. Members opposite were out of touch with reality and failed to recognise that we have made very great reductions in armaments, while other nations have not made reductions at all pari passu with ourselves, but have very largely increased their expenditure. The last speaker used the argument that we on this side of the House have no right whatever to object to an increase in expenditure by Germany, because the amount that we spend on our Army is still £14,000,000 or £15.000,000 higher than that spent by Germany. It is remarkable how short-lived hon. Members' memories seem to be, how they fail to realise that it was the great German Army that was the menace in 1914, and that if we now take the precaution to keep an effective Army, that is the least we owe to those whom we have to defend. The point was also made that although our expenditure on armaments has been reduced, at the same time our Army is very much more efficient. It seems to me that the only excuse for having reduced expenditure is that you have made your small Army as efficient as possible. A point in our favour is that in reducing the number of our men and effectives, we have replaced them as far as possible by the greatest perfection of mechanical means. Clearly, if we should unfortunately be drawn into military operations again, we may be able to sacrifice tanks and mechanically-driven guns and thereby economise in human life.
    It seems to me that a small and perfect mechanically-operated Army is the line on which we ought to proceed. I was glad to have an opportunity last summer, at the invitation of the Secretary of State, of going down to Tidworth, on Salisbury Plain, and seeing this mechanical army in operation. One of the hon. Members opposite objected to this mechanical army on the ground of its being so extremely ugly; I think "grim" was the word he used. I dare say that the Secretary of State may stretch a point the next time he has a demonstration and make arrangements to have mechanical

    2293
    engines covered with spots, which would entertain the hon. Member and give an idea that war is a charming and beautiful spectacle. But from our point of view war is a grim and horrible and devastating affair, and that fact should be generally recognised.
    Mr. PALIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making an implied allegation that we on this side of the House know nothing about war. Some of us know a great deal more than the hon. and gallant Member.
    Captain FAIRFAX: I did not say that hen. Members knew nothing about war, but I am now dealing with their speeches, and one hon. Member opposite certainly did object to these engines of war on the ground that they are grim. We see no objection to these engines of war being as horrible as possible, because our intention is that our small Army should be effective and should act as a deterrent to anyone attacking us. On the educational side, those of us why saw the mechanical Army in operation could not fail to be impressed by the fact that a man to be a member of so highly efficient a mechanical army must be much more intensively educated and highly trained than has been customary hitherto in the armies of the world; in order to get the mechanical and engineering and technical knowledge that are required in a mechanical army, the modern soldier must be a much more highly educated being than was formerly the case, cannot help thinking that this highly technical army is providing men with a very valuable training, which will be of great use later when applied to scientific and commercial uses. Men will be able to play a more efficient part in the cogs of the industrial wheel later in life. It struck me as a curious thing, earlier in the Debate, that a plea for economy should have come from the hon. Member opposite—
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am afraid I must again remind the hon. and gallant. Member that he is going a considerable way outside the terms of the Amendment.
    Captain FAIRFAX: I am sorry, Sir. I wanted to ask the Secretary of State to arrange, if possible before the Dissolution for a visit of Members of the House to Chisledon. The hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) in
    2294
    his very interesting speech, has thrown out that suggestion and I hope that Members will have the opportunity of seeing the work which is being done there.
    Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: While in sympathy with the Amendment, I wish to point out that, in considering the question of armaments, we must remember that the size of our armaments depends upon the obligations which we are under, and upon our liabilities in regard to other nations with whom we have entered into agreements, and that, if we are going to reduce our armaments to any appreciable extent, we must change our policy. We have, for instance, entered into very serious military and naval obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations, especially Clauses 10 and 16. Those obligations must be met and supporters of the League of Nations must realise that they can only be met, if we are in such a position as regards our Army, our Navy and our Air Force, as will enable us if necessary to put an effective force on the Continent. We have also very serious obligations under the Treaty of Locarno and, for my part, I pointed out these circumstances when the Treaty was before the House. I do not think the country quite realises our position under the Treaty of Locarno. We are not only hound to fight with France against Germany, but we are also bound in certain eventualities to fight with Germany againt France. France is armed to the teeth, whereas Germany is practically disarmed, and, if a contingency arises, in which we have to defend Germany, we shall be fighting against a fully-armed France by the side of a disarmed Germany.
    9.0.p.m.
    While I am all in favour of urging disarmament at Geneva and of reducing the expenditure on armaments in this country, I say frankly that I do not see how, in face of the obligations which I have just mentioned, we can do anything but trust to the naval, military and air policies of those responsible for those forces in this country. They know our obligations and we must ultimately rely on them just as we relied upon the naval authorities prior to 1914. It may be true that some economies can be effected here and there, but policy must in the end decide both the nature and extent of our armaments. I suggest to those who are in favour of

    2295
    the limitation of armaments that the first thing we have to do is to reconsider the whole of our foreign policy. For one hundred years our foreign policy was to have no obligations on the Continent. For one hundred years after the Franco-British wars in the early part of the last century, the policy of one party after another was to enter into no obligations or alliances on the Continent. If we want to get disarmament, if we want to get on better terms with America, our first duty is to reconsider the obligations into which we have entered under the Covenant and under the Treaty of Locarno.
    Mr. AMMON: We have heard two statements of Liberal doctrine on the question of war and disarmament tonight. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke earlier from the Liberal benches seemed to be pleading for a larger army and an effective striking force. The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to think that questions of policy should be left to the admirals and the generals.
    Mr. DAVIES: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. I said that the question of principle should be decided by this House, but that we must leave, to the naval and military authorities, questions as to the character and size of armaments—not the principle.
    Mr. AMMON: I am glad to have that amendment of the hon. Member's statement. That is what we are asking the House to approve. We are asking the House to lay down a policy by which we shall work towards gradual disarmament in co-operation with other nations. One or two things have emerged during the Debate which show that we are travelling along a road which many hon. Members have long desired. Four years ago, on the Admiralty Estimates, I raised the question of considering the Estimates of all the armed forces under one heading —of having something in the nature of a Ministry of Defence. That view has been echoed from all sides of the House this afternoon. We are beginning to see that, if we are to get a fair view of our military and naval commitments, we must consider these matters as a whole and not in detached portions as we have been doing hitherto. One hopes before long we shall have reached that desired end.
    2296
    Some disquieting things have come out in these Estimates, and they have a, direct bearing on the Amendment. It has been borne out that the general policy of the Government is resulting in revelations of weakness in regard to some aspects of recruiting. This affords yet another reason why we must give more intimate consideration to the question of disarmament. We are all concerned at the statement which we have heard about the standard of recruits and the fact that a sufficient number of recruits is not coming forward. That this circumstance is not wholly due to unemployment is borne out by the fact that economic stress has not driven people from the ranks of the unemployed into the Army. Probably they have not yet got over their experiences in the Great. War. Therefore it is fair to assume that the low physical standard of recruits must he represented of the general standard of the community. That is a very alarming revelation. It shows that in this respect we have deteriorated considerably in the last year or two. That must enter into our calculations in considering these matters. The Minister for War has put before us a statement that there is some reduction in the cost of the Army, and it is just as well to examine that a little more closely, to see how true that is. It only amounts to 1 per cent., and such reductions as there are are due to automatic reasons. We find that, so far as the cost for the striking arms is concerned, there is actually no decrease whatever.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Amendment which is before the House at the moment.
    Mr. AMMON: I was submitting that there is no actual reduction in the armed forces, and that is part and parcel of the Amendment. In the statement put before us by the Minister, there is no reduction in the actual military forces in this country.
    Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Amendment calls for international agreement on disarmament.
    Mr. AMMON: But we have to carry out our part in that agreement. There will, however, be an opportunity later on to discuss the point to which I was referring. I hope I shall not be misunder-

    2297
    stood when I say that all of us, whether we be militarists or anti-militarists, are to a large extent barking up the wrong tree when we pay so much attention to the numbers of men enrolled in armies and navies. Nowadays our military strength will not be estimated so much by dockyards, arsenals, and aggregations of men as in the laboratories, workshops, and factories which, under modern conditions, are all of them potential sources for armament manufacture; and we have to take a very much wider view of the matter in that respect. Nevertheless, the outward and visible signs are the particular armed forces with which we are most familiar, and the ordinary man in the street is likely to be concerned with the actual cost. Therefore, I want to emphasise the point, made by one of my hon. Friends, that one of the most effective gestures we could make in this direction would be a budgetary reduction in respect of armaments.
    I agree that we have no right to criticise the naval and military advisers of the Government with regard to this nation's commitments in the matter of armaments. They are only doing their duty when they advise Ministers in this matter, but the Ministers are concerned with policy, and have to face the music, and they must be held responsible. The position that this Amendment asks us to consider is that we ought to give a lead to the rest of the world to show the sincerity of our protestations of a desire for disarmament. Again and again we have been placed in the position—and particularly recently, with regard to the naval conversations—of laying ourselves open to the charge of insincerity. We have left the very worst possible impression in the world, notably in the United States, that we have only done what we have done because we had been driven to it, and I think that has placed us in an unfair position. I do not think there has been the desire on our part to act in that manner, but we have acted in such a way as to leave that impression on the world, and I hope the Government will consider that aspect of the matter.
    Among the suggestions in the Amendment is one to the effect that we should support proposals at the Preparatory Commission for a reduction of armaments. There has been a number of
    2298
    Conferences. There was the Pact of Paris, which is probably better known as the Kellogg Pact, and our approach to that was such as to raise grave suspicions. Instead of raising hopes and generous sentiments on both sides of the Atlantic, we seem rather to have exacerbated feeling than otherwise. The Russian Government tabled proposals as to complete disarmament, and whether that was bluff or not, I am certain that we handled it in the worst possible manner. If it was bluff, it was our duty to have called the bluff; if it was not, we ought to have shown we were as willing to take such lines as any other nation in the world. Our moral position in the world would then have been as strong as possible, and we should have had the moral leadership of the world. I understand that the Russians are again proposing to place before the Preparatory Commission a revised proposal, modifying very considerably the suggestions which they formerly made—I think, to the extent of about 50 per cent. Surely, without standing too precisely on any question of punctilio, we should be placing ourselves in a very strong position if we decided to back any such suggestion as that.
    We are under a moral obligation under the Peace Treaty. The disarmament of Germany, it was laid ther down, was to be a prelude to the other nations taking similar steps at the earliest possible moment, but instead of that, the Treaty seems to have been used as a means of keeping that country in subjection and of embittering feeling there, at a time when they have more kindly sentiments towards us than towards any other nation in the world. Instead of giving a lead to the rest of the world, we seem to have been dragged at the heels of other nations, which seem to have been intent on humiliating that great country. Surely we would do well to withdraw our troops from the Rhine. I know the answer will be made that probably other nations would he left in occupation, but we owe a duty to ourselves in this matter, and it seems to me that, if we did that, we should have the moral support of the world and that no other nation could continue there long if we gave this direct lead by withdrawing our troops, as a gesture that we were in earnest in seeking peace.

    2299
    I ask the Government if they will consider this Amendment as being meant in earnest, and not sweep it aside as a mere idealistic motion with no practical application to present-day politics in the world. Sooner or later we shall be driven to it. In regard to what the hon. and gallant Member for Norwich (Captain Fairfax) said just now, that sort of thing leads one to despair that, after all that we have gone through, we should still stick to the old doctrines that the way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war. That sort of thing is surely played out, and so far from talking about us being out of touch with actual affairs, it seems to me that the hon. and gallant Member is rather out of touch with the change that is going on in world aspirations. We cannot afford another war. It would simply bring our Western civilisation crashing down in ruins. The rest of the world are looking upon us with cynical eyes, because of the position we are taking. Three or four years ago, before the trouble broke out in China, I was the guest of the Kuomintang at dinner in London, and I was much disturbed, not to say alarmed, when the chairman of the party, a distinguished Chinaman, made this curious remark in conversation. He said: "China must become a Christian nation because Christians believe in force, and that is the only thing that counts in this world." It is an alarming thing if that is the way in which these people look upon our profession of Christianity and all that it means. Nothing could be more disastrous to the peace of the world than that a great nation like China should turn to those methods and weapons which Western nations have used to maintain their position. It is bound to be clone if we pursue the line of policy which we have adopted hitherto.
    There is nothing revolutionary in the Amendment, and nothing to which hon. Members cannot agree. We are asking them to take steps as far as they can to get other nations to agree at the next Preparatory Commission to discuss the question of disarmament and to see whether we cannot agree to drastic reductions by mutual agreement. If the Government can go to Geneva armed with the authority of Parliament, they will do something more to revolutionise the aspect of the world with regard to
    2300
    war, and do more to outlaw it than all the resolutions and the peace pacts and the treaties that have been drawn up during the last 10 or 20 years.
    Mr. COOPER: The Debate has only occasionally really touched the Army Estimates. Hon. Members opposite have gone into the general question of disarmament, and dealt at some length with questions which are really questions of foreign affairs. I should not be in order if I were to answer all the points that they have raised, or deal with all the arguments which they have put forward, nor am I, as Financial Secretary to the War Office, in a position where I can possibly assume responsibility or give any opinion on general policy in connection with the agreement at Geneva or with disarmament. With much that I have heard from hon. Members opposite, such as the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) and the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock), I entirely agree. I have often said much the tame thing myself, and on the general question of disarmament I believe that there is very little difference of opinion in the House. Where we differ from hon. Members opposite is whether this Government have done as much as lay in their power to pursue a policy of general disarmament. It is our opinion and it is certainly my opinion, that we have done everything that was possible and that we have spared no effort. Our efforts have not always been crowned with success, but they have always been sincere and unrelaxing in the pursuit of the policy of peace.
    I cannot this evening go into all the efforts which we have made in that direction. I cannot revive the history of the peace conferences during the last two or three years; I cannot deal with the suggestions that we have put forward at Geneva, or with the—unfortunate as it turned out—agreement to which we came with France; but that also was a genuine and well-intentioned effort in pursuit of the cause of peace. Hon. Members ought to have tried to show where the present size of our Army is a menace to peace, and where we could seriously assist the cause of peace by reducing the Estimates very considerably. That is the point which we are debating this evening, and it is with such arguments as have been put forward upon that point that I am in a position to deal. The

    2301
    Secretary of State, in his opening speech, gave what is our main justification for not reducing more than we have clone this year our expenditure upon the Army, and showed that every other nation has recently increased their expenditure upon their Armies. In the subsequent Debate, reference has only been made by hon. Members opposite to the fact that Germany has increased her Army, and that we have no right to complain of such an increase. We do not complain. We are only pointing to the fact that we have the United States and every nation in Europe to-day increasing their forces. We are reducing, and therefore we maintain that we are not open to criticism with regard to that particular department.
    The hon. Member for Consett, much of whose speech was of a general character, good as it was, and bore little relation to the actual Debate, laid great stress upon the fact that our Army was practically as large, or that we were spending practically as much upon it as before the Great War. He said that that in itself was an admission of how little we had done and how entirely fruitless our efforts had been to cut down armaments. I do not admit that he is right, but, even if we were spending as much, the Army that we had in 1914 was not an Army that threatened the peace of the world; it was not an Army with which we had prepared for a great war; it was merely prepared for an emergency. It was not an Army with which we ever contemplated fighting the Powers of Europe.
    Mr. RENNE SMITH: Has the hon. Gentleman read the publications of the Foreign Office on that point?
    Mr. COOPER: I have read those publications. We were aware that the Army might be used in a subsidiary position to help any of the great Powers, but we did not intend the Army to be a menace to the peace of the world. When the German Kaiser described it as a "contemptible little Army"—
    Mr. PONSONBY: He never did.
    Mr. COOPER: What he said was mistranslated.
    Mr. PONSONBY: He never used the expression at all.
    Mr. COOPER: I understand that he used a word meaning that it was an Army with which the German Army need not be concerned. That would have been a sensible expression to use of the British Army in comparison with the German, French, Austrian, or Russian Armies. It was an Army which did not deserve consideration and which was not going to win the War. We know that that Army of 250,000 rapidly became an Army ultimately of 4,000,000, but the Army of 1914 was not a menace to the peace of the world. The Government of which the hon. Member was a supporter, were not a bellicose Government; some people thought that they were not bellicose enough. They certainly were not preparing an Army to fight a European War, for they did not want one. They kept an Army sufficient to enable the Empire to fulfil the responsibilities which lay upon any Government of the Empire. These responsibilities have not diminished as a result of the defeat of the Germans; on the contrary, our responsibilities have increased.
    Hon. Members opposite made a great deal out of the fact that we signed last autumn in Paris a pact whereby we renounced war, and they asked why that does not induce us to diminish the Army now that we do not intend to go to war. There is no reason why there should be any change in the size of the Army. We had no intention of going to war before we signed the pact. The pact has not changed our policy; it has merely emphasised it, and made plain what our policy has always been. When the present Chancellor of the Duchy e Lancaster signed the pact, he did not telegraph: "Pact signed, policy changed, cut down Army and Navy." The policy of this Government, our foreign policy, remains the same pacific policy that it has always been. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) put forward the very heavy burden of taxation on the people as one of the reasons why we should reduce the Army. I thought that his party considered taxation was no burden. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently been trying to persuade us that, taxation is rather a benefit, and, at any rate, he has pledged himself to increase it as soon as he has the power.

    2303
    Several hon. Members opposite have referred to the possibilities of withdrawing our troops from the Rhine. That, again, is a question really of foreign affairs, on which I am not competent to offer any view here. One hon. Member opposite said that many of his friends in Germany had told him what a difference it would make if only we would do that, but I feel pretty confident in saying that his friends in Germany did not tell him that they would be pleased if we withdrew, leaving the French, who would probably occupy the territory which we now occupy. It is not for me to enter into foreign affairs, but everybody knows, from the declarations which have been made in the House, that the Government are fully alive to the desirability of withdrawing our troops, and that we agreed at Geneva last: September to enter into the question with the French, German and other people concerned, and to see whether any agreement could be come to whereby the troops could be withdrawn as soon as possible.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that subject, may I ask him a question which has been agitating the minds of some of us for a long time? Did the War Office make any representations to the Foreign Office as to the desirability of our troops participating in the manoeuvres with the French troops over German territory?
    Mr. COOPER: That question has been answered in the House before. We had only one regiment of cavalry on the Rhine and the only opportunity that there was for training was with the French.
    Captain GARRO-JONES: In order to be quite clear on this, may I ask, was the Foreign Office or the War Office responsible for the decision?
    Mr. COOPER: As far as I am aware, it was the War Office, but that has nothing to do with the present discussion. The hon. Member for Penistone, with much of whose speech I agree, asked me to try to influence in some way proposals which the Government put forward next time Geneva was discussing disarmament. I am not in a position to promise to undertake to exercise any influence of the kind on the Government. Such suggestions deserve serious con-
    2304
    sideration, but His Majesty's Government must be guided when they put forward such proposals, not entirely by what would be convenient to them or what they themselves would be prepared to do, but by whether such proposals would be likely to command any general measure of assent from the principal Powers participating in the conference. Only so could any such suggestion have any real value.
    As far as this Debate and our present Army are concerned, what proposals could the Government make at Geneva that would carry any weight at all? Does the hon. Member think that if we went to Geneva and said we were going to cut down our Army by half, anybody would be pleased? It would have not the slightest effect on the feelings of European nations, because no European nation to-day goes in fear of our Army or thinks we are suddenly going to launch an offensive against it. Our Army is not a menace to the world, and nobody is afraid. If we offered to cut it down by one-half, our allies and best friends in Europe would be slightly alarmed, and nobody else would take any notice. The argument has been made by hon. Members that we have increased the fighting power of the Army. That is so. They say that we are justified in saying the Army may be no larger than is wanted, but that with all these mechanical inventions, and tanks and various new appliances, it has twice the fighting power which it had before. That is true, but it applies equally to every other army.
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: Except four.
    Mr. COOPER: It stands in the same percentage as it did before with regard to other armies. It is no reproach to us that we should be proud of having attained a higher pitch of efficiency in these particular inventions than other nations. The hon. Member waxed almost angry when he taunted my right hon. Friend with having said with pride that we led the world in this particular department of tanks. I noticed when my right hon. Friend made the remark there was ironical laughter from the Opposition benches. Would hon. Gentlemen rather that my right hon. Friend should come down and say, that while we are still obliged to keep an Army—and every

    2305
    hon. Member who has spoken has agreed with that—nevertheless the House would be pleased to hear it was very bad and inefficient and that we were far behind everybody else, and that our tanks were the worst in the world? Would that please hon. Members?
    Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself seriously to the argument which I put. It was that the late Sir Henry Wilson and Marshal Foch worked out a careful scheme for the disarmament of the German Army and three other armies. What I ask is whether it is not worth while, in order to implement the work of general disarmament, that some attention should be paid to these facts and in particular with regard to tanks and mechanisation?
    Mr. COOPER: The other argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward is a very much better one, but he did taunt the Secretary of State with having said that we led the world in tanks as though it was something of which to be ashamed, instead of something of which he might be very justly proud.
    With regard to the more serious argument that this increased efficiency of the Army would justify a reduction of numbers, there is something in that argument, but there is a difficulty from the point of view of this country, namely, that our obligations and responsibilities are not confined to one place or one country. We have not got to have our Army the best Army we can possibly make it in order to enter into a war in Europe in a few years' time. We have got to have sufficient forces always at our command to deal with any situation which may arise in any part of the widely scattered Empire for which we are responsible. We are responsible in every continent. At the present time we are responsible and have to keep troops to defend the lives of our people in China. Similarly, we, might be called upon to send troops to India or to Africa, North or South, or to almost any part of the inhabited world. It does not matter that your fighting force is more efficient or capable of destroying a concentrated enemy if at the same time it is less capable of being split up and divided. One tank may he worth 100 men, but you cannot send it
    2306
    to more than one place at the same time. You cannot split up a tank and that is why, even if your Army could be made slightly smaller owing to increased efficiency, I do not see how it could be made much smaller in view of the wide general responsibilities that rest upon us in so many different countries in the world. I think hon. Members as a rule are conscious of those responsibilities. I was struck the other day by this paragraph in the "Morning Post"
    "The duty cast upon the existing defence forces, in addition to providing for the safety of the homeland, is that of policing the diverse and widely scattered areas and communities among the British Commonwealths. The effective strength of the Empire garrisons must be preserved intact and forces maintained, both in respect of personnel and material, so as to be capable of ready expansion and development should occasion arise."
    As hon. Members opposite will know, those words were written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh), who was Secretary of State for War in the Labour Government, and I think the position has never been better stated. The reason why it is necessary for this country to maintain an army of a size which does not vary, and is unlikely to vary in the immediate future, is because our responsibilities are not in one place, but in many places, and we never know in how many places we may be required to protect the lives of our own people at the same time.
    I would remind hon. Members, as they were reminded by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. E. Davies) earlier in the evening, that it is not only our own country, our own Empire, and our own people whom we have solemnly undertaken to defend and protect. "Make the League of Nations effective," says an hon. Member. How can you make it effective if the Powers which believe in it most sincerely, which have done the most for it from the start, to give it strength and to give it prestige and contribute most to its exchequer, allow their defensive forces to fall into such decay that they are unable to carry out the obligations which they have undertaken under the Covenant of the League? We have new and increased responsibilities since the War. We have responsibilities under the Covenant of the League, under Articles 10 and 16, and we have responsibilities under the Treaty of Locarno. I

    2307
    am glad we have not the enormously increased responsibility we should have had, if following the advice of hon. Members opposite, we had accepted the Geneva Protocol. While I am sure that everybody on this side of the House believes in the cause of disarmament, we do not feel that any case has been made out this evening for reducing the present size of the British Army. We feel that it is not too large to carry out the obligations which may be forced upon us. We feel confident that nobody in the world to-day believes that it is a menace to peace, that it seeks to invade any foreign country. When I say "nobody in the world" I should perhaps have excepted the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala). He is the only person in the world to-day who is afraid that in the future the British Army will be a disturber of the peace of the world. On the contrary, everybody knows that it is an upholder of peace rather than a promoter of war; and I think there never has been so great an Empire with so small an Army.
    Mr. PONSONBY: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the disappointment we feel with the speech of the Financial Secretary. I was glad when I knew that he was going to respond to this Amendment, because, combined with his great efficiency in his office, he has a profound knowledge of foreign affairs, and has expressed himself on the question of disarmament on more than one occasion with great breadth of view and knowledge of the subject. Therefore, we hoped that when he addressed himself to the proposal before the House he would give a sympathetic answer. Instead of that, he really did not seem to realise that we are discussing the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) and not the general question of the Army Estimates. Examining that Amendment carefully, I cannot conceive what there is in it, except perhaps one word, with which His Majesty's Government can disagree. The Amendment is in these terms:
    "To call attention to the question of disarmament; and move, That this House considers that national security, and therefore international peace, can only be assured by international agreement for a substantial all-round reduction in military forces"—
    2308
    Nobody disagrees with that.
    "and accordingly urges His Majesty's Government to put forward"—
    That is the only thing with which His Majesty's Government may disagree—
    "and support proposals at the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference at Geneva for the drastic reduction of personnel and for the limitation both of military expenditure and material."
    All that can be objected to there are the words which suggest that His Majesty's Government should put forward proposals for the reduction of military forces. It is on those words that the Government turn down this proposal—reject, spurn and scorn it. We thought that in view of the moderation of the words we had chosen we should be likely to gain the assent of His Majesty's Government, and that for once a unanimous resolution might go out to the world from this House. We only ask that a proposal should be brought forward at the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament. Hitherto the function of His Majesty's Government on the Preparatory Commission for Disarmament, and at other conferences, has been merely to damp down the proposals of other Powers, and never themselves to make any suggestions. Considering the position of Great Britain in the world, it is about time that we came forward with some proposals of our own. We are only asking that we should get a general agreement. It is the minimum that can be asked on the subject of disarmament in view of the obligations we have to fulfil under the promises made in the Treaty of Versailles. But the Government are not prepared to do it.
    The hon. Gentleman was very eloquent on the subject of tanks, and if anybody ought to be proud of our tanks, I think it is me, because my constituents make them. I believe they have been making them in very large numbers, and I believe the new tank is really a most formidable weapon of war. It can do almost anything, and has inpenetrable armour. That is a great advance. But in the last few months my constituents have also been making a shell which penetrates that armour. That is a further advance; and it will bring further profit to the armament firms. We were not told to-day the number of these tanks which we have got, or the number exported to other countries. We do not

    2309
    know how far our workers in this country are being employed in forging engines for their own destruction as a result of the arms traffic which goes on throughout the world. His Majesty's Government have not ratified the Arms Traffic Convention. They have made no advance in any direction whatever, and even the meagre advance which we suggest to-night is turned down in a peremptory way.
    My hon. Friend who proposed this Amendment suggested that some advance towards peace in Europe might be made by the withdrawal of troops from the Rhine. That was turned down by the hon. Gentleman. He said the Germans did not want it. I wonder if he can give his authority for that statement? This is a subject which was bound to come up in this Debate and on which we expect the Front Bench to give us authoritative answers. Do they or do they not know that the Germans would object to the withdrawal of British troops from the Rhine, even if the French did not come out? We shall not get an answer to that, because the hon. Gentleman has come down to-night equipped only for one business, and that is to discuss the technicalities of the Army. He really did not read through this Amendment; it does go into policy, and we expected somebody to reply to it on the points of policy. The hon. Gentleman said the British Army had never been used as a weapon of aggression. I do not suppose there is any nation in the world who will confess that their army has ever been used for aggression. We have never been the aggressors in any war; it has been the French, the Russians, the Germans, the Austrians, the Bulgarians, the Zulus, the Boers, the Ashantis, the Afghans and the Arabs who have been the aggressors.
    Therefore, we have to be prepared against this myth of the aggressor which is kept up to justify this nation spending £120,000,000 or £130,000,000 a year on preparations for the next war. We are first told that it is one country, and then that it is another, that is preparing for war, and so the armament firms go on making huge profits and the taxpayer has to pay through the nose. The consequence is that the people of this country suffer through this heavy burden, and the
    2310
    world suffers from a continuation of the uncertainty that the cloud of war may yet arise on the horizon. When we come forward with a very moderate suggestion that the Government should make a proposal to reduce armaments, it is turned down in this way. The country is getting impatient on this question of disarmament. Ten years after the War we find that no advance has been made on this question. The Government tell us just before a General Election that they can do nothing, and they even refuse to accept a very moderate proposal of this kind.
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Ponsonby) has given us one of those typical speeches in which he tells us that we are wrong on every occasion. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the Army of defence, although it benefits his constituents, is something which is wholly to be deplored. I am tempted to point out to the hon. Member a fact which he has completely ignored, namely, that we alone of all the nations in the world, great and small, have continuously reduced our expenditure on armaments throughout the whole term of the existence of this Government. The hon. Member conveniently ignored that fact. I agree that words are useful, but deeds are stronger still, and our deeds show that we have achieved a reduction of armaments. The hon. Member for Brightside says that the Amendment that we are considering is quite a harmless one, and he asks how can any Government resist it? This proposal is suspect, and that is why we resist it. We are told that this is a mild proposal, but I remember there was a proposal last year to reduce the Army by 50,000 men which would have rendered the Army entirely impotent. I remember that the proposal put forward by the Opposition the year before would have had the effect, if not of abolishing the Army, of hamstringing it. In view of the Election, these suggestions have been repeated in what is called a moderate resolution, but they only take the place of what is really a desire to abolish the Army altogether.
    Mr. DUNNICO: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that I do not care as much for my country and its defence as he does?
    Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No, I do not suggest that. I think we are equally desirous in different ways of defending our country.
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Questions."
    The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes, 68.

    Division No. 246.]

    AYES.

    [9.52 p.m.

    Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

    Gates, Percy

    Perkins, Colonel E. K.

    Albery, Irving James

    Glyn, Major R. G. C.

    Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

    Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

    Gower, Sir Robert

    Pilcher, G.

    Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

    Grant, Sir J. A.

    Raine, Sir Walter

    Apsley, Lord

    Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

    Remer, J. R.

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

    Grotrian, H. Brent

    Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

    Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

    Gunston, Captain D. W.

    Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

    Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

    Hacking, Douglas H.

    Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

    Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

    Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

    Rye, F. G.

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

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

    Salmon, Major I.

    Birchall, Major J. Dearman

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

    Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

    Blundell, F. N.

    Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.

    Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

    Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

    Hilton, Cecil

    Sandeman, N. Stewart

    Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

    Sanders, Sir Robert A.

    Brass, Captain W.

    Hume, Sir G. H.

    Sanderson, Sir Frank

    Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

    Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

    Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D

    Brocklebank, C. E. R.

    Hurd, Percy A.

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

    Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

    Iveagh, Countess of

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

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

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

    Skelton, A. N.

    Carver, Major W. H.

    James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert

    Smithers, Waldron

    Cecil, Rt. Hon, Sir Evelyn (Aston)

    Kindersley, Major G. M.

    Southby, Commander A. R. J.

    Christle, J. A.

    King, Commodore Henry Douglas

    Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

    Cobb, Sir Cyril

    Kinioch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Tasker, R. Inigo.

    Conway, Sir W. Martin

    Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey

    Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

    Cooper, A. Duff

    Long, Major Eric

    Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-

    Cope, Major Sir William

    Looker, Herbert William

    Tinne. J. A.

    Couper, J. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

    Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

    Courtauld, Major J. S.

    Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

    Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough

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

    Lumley, L. R.

    Wallace, Captain D. E.

    Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

    McLean, Major A.

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

    Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

    MacRobert, Alexander M.

    Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

    Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)

    Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

    Warrender, Sir Victor

    Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

    Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

    Watts, Sir Thomas

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

    Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

    Wells, S. R.

    Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

    Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

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

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

    Winterton. Rt. Hon. Earl

    Edmondson, Major A. J.

    Moreing, Captain A. H.

    Womersley, W. J.

    Elliot, Major Walter E.

    Morrison. H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

    Washington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir I.

    Fairfax, Captain J. G.

    Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph

    Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

    Fermoy, Lord

    Nelson, Sir Frank

    Fielden, E. B.

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

    Forrest, W.

    Nuttall, Ellis

    Captain Margesson and Captain

    Foster, Sir Harry S.

    Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

    Bowyer.

    Fraser, Captain Ian

    Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

    NOES.

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

    Hardle, George D.

    Shield, G. W.

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

    Hayday, Arthur

    Shinwell, E.

    Ammon, Charles George

    Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

    Slesser, Sir Henry H.

    Bellamy, A.

    Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

    Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

    Benn, Wedgwood

    Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

    Smith, Rennle (Penistone)

    Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

    Kelly, W. T.

    Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

    Bondfield, Margaret

    Kennedy, T.

    Stamford. T. W.

    Briant, Frank

    Lawson, John James

    Stephen, Campbell

    Broad, F. A.

    Lindley, F. W.

    Sullivan, Joseph

    Bromfield, William

    Longbottom, A. W.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Buchanan, G.

    Lowth, T.

    Tinker, John Joseph

    Cluse, W. S.

    Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)

    Tomilnson, R. P.

    Connolly, M.

    Murnin, H.

    Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Crawfurd, H. E.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wellock, Wilfred

    Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)

    Oliver, George Harold

    Westwood, J.

    Dennison, R.

    Owen, Major G.

    Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

    Duncan, C.

    Palin, John Henry

    Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

    Dunnico, H.

    Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

    Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

    Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.

    Ponsonby, Arthur

    Windsor, Walter

    Graham. Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)

    Potts, John S.

    Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)

    Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)

    Purcell, A. A.

    Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)

    Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

    Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

    Saklatvala, Shapurji

    Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

    Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

    Shepherd, Arthur Lewie

    Whiteley.

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

    DISARMAMENT.

      NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.
      Resolved,
      "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 150,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1930."

      PAY, ETC.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £8,730,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

      WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £2,848,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of works, buildings, and lands, including military and civilian staff, and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."
      Mr. KELLY: On this Vote I want to bring to the notice of the Committee the question of the officers of the Department and the treatment that they receive, and I can best bring it out by dealing with a particular case. The individual concerned is Mr. H. Toms, of Woolwich. He was in the Service at Woolwich for some 28 years, and, during the whole of that time, he had a record of which any man might well be proud, there being no mark of any kind against him, either in regard to his professional capacity or in regard to his conduct in dealing with the stores of the War Department. So successful was he that he was appointed to a position in charge at Jamaica. He took up that position at a time when, at any rate, there was considerable disorganisation in the War Office methods, and he was told that the stores which were handed over to him must be accepted by him as of the quantity, quality and value—
      The CHAIRMAN: I am in some doubt as to whether any money is taken for this gentleman's salary in this Vote. If the hon. Member can show that any sum taken in the Vote is relevant to the matter to which he is referring, he can go on.
      Mr. KELLY: You will find, on page 186 of the Estimates an item for
      "Pay, etc., of Staff for Works and Engineer Services and of Land Agents," who all come into this.
      The CHAIRMAN: What was the position of this officer?
      Mr. KELLY: It was that of a storeholder, under the control of these people and, of course, under the control of the War Office itself. At a particular moment it was stated by his officer that there was something wrong with the stores, and, without his having any opportunity of defending himself, without any opportunity of inquiry, he has been dismissed from the Service without any compensation of any kind. Although he has 28 years' service, and although three weeks prior to this complaint being raised he was recommended for a pension, the War Department has dispensed with his services and he has been for the last 12 months without income of any kind and without an opportunity of receiving unemployment pay, poor as it is.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On a point of Order. This officer, of course, is not now in the Army and, therefore, there is no Vote for him. There is a Vote for those who control him, and it would be in order, no doubt, if that Vote were under discussion, to call attention to their want of control or improper action. The salaries of the officers controlling him are covered by Vote 8, and not by Vote 10.
      The CHAIRMAN: I must try to get to the bottom of this. What exactly was the office this man held, and under whose control was he?
      Mr. KELLY: He was under the control of the Ordnance Department at Jamaica.
      The CHAIRMAN: This Vote is for engineering works, buildings, and lands, and not for stores. I do not think any money for himself or for his superiors comes under the engineering part of the

      2315
      works and buildings. If he was in charge of stores, that would not be under this Vote.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: We have been used to the common term "works," including all relative things such as engineering.
      The CHAIRMAN: It might be so were it not that there are Votes 8, for general stores, and 9, for warlike stores. Whether it comes under Vote 8 or Vote 9, I cannot new say, but it cannot come under Vote 10.
      Mr. CRAWFURD: It is an ill wind that blows no one any good, and, though I regret that the hon. Member has not been able to contribute what he wished to—
      Mr. LAWSON: Do we understand quite clearly that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity of raising this matter on either Vote 8 or Vote 9?
      The CHAIRMAN: I cannot say which it is without further research, but I think it must be one or the other.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: It is Vote 8.
      The CHAIRMAN: I must take that provisionally from the right hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. BUCHANAN: Will my hon. Friend be able to raise the point on Vote 8?
      The CHAIRMAN: I think there is no doubt that he will. If there is money taken for anyone who is responsible for his treatment, he will.
      Mr. CRAWFURD: You have pointed out, Sir, that this Vote is in part for those who are engaged in engineering work, and I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which arose over a personal matter with which I was asked to deal some weeks ago. A day or two ago at Question Time I was told by the Minister of Labour that the conditions under which a man is deprived of benefit because he is not genuinely seeking work have nothing to do with the Minister, but are only for the statutory authorities. In a supplementary question I reminded the right hon. Gentleman of an answer I had from the War Office a few weeks ago to the effect that it was not their habit to give employment to men over the age of 55.
      2316
      I have been given several oases of men who have applied for employment at War Office establishments. They are engineers and they have been told that there is need for particular work which they are qualified to do, but because they are to or more, they will not be given employment. The Government in all their Departments are supposed to be model employers, and what the Government are not prepared to do you cannot expect a private employer to do. The Government should set an example in their treatment of their employés. Here you have a man of 55 years of age who has been an engineer all his life and has every qualification for the particular kind or work, and on applying at a Government establishment he is told he cannot be given employment, the only reason given being that he has reached that age. What is he to do between that age and the age when he gets his old age pension? On the showing of the Government authority he is not competent to be employed, because he has reached a certain age. There seems to me to be very great hardship. These statements can be substantiated. This has been sprung upon the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not expect him to be able to answer off-hand in regard to particular cases, but I should like an assurance that he will go into the suggestion have made that this is the practice with a view to using his influence to secure some amelioration of the conditions of men of a somewhat advanced age who seek employment under the Government.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course, I will go into any case the hon. Member brings to my notice. If he wants to know the general policy I can tell him now that if we were taking on new men in work which is to be of a permanent nature, you have to have your balance of men of different ages throughout the factory. You do not want them all to run out at the same time, but subject to the balance of ages there would be no bar. But unfortunately the case is not that we are taking on new men, but that we are having great difficulty in keeping in employment those we are now employing, and if it should happen that any particular class of skill is required which is not now represented in the factory, the balance of ages in the factory would be the first consideration, so it is

      2317
      possible that at any given moment a man of 55 might be told he was not the right age to obtain employment. He would not be told that the balance would be thrown out, but that would be the guiding principle that would operate.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY, AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.
      Resolved,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £3,738,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of rewards, half-pay, retired pay, widows' pensions, and other non-effective charges for officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."

      PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN AND OTHERS.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £4,294;000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea, and Kilmainham Hospital; of out-pensions, rewards for distinguished service, widows' pensions, and other non-effective charges for warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."
      Dr. VERNON DAVIES: I would like on this Vote to raise the question of pensions for a moment or two. I asked a supplementary question to-day of the Minister in connection with the position of the medical chiefs of the War Office in regard to pensions. I wonder if my right hon. Friend will give an explanation to the Committee as to the procedure. I find from the White Paper that the medical department for the purposes of recruiting have formed a consultative committee upon which civilians have been co-opted. I am very pleased to find that this co-option, apparently, has had very satisfactory effects. I wonder if there is any possible chance for any Service man to appeal at the present time against the decision of the medical chiefs of the War Office or of the authorities at Chelsea. Are there any methods by which a man can obtain any record either himself or through his agents as to the medical history or the reason which determines the authorities in deciding whether he is entitled to a pension or not? The difficulties which are constantly cropping up in these
      2318
      cases are causing a great deal of dissatisfaction. Medical men are constantly being worried about them, and, as far as I can find out, the opinion of a civil medical man in a case like this is absolutely of no account. I do not wish to criticise the authority, the action, the eminence, or the skill of the medical officers of the War Office or at Chelsea, but I think it would perhaps give a certain amount of satisfaction to the civilian medical profession, and particularly to the men who are discharged from the Army, if we had some idea as to the procedure in this class of case. What processes are open to a man in the way of appeal? What chance; has he or his advisers or medical men of finding out the history sheet during his service in the Army to see if this class of case could be conducted or concluded to the satisfaction both of the public and of the War Office?
      Mr. PILCHER: On this Vote Tam very anxious to draw the attention of the Minister once again to the conditions attaching to the receipt of pensions by some of the old pre-War soldiers. I am referring especially to pre-War soldiers who had not a disability pension but ordinary service pension under the old pre-War Warrant. I have here the case of a man who served in the Royal Artillery from 1893 to 1912, and on the basis of that service he was given only a pension of 2s. 3d. a day. Subsequently, since the War, he has been given a small percentage increase, but there has been no re-assessment of that pre-War pension. Every time he comes up for till renewal of the percentage increase which was given him in 1920 he has to answer a most formidable, and, I cannot help thinking, quite objectionable array of questions and inquiries as to means. I should like the Committee to realise to what these pre-War men, who did so much in the Army before the War, are subjected to-day. This particular man every time he comes up for the renewal of the percentage is asked the following questions: The amount of the original Army pension, the amount of other pension or annuities, the net annual value of any house property he may have, the interest he is receiving on stocks, etc., including the Post Office Savings Bank, profits he is making from trade and business, profits his wife is making from her trade, the

      2319
      wages of his employment, the wages of his wife's employment; does he sub-let any rooms to relatives or others? If so, what profit does he make by sub-letting these rooms? The yearly value of gifts received from his family or other sources, and income from other sources.
      This man is a splendid fellow. He had 19 years service in the pre-War Army, and he served throughout the late War, but got no allowance in respect of it. He is in receipt of the magnificent pension of 2s. 3d. a day, plus a small percentage, and every year that the percentage comes up for renewal, this is the sort of inquisition that he has to answer in detail before a magistrate. Would it not be possible to modify the form very much or, better still, to reassess these pre-war long-service men—they are not a very large class—who were invalided out for disability and, technically, were given service pensions? Could not they be reassessed and put on the same footing as the men who did active service during the War? This man volunteered for active service during the War, but owing to his non-technical disability he could only do work in the Army Service Corps at Falmouth. These men would be very grateful to the Secretary of State for War if he would give serious consideration to this hardship.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will answer, first, the question put by the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies). As the matter stands now in regard to a disabled man who gets a pension on account of disability, his papers go to the Board at Chelsea and there they are examined with the greatest care, The medical evidence is sifted, and he is examined, and so forth. If he is discontented with the result, there is an appeal to the medical authorities at the War Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that these appeals are treated with the greatest possible care and that every consideration that can be given is given to them. Although, quite naturally, the pensioner, frequently, may disagree with the final result, I have examined very many cases, at the instance of hon. Members and at the instance of some of my own constituents, and I can say that the Board and the War Office do really give justice in these cases. I do not believe that there is a better Board dealing with pensions.
      2320
      The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) gave us a hard case of a pre-War pensioner who has a pension of 2s. 3d. a day. In 1920 and again later, I forget the date, this House discussed at great length what should be done with regard to pre-War pensioners. The money value of the pension has entirely altered, and the old pre-War pension was recognised by the House to be insufficient. Consequently, we passed two Acts of Parliament enabling the War Office pension to be increased, subject to a means limit. There is a, scale of increase. I cannot say the exact amount, because I had not notice of this case, but I think it is 30 per cent. up to a certain income limit, and 40 or 50 per cent. beyond. In this case I believe there is an increase of either 40 or 50 per cent. upon the original amount. That is an ex gratia grant. The State has voluntarily increased the pension, not for increased service or new service, but as a matter of fairness towards the pre-War pensioner. That is an increase on the existing contract pension owing to the variation in the value of money. My hon. Friend now says: "But consider the nature of the questions that are asked." Our power to increase pensions at all depends on our being satisfied that the means of the pensioner are within a certain limit. If they are £150 a year there is no increase at all, and the higher increases are given on the lower rates of income. It is necessary to ask questions. The questions he read out are directed to specific sources of income. They could all be covered by the one question: "What is your income?" But that is not very helpful. It is much more helpful to ask the man: Have you any interest on investments; have you let any rooms in your house; have you this or that source of income? It really is easier to get the true income by asking specific questions.
      Mr. PILCHER: May I ask whether it is not possible to adopt a somewhat less inquisitorial inquiry, for I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these pensioners do feel terribly hurt by having to answer all these questions. Here is a man receiving 2s. 3d. a day pension, and even with the small increase that has been granted he must be in a, position

      2321
      approaching poverty. I do appeal to him to adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards these men.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I should like to get rid of the limit altogether. I hate the limit, and the inquiry into means, whether it is for old age pensions or for any other pensions. I am glad that we have got rid of it in the ease of old age pensions, and I wish we could get rid of it here. But it is not in my power to give away the taxpayers' money. The House itself has determined that an increase of pensions shall be given in certain cases and not in others, and I am bound to administer the Warrant which has been given to me by the action of the House. I have not the precise number of these eases, but I believe there were about 14,000 pre-War pensioners who had their pensions increased under these Regulations. I have seldom heard any complaint, indeed, I think, that this is the first complaint I have heard of the inquisitorial form of the questions, and 14,000 pre-War pensioners have been glad to receive the increases they have obtained.
      Dr. DAVIES: I am grateful to the right lion. Gentleman for his explanation. I should like, however, to make one suggestion. In the White Paper a consultative committee has been formed with civilian members, and I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend would give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of co-opting civilian members on the official Appeal Board at the War Office. It would give great satisfaction to pensioners. I hope he will bear this point in mind, especially as he has relaxed the rigidity of the rule in another respect.
      Mr. CRAWFURD: With reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to the point put by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher); it so happens that a statement has recently been circulated bearing on the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that he has heard only one complaint of these regulations. It says this:
      "The restrictive Clauses in the Act of 1924 deprive many of them of pensions earned."
      2322
      I think there must be some feeling about this if an organistion takes the trouble to circularize members of parliament in order to draw their attention to it.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not the point put by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth. His point was the nature of the questions. The point put by the hon. Member for Walthamstow West (Mr. Crawfurd) is the nature of the restrictions imposed by the Act of 1924.
      Mr. DUNCAN: I also would ask the Minister if he has the power to stabilise these pensions. These men with pre-War service must certainly be getting up in years, and at the least one can say that they are not likely to start company promoting in order to increase their incomes. The hon. Member for Penrhyn (Mr. Pilcher) has brought forward a very pathetic case, and owing to the lessened value of money conditions have changed very much since the War.
      Colonel GRETTON: The last speaker has made the very point that I wanted to put. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should run some risk in order to comply with the suggestion that has been made. The present irritation and uncertainty cause a vast amount of trouble, and certainly lead to a great deal of unnecessary work for the staff at the War Office.
      The CHAIRMAN: I am rather inclined to think that what the hon. and gallant Member suggests cannot be done without legislation.
      Colonel GRETTON: I am asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider whether he can take action under the Act which he is administering.
      Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The question of disability pensions has been raised. I would ask the Secretary of State to allow these pensions to come before the Appeal Tribunal in exactly the same way as the Great War pensions do. That would give a great deal of satisfaction to those concerned, who are not now satisfied.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION, AND GRATUITIES.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £233,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of civil superannuation, compensation, and additional allowances, gratuities, injury grants, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930."
      Mr. KELLY: I wish to refer again to the case of Mr. Toms, whom I mentioned previously. Is any of the money that is being granted under this Vote being granted with the intention of paying Mr. Toms superannuation or gratuity? This man served for 28 years without a single blemish against his work. In fact he was recommended for pension, and why it was not paid at that time, a little over 12 months ago, I am unable to understand. He is in this country penniless, with his wife and children at Woolwich, and they are not receiving an allowance of any kind. Can the Secretary of State say why it is that this man, after serving all these years, is denied a pension? It may be that he is being held responsible for some faults of his superior officers, but at least, if there is anything wrong, the matter should be investigated, and the Man ought to have an opportunity or presenting his case.
      The CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that this man is a non-commissioned officer?
      Mr. KELLY: No, he was a civilian employed by the War Office in the Army Ordnance Department, and engaged in their stores. He has had control for many years of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of material, and nothing has been found wrong, until now there appears to have been some charge made, as I judge by an interjection of the right hon. Gentleman. I submit that, even if there was something wrong, 28 years' service calls for some recognition from the War Department, and in view of the fact that Captain Coleman is in this country now, I suggest that the papers regarding all his work should be brought to this country and investigated.
      The CHAIRMAN: If he is a civilian, how is it that he has a commission with the rank of captain?
      Mr. KELLY: He was entitled, in respect of 28 years' service, to superannuation as a civilian employé of the War Department. I take it we are dealing under this Vote with superannuation gratuities and amounts paid for compensation for injury in respect of civilians in the employment of the Department and it is under that heading that I am submitting this case.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot say that, if a gratuity were payable in this case, it would come under this Vote, but as you, Sir, have given the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt in allowing him to raise the case I will deal with it. The hon. Member gave me notice about two hours ago that he was going to raise this case. Had he given me a little more notice I would have had all the information available here, and I could then have answered him in detail. I have here, however, a letter which I wrote to the hon. Member on 27th September last on this subject. Therefore he has not been feeling about in the dark. He knows perfectly well why Mr. Toms' employment was terminated and why he is not getting a gratuity. I do not myself wish to put on official record the reasons which I stated to the hon. Member in that letter. I am prepared to do it, but, surely, it is not to the interests of Mr. Toms that this case should be further discussed here.
      Mr. KELLY: That statement, if left there, would be worse for Mr. Toms than if the whole matter were stated. I am dependent on the evidence which he gives to me to enable me to bring this case forward. If what I am told is not correct, I am not to blame should something else come out.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wrote to the hon. Member stating that I had investigated the case and had looked into all the papers in connection with it. I told him that I found no ground for reversing the decision which had been arrived at. Mr. Toms was employed in the clothing store at Jamaica. He was a foreman. Deficiencies amounting to over £500 were discovered. The cause of the loss was very fully investigated on the spot.
      Mr. KELLY: By whom?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: By the officers on the spot and Mr. Toms was given every opportunity of representing his case. The officer commanding the troops at Jamaica decided that Mr. Toms, on account of the negligent manner in which he carried out his duty, could not be held free from blame. Accordingly, his service was terminated under the ad hoc agreement under which he was then serving. Mr. Toms appealed to the War Office on the ground that the stock sheet was incorrect when he took over the stores, and he claimed that he was not responsible for the deficiencies. All of that claim by him and the statements that he made were investigated on the spot in Jamaica, and from what I can see I do not feel that I am justified in reversing the decision that has been come to.
      Mr. KELLY: Was Mr. Toms beard in regard to this case? Was not the case tried without him having the chance of putting the whole of the facts before them, and has the right hon. Gentleman himself seen the stock sheets and the tally in order that he might satisfy himself with regard to the investigation?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course I have not examined the stock sheet and the tally. That is not my duty. I must rely upon the officers on the spot. I have to see that their procedure is correct and that they have the means of coming to a judgment, and if I do not see anything that is obviously wrong, it is my duty to confirm their decision. That I have done. The lion. Member asked me a specific question, whether Mr. Toms gave evidence or had the opportunity of giving evidence. If the hon. Member had given me further notice, I could have had all the papers here, and I could have told him whether he did, but my impression is that he did.
      Mr. KELLY: No.
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Gentleman says he did not. I will look into it and see whether he did, in fact, and I will communicate with the hon. Member.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1928.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £115,000, be granted to His Majesty
      2326
      to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31st day of March, 1929, to meet the excess cost involved in the employment of extra troops in China not provided for in the Army Estimates of the year."
      Mr. COOPER: The last time we came to the House with a Supplementary Estimate for the Forces sent to China we asked for £3,000,000, but this time we are asking for £115,000, and the reduction shows how successful the whole policy has been, how we have been able to reduce the Forces employed there and consequently to reduce the expenditure, and how, to a large extent, that expenditure, which during the past year has been £565,000, has been met out of savings from other Departments. We were aware last year that we would have to produce this Estimate, and accordingly we have been economising all the year to try and meet it out of savings. We have brought it forward as a Supplementary Estimate in order to give the House an opportunity to see exactly how that matter is getting on, and also in order that our Estimates from year to year may be comparable with one another. If we had included it in the ordinary Estimates, it would have thrown out these Estimates, and made them incapable of being compared fairly with the Estimates for other years.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) asked me a question in an earlier part of the Debate with regard to the health of these troops. Their health has considerably improved —I could give him the figures if he wished—though their health is not, of course, satisfactory, as Shanghai is not an ideal place for troops to be quartered in. We have considerably reduced those troops already, and it may be possible in the future to reduce them still further. As to the situation there, as the Committee is aware, the discipline has been admirable, their health has improved, and they have got on well with the local people. There has been a remarkable absence of any regrettable incidents such as occasionally happen when troops are quartered among foreign populations, and they have got on admirably with the contingents of other nations which have also had troops there.
      Sir R. HUTCHISON: What is the period of service of the troops in China?

      2327
      Is it a year a year and a half, or two years? Some three officers have been sent from China to India after serving for two years in China, and I wonder whether that is the ordinary practice or whether those three officers were just unfortunate in having to go to another hot climate after China.
      Mr. COOPER: I cannot say for certain what the period of duty is at present. The officers concerned were I think unfortunate, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will probably find that they
      were on their way to India at the time and were stopped in China owing to the circumstances that arose there, and that they have now gone on to complete their period of duty.
      Sir R. HUTCHISON: If the hon. Gentleman will inquire he will find that there are other cases of officers who have gone on to India. It is hard on them, and I would ask him to look into it.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided: Ayes, 143: Noes, 60.

      Division No. 247.]

      AYES.

      [10.47 p.m.

      Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

      Foster, Sir Harry S.

      Nuttall, Ellis

      Albery, Irving James

      Fraser, Captain Ian

      Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William

      Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)

      Gates, Percy

      Owen, Major G.

      Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James

      Glyn, Major R. G. C.

      Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

      Applin, Colonel R. V. K.

      Gower, Sir Robert

      Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)

      Apsley, Lord

      Grant, Sir J. A.

      Pilcher, G.

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

      Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)

      Raine, Sir Walter

      Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

      Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

      Remer, J. R.

      Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

      Grotrian, H. Brent

      Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell

      Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

      Gunston, Captain D. W.

      Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

      Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

      Hacking, Douglas H.

      Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

      Birchall, Major J. Dearman

      Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)

      Rye, F. G.

      Blundell. F. N.

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

      Salmon, Major I.

      Bourne, Captain Robert Croft

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

      Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)

      Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

      Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

      Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.

      Hilton, Cecil

      Sandeman, N. Stewart

      Brass, Captain W.

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

      Sanders, Sir Robert A.

      Briant, Frank

      Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)

      Sanderson, Sir Frank

      Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive

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

      Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

      Briscoe, Richard George

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

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

      Brittain, Sir Harry

      Home, Sir G. H.

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

      Brocklebank, C. E. R.

      Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

      Skelton, A. N.

      Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.

      Hurd, Percy A.

      Smithers, Waldron

      Bullock, Captain M.

      Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.

      Southby, Commander A. R. J.

      Carver, Major W. H.

      Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.

      Stanley, Lord (Fyide)

      Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)

      Iveagh, Countess of

      Streatfelld, Captain S. R.

      Christie, J. A.

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

      Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

      Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

      Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)

      Tasker, R. Inigo.

      Cobb, Sir Cyril

      Jones, W. N. (Carmarthen)

      Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)

      Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George

      Kindersley, Major Guy M.

      Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell

      Conway, Sir W. Martin

      King, Commodore Henry Douglas

      Tinne, J. A.

      Cooper, A. Duff

      Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

      Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

      Cope, Major Sir William

      Long, Major Eric

      Tomlinson, R. P.

      Couper, J. B.

      Looker, Herbert William

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

      Courtauld, Major J. S.

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere

      Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.

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

      Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman

      Warrender, Sir Victor

      Crawfurd, H. E.

      Lumley, L. R.

      Watts, Sir Thomas

      Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

      McLean, Major A.

      Wells, S. R.

      Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)

      MacRobert, Alexander M.

      White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple

      Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)

      Margesson, Captain D.

      Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)

      Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)

      Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

      Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)

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

      Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)

      Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

      Davies, Dr. Vernon

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

      Womersley, W. J.

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

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

      Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.

      Edmondson, Major A. J.

      Moreing, Captain A. H.

      Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.

      Elliot, Major Walter E.

      Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)

      Fairfax, Captain J. G.

      Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

      Fermoy, Lord

      Nelson, Sir Frank

      Major Sir George Hennessy and

      Fielden, E. B.

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

      Captain Wallace.

      NOES.

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

      Bromfield, William

      Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

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

      Buchanan, G.

      Hardle, George D.

      Ammon, Charles George

      Charleton, H. C.

      Hayday, Arthur

      Beckett, John (Gateshead)

      Cluse, W. S.

      Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)

      Bellamy, A.

      Day, Harry

      Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

      Benn, Wedgwood

      Duncan, C.

      Kelly, W. T.

      Bennett, William (Battersea, South)

      Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)

      Kennedy, T.

      Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.

      Grenfelt, D. R. (Glamorgan)

      Lawrence, Susan

      Broad, F. A.

      Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

      Lawton, John James

      Lindley, F. W.

      Potts, John S.

      Stephen, Campbell

      Longbottom, A. W.

      Purcell, A. A.

      Sullivan, Joseph

      Lowth, T.

      Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)

      Tinker, John Joseph

      Lunn, William

      Sakiatvala, Shapurji

      Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

      Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Palsley)

      Shield, G. W.

      Wellock, Wilfred

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

      Shinwell, E.

      Westwood, J.

      Murnin, H.

      Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

      Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercilffe)

      Naylor, T. E.

      Sitch, Charles H.

      Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

      Oliver, George Harold

      Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)

      Windsor, Walter

      Palin, John Henry

      Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)

      Pet hick-Lawrence. F. W.

      Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

      Ponsonby, Arthur

      Stamford, T. W.

      Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.

      Whiteley.

      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.
      The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

      ADJOURNMENT.
      Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—;[Commander Eyres Monsell.)
      Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.

  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  DEATHS FROM STARVATION.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-SERGEANT GODDARD).
  METROPOLITAN POLICE (EX-SERGEANT GODDARD).
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (HERONS).
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (HERONS).
  ALIENS (DEPORTATION ORDERS).
  ALIENS (DEPORTATION ORDERS).
POOR LAW.
  RELIEF (URGENT CASES).
  RELIEF (URGENT CASES).
  WEST HAM.
  WEST HAM.
  FRESH AND PRESERVED FOODS.
  FRESH AND PRESERVED FOODS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING TENANTS).
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING TENANTS).
  DISTRESSED AREAS (RELIEF).
  DISTRESSED AREAS (RELIEF).
  BENEFIT (GLASGOW).
  BENEFIT (GLASGOW).
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  RELIEF SCHEMES (GRANTS).
  RELIEF SCHEMES (GRANTS).
  STATISTICS.
  STATISTICS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, SERVICE (COST).
  UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, SERVICE (COST).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IRISH FREE STATE (IMPORT DUTIES).
  IRISH FREE STATE (IMPORT DUTIES).
  IMPORT DUTIES.
  IMPORT DUTIES.
BRITISH ARMY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  MEAT SUPPLY.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.
  CIVIL AVIATION (GERMANY).
  CIVIL AVIATION (GERMANY).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  POST OFFICE EX-SUPPLEMENTARY CLERKS (SENIORITY).
  POST OFFICE EX-SUPPLEMENTARY CLERKS (SENIORITY).
  TEMPORARY AND "P" CLASS CLERKS.
  TEMPORARY AND "P" CLASS CLERKS.
EDUCATION.
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, STONE (KENT).
  SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, STONE (KENT).
ROYAL NAVY.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  DISABILITY PENSIONS.
  GRANT (WEST HAM).
  GRANT (WEST HAM).
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
  NEW CRUISERS (COST).
  NEW CRUISERS (COST).
  INDIA (TRADE MISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  INDIA (TRADE MISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS).
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
  NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY.
TRANSPORT.
  OCCUPATION ROAD, NORTON.
  OCCUPATION ROAD, NORTON.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.
  MOTOR VEHICLE LICENCES.
  DRIVING LICENCES.
  DRIVING LICENCES.
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

RATING AND VALUATION (VILLAGE HALLS) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to secure uniformity in the basis of valuation of village halls in rural districts for the purpose of rates; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª.—(Lord Strachie.)
On Question, Bill read 1ª, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess the Leader of the House whether he can give any indication as to when the Local Government (Scotland) Bill will be taken in this House?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I am very glad indeed to give all the information in my power to the noble Duke. As I think he probably knows, we have every hope that this Bill will be received in your Lordships' House and read a first time on Tuesday, March 12. Then, according to our ordinary practice, I propose to give a week's interval between the First Reading and the Second Reading, which would bring us to Tuesday, March 19, for the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not quite sure whether the Scottish Peers require one day or two days for the Second Reading, but, if the 19th should not be sufficient, I should propose to assign the 20th too, so that they would have the two successive days for the Second Reading. Then for the Committee stage your Lordships would require again, according to your ordinary practice, another week's interval, and that would bring the Committee stage to Tuesday and Wednesday, March 26 and 27—the Tuesday and Wednesday before Easter. That would probably be sufficient. I need not say I can assure the
1164
noble Duke and other noble Lords who are interested in the Scottish Bill that I should be very glad indeed to hear anything they have to say to us and to meet their convenience if those days are not suitable.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess. As far as I know the desires of Scottish Peers, what he has suggested would be most suitable. I do not know what noble Lords opposite are going to do, but I do not think the Bill will require a great deal of time.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, as I have been appealed to, may I say I think the allowance made by the noble Marquess is a very generous allowance, as, after all, I think that noble Lords who are interested in the Scottish Bill will probably be able to accumulate sufficient ammunition to discharge their speeches upon the Second Reading even earlier than March 19. But, if the noble Marquess is good enough to allow a long period between the First and Second Readings I have no doubt it would be all the more pleasing to noble Lords from Scotland.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I only desire to meet the convenience of your Lordships. If the Scottish Peers prefer to have the Second Reading rather earlier than the 19th I will see what I can do. I had not thought they would be ready to discuss the Bill within less than a week of its being received here.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I think the 19th would be a suitable date. Sometimes a considerable time elapses before a Bill is printed.

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill read 2ª accordingly.

LIFE PEERS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Heading read.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, it is now my privilege to move the Second Reading of this Bill for making provision for the appointment of Peers of Parliament for life, and I would ask you to bear with me a little while I give a brief historical account of the form in which this question has been brought before the House on former occasions, and the way it has been treated on such occasions. I do not deny that the principle of the appointment of Life Peers has aroused considerable controversy in your Lordships' House in the past, but I will show you in the course of my remarks that that principle has been actually accepted by a Select Committee of this House, and that it has received the support of some of the most distinguished members of your Lordships' House over a period of seventy years. I do not think that I need weary you by traversing the early history of this question, because there was a good deal of uncertainty in the earlier centuries with regard to the creation of these Peers; but there is no doubt that between the years 1295 and 1485 Life Peers were created and summoned to your Lordships' House. Two Life Baronies were created in the 17th century, those of Lord Hay in 1606 and Lord Reede in 1644. In both cases it was provided that the bearers of the titles should not sit or vote in the House of Lords. So it seems useless to rely upon what one might call Cromwellian authority as to the creation of Life Peers. Since the reign of William III the practice has been quite conventional and there is no case or example of the creation of a Life Peer to this House since that Sovereign reigned.
Coming to a more modern era, I find that the matter came up very definitely in the year 1856, when the Government of the day attempted to strengthen the judicial capacity of your Lordships' House by making Sir James Parke, who was then over 80 years of age and had no heir, a Life Peer. The members of your Lordships' House at that time resisted this proposal, chiefly on the ground that they were in favour of maintaining what is called the ennoblement of the blood. In any case the proposal was not passed, and Sir James Parke became
1166
Lord Wensleydale with full hereditary privileges. But a controversy had been aroused as the result of that debate which would not be stilled. Out of it grew a further debate in the same year when a Bill was introduced to create two Law Lords; but it did not pass. It is interesting to note, however, that in 1876, under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act of that year, two Law Lords could be created. That Act was amended by a further Act in 1913 which enabled the creation of six Law Lords, who would have the right to sit for life and vote in your Lordships' House.
I should like to refer to certain remarks made by a very distinguished member of the House at that time, Lord Palmerston, in the course of the debate in 1856. He said:—
"There can be no doubt that the House of Lords would derive great influence and consideration in the country if there were the menus of placing within its limits men who had distinguished themselves either by their legal attainments or by great military or naval achievement, but who, not having that fortune which would enable them to transmit to their descendants the means adequately to maintain the dignity of the Peerage, would be placed in an improper and, to themselves, a painful situation by being made hereditary Peers."
That was an expression of opinion in 1856, over seventy years ago. Subsequently, in 1869, Lord Russell, the author of the Reform Bill, introduced a Bill to provide for 28 Life Peerages with not more than four creations per annum. That Bill was supported by Lord Salisbury, the father of the distinguished Leader of the House to-day, on the ground that the Bill would make the House more representative. It was supported also by Lord Derby on the ground that the House was composed too exclusively of landed proprietors. The Bill, however, did not pass. In 1888 Lord Salisbury, who by that time had become Prime Minister and Leader of your Lordships' House, introduced a Bill providing for Life Peerages; but this Bill was also dropped.
Coming to still more recent times, I find that in 1907 my noble friend Lord Newton introduced what I may call an omnibus Bill dealing with the reform of the House of Lords, which included a provision for the creation of Life Peers to a number not exceeding 100. That Bill was remitted to a Select Committee, and it is extremely interesting to note

1167
that the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships' House recommended, amongst other things, the creation of Life Peers to a number not exceeding forty, with not more than four creations per annum. Nothing happened on the Report of that Select Committee, and I cannot find any other trace of reference to Life Peers until we come to the Resolution moved by my noble friend Lord Clarendon last December, which included the creation of Life Peers. As is well within the recollection of your Lordships, only the first part of that Resolution was passed, and the second part, which contained the detailed proposals, was not pressed to a Division. Consequently, we do not know whether the House, in this more recent era, is in favour of Life Peers. Upon that Resolution no debate took place in connection with the creation of Life Peers.
I think I have told your Lordships enough to show the many vicissitudes through which this question of Life Peers has passed over a period of practically eight centuries, and also I have told you enough to indicate that this Bill contains no new principle but that it contains a principle which has been discussed over and over again in your Lordships' House and has actually received acceptance by a Select Committee of this House within the past twenty years. Whilst I make no excuse therefore for introducing this Bill, I should have been happier had it been fathered by the Government of the day, because I believe that any amendment to our constitution, any constitutional change, however small, ought to be introduced and fathered by the Government. I would, however, point to the Resolutions which have been brought within this Parliament before your Lordships' House with the object of reforming this House which have likewise been introduced by private members, the reason being that the Government have not thought fit to introduce a measure of reform themselves. Therefore, those of us who believe that a measure of reform of this House is necessary and ought to be proceeded with have no option but to introduce Resolutions and to move the introduction and Readings of Bills such as the one I present to-day.
1168
To turn to the Bill itself, as your Lordships will observe it is a short three-clause Bill containing two provisos. First of all, I should like to point out that this Bill in no way interferes with the existing Prerogative of His Majesty to appoint hereditary Peers. So far as the principal object of the Bill is concerned, it will permit of the introduction into this House of individuals who, for various good reasons, would be embarrassed by taking an hereditary Peerage, but who otherwise would be eminently fitted to sit in your Lordships' House owing to distinguished public services here and overseas, or to long experience in the House of Commons, the Army, the Navy or other professions, or in business or science and so on. Again, I would like to suggest that it would give the opportunity to appoint to this House distinguished statesmen of the Dominions who might be resident over here and whose services in this House would be most valuable from their intimate connection with the Dominions and Dominion affairs. I think at this time, when our whole life and interests are bound up with the Empire and its development, it is most important that we should in this Second Chamber have representatives of those Dominions who can give us at first hand their knowledge and experience and information on conditions existing in the Dominions. This Bill would secure to the nation those invaluable services which we are losing to-day. I think, also, that this House would receive an accession of individuals who would add lustre to it and distinction to its debates.
With regard to the proviso in Clause 1 (a) of the Bill, this provides for the limitation of numbers to 25 in any one Parliament. I have inserted this proviso with the object of preventing the swamping of your Lordships' House by the creation of Life Peers. It is obvious that it would be much more easy to swamp this House by the creation of Life Peers than it would be by the creation of hereditary Peers. The actual number, 25, is an arbitrary number which could be changed if the House so desired. This number would enable the Government of the day to deal with the cases I have just enumerated, and it would also enable an adjustment of the numbers in this House so far as Parties are concerned. Looking to the Opposi-

1169
tion Bench, if the Government were so unfortunate, after the General Election, as not to return to power and it should happen that there was a Labour Government in office, then I believe that this Bill, if it were passed, would be very useful to that Government, for it would enable them to strengthen their numbers and to make a more representative appearance in this House than they are able to do to-day.
The second proviso in Clause 1 says:—
"No persons shall be so appointed in pursuance of this Act until two calendar months have elapsed alter the beginning of a Parliament."
There is growing up in this country a form, of politics which one might almost call European, in which three or four Parties contest Elections, with the result that after the General Election it is quite likely we may have a stalemate; in fact, stalemates may continue for several General Elections. If that is the case, this proviso will prevent a Government which is in for a very short time taking advantage of this Bill, creating 25 Peers (or whatever the number may be) and then leaving the next Government no opportunity to exercise any of the privileges conferred by the Bill. I do not feel very strongly about this particular proviso, but I have put it down for the reason that it deals with a contingency which possibly ought to be provided against.
I wish to add this. I have not introduced this. Bill as part of any large measure of reform. I am introducing it, and I am asking your Lordships' House to accept it, as a simple measure by itself which present-day conditions demand and for which I believe the country is ready. I admit that like my noble friend the Earl of Midleton I am in favour of a larger measure of reform than is contained in this Bill, I only wish that I could persuade him to support this Bill and not to use all his eloquence and influence in order to delay this Bill, because I believe that on this subject of reform it is extremely difficult to find, and in fact it is very unlikely that we shall ever find, that unanimity of opinion which is necessary in order to secure that larger measure.
Besides, I venture to believe that the foundation of any reform of this House in its capacity of the Second Chamber of the State cannot be upon a popularly
1170
elected basis or even upon a partially elected basis, I am of opinion that with a Constitution such as ours a popularly elected Second Chamber or a partially elected Second Chamber is bound sooner or later to clash and conflict with another place. So I believe that a simple solution of this problem could be found by the selection of a certain number of hereditary Peers from this Chamber and by the appointment on the other side of a limited number of Life Peers. It is because of this that I believe that in this Bill for the creation of Life Peers is to be found the real living germ of reform of this House, and if your Lordships were to pass this Bill and it were to be placed upon the Statute Book, I believe that out of it would grow that larger measure of reform which so many of us desire and for which the country is looking. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Elibank.)
THE EARL OF MIDLETON THE EARL OF MIDLETON had given Notice to move, as an Amendment, That this House, while welcoming proposals for broadening the constitution of the House, declines to proceed with any measure which does not deal with the general question of reform which this House has twice during the present Parliament advocated as urgent. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend needed to make no apology for re-introducing a question which has been so often before your Lordships and which according to his résumé of what has passed has obtained on so many occasions the primary approval of this House. As one of those who have tried to induce this House to move in a much more vigorous manner on this subject I welcome any effort such as he has made to remind your Lordships that this question is still unsettled, but at the same time I hope my noble friend will not think I am speaking with any disrespect of his Bill, or of his effort, if I very briefly give reasons which mike me feel that a proposal so often supported in this House is, as it stands by itself, now entirely out of date.
I think the last occasion he mentioned was 1907. That twenty-two years ago. Even twenty-two years ago there was a distribution in this House the inequalities of which would have been redressed

1171
to a considerable degree by his Bill. But it was then a question of a Conservative Government winning a Division by 60 or 70. Look at the position now. We have 700 Peers. You have seven gentlemen sitting on that Bench opposite. What would have been a really valuable reform twenty-five or thirty years ago would not be even a palliative of the present situation. To make twenty-five life Peers in order to redress a majority which is counted by hundreds would really be like Mrs. Partington's mop against the Atlantic. If we are going to do anything we must go much further.
I want, if my noble friend will allow me, to point out that his Bill as framed does not really carry out the reform he desires to see. In the first place, as I have already said, it does not redress, except in the most meagre degree, the great inequalities of representation of the different Parties. Secondly, it does not meet what I understand is a strongly held opinion among a great number of Labour members, that if they sat in this House as the Second Chamber they ought not to have to adopt the title or position of Peers. There are many who would not care to be brought in under that designation, and in the proposals of my noble friend the Earl of Clarendon it was directly laid down that those who, in accord with the strength of Parties in the House of Commons, might be added to this House for one Parliament, would put "Lord of Parliament" after their names just as a member of the Lower House puts "Member of Parliament" after his name, but they would not necessarily be Peers.
My noble friend provides in his Bill that the Government may make twenty-five Life Peers, but he has included a proviso the effect of which I think ought to be considered. If, and when, the Leader of the Labour Party goes to His Majesty to take up office the first thing he will have to consider is how his Government can be represented in this House. There should be some machinery by which he can, at all events, have members who can answer for the different Departments. That is obviously fair. But my noble friend, in order to avoid another difficulty, puts off this power to make Life Peers for two months. Therefore, it would be quite impossible for the Leader of the Labour Party when forming his Government to take advantage of
1172
this provision in order to fill places in his Government which he is bound to fill. There is a third point of a more general character, and that is the question whether, when this House has by a very large majority on my noble friend Viscount FitzAlan's Motion, and by a sufficient majority considering the circumstances on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Clarendon, expressed desire for very broad reforms, to take one single point and deal with it is the way to salve the conscience, the extremely sensitive conscience, of my noble friends below me who are unwilling to face a perfectly obvious difficulty which, not unlikely, will in a few months result through their inaction, which they may bitterly have to rue.
Let us look at the present position. I do not want to pose as a prophet of woe, but I think that anybody can see that the position is a critical one. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has mentioned the strange position in which we may be placed if, owing to there being three Parties at the General Election, the Labour Party finds itself in a minority in respect of 100 or 200 seats, but having the representation. In such case we may have, what has never been known in this country before, for five years government by a minority, as regards which there is no possible redress except by the action of this House. I know that my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who has fought for this House on every occasion, is well aware of this difficulty, and I am going to ask your Lordships to remember that if and when the Government is carried on in the House of Commons by a Party which, while representing the seats, under present conditions is yet in a minority of the electors in the country, the tax upon this House will be infinitely greater, and the country will look to this House to supply some of the opinion which the majority in the country hold. Is this House well equipped to do so at the present time? Will any man, woman or child in the country say that a House in which the reigning Party, in a majority in the House of Commons, have perhaps only half a dozen representatives, is really a proper assembly to revise and check what has been done in the House of Commons? It is impossible.
There is another point of view from which we have to look at it. This

1173
House, I say it with great regret, has been atrophied by the manner in which it has been treated by successive Governments. Business comes up at the end of the Session, to be hurried over as rapidly as possible, and a complaint, made from those Benches, that this House during a Conservative Administration is simply a registry office, is one which I myself would not dispute. There is another point. The attendance at this House has completely fallen off. If you look at the attendance in the 'seventies, when there were 300 fewer Peers, you will find that there were more in attendance then on an ordinary debate than to-day. We had a Division last night on the greatest measure that the Government have brought forward, and less than one-fifth of the members of the House were present. If you will look at the list you will see that out of those who have the great privilege of taking their seats here, something like 140 have not taken the trouble even to take the oath in the course of the five Sessions that we have been sitting in this Parliament. I think I am Justified in saying that this represents a House which has been atrophied by the policy of successive Governments.
Surely there are two things which we may deduce from that. The first is that the authority of this House, in the contingency of government by a majority in the House of Commons who yet represent a minority in the country, would be very difficult to sustain. The second is that this House must undergo some considerable modification, and that if that modification is undertaken at a time of great national feeling, it will certainly be done on lines which are not likely to remember the traditions of this House, which we all desire to maintain. Therefore I would urge my noble friend not to press this particular proposal on this occasion. If he does so, after the measures to which so many Governments have given the go-by, after months of labour by Committees—one by Lord Rosebery, one by Lord Bryce and one brought in by Lord Lansdowne than whom no man had more power as Leader of the Unionist Party in this House: all three have been shelved and put aside—I cannot imagine anything more likely to occasion a further delay than that my noble friend should take what is one comparatively small point, as compared
1174
with what it is really necessary to do if this House is to become, as it should become, a really revising chamber, which is not only impartial in fact but has behind it the confidence of the people in its impartiality. I beg to move the Motion on the Paper in my name.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("That") and insert ("this House, while welcoming proposals for broadening the constitution of the House, declines to proceed with any measure which does not deal with the general question of Reform which this House has twice during the present Parliament advocated as urgent.").—(The Earl of Midleton.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I only desire to say a very few words. Personally I wish to express my entire concurrence in what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Midleton. I have rarely heard a speech with which I have been more in agreement from the first word to the last. Therefore I do not propose to cover the ground which I think he has completely covered. I do, however, desire to say this, that I shall oppose this measure, and every other measure brought forward for the reform of this House, unless it provides for the remedy of what I regard as a gross injustice—namely, the exclusion of women from having any opportunity of sharing in your Lordships' deliberations. From time to time t has been solemnly promised that if this House is reformed that opportunity should be afforded, and into every one of the deliberate schemes put forward there has been a possibility of women being introduced. This Bill not only excludes them, but expressly provides that the only people to be added are male persons. If only for that reason I object to the Bill, but there are other and more formidable reasons, which have been brought forward by Lord Midleton.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I would like to say a word as regards the Bill. It is impossible to expect, I am afraid, that a Bill brought forward in this way by a private member is likely to form the foundation of a true reform of this House. Personally, I sympathise a good deal with the view of the noble Viscount, that one of the ways, at any rate, in which reform of this House might be approached is by a larger number of what I may call nominated

1175
members. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl said, that you do not want to make this House in its representative capacity a rival of the representation in the House of Commons, but if you do not have either an elective or an hereditary principle, nomination in some form is the only other road of approach that I can see towards a reform of this House.
With regard to one point to which the noble Earl referred, although I agreed with a good deal of his speech, surely at the present time the Government which is in power is in a minority in the country. That is a matter which occurs from time to time, and which I think has been rather largely prominent during the last five years. At the same time we have to remember that while there is a majority for the present Government in the House of Commons—a considerable majority—really we have in this country single-chamber government. My noble friend Lord Hunsdon has more than once protested against that position. It is a position in which no Second Chamber ought to be left. As to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, the wording of the Bill says that Life Peers shall be male persons. That is an archaism nowadays. In any reform of this House men and women should stand on an equal basis as they do at present in the House of Commons. I do not think it is necessary to say more because proposals brought forward in this way cannot make any real progress towards acceptance at the present time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I gather that it is not your wish that this debate should be prolonged and I, for one, shall not contribute at any great length towards detaining your Lordships this afternoon. A few words are due as to the position of the Government and of myself. I do not know whether my noble friend who made that excellent speech, the mover of this Bill, intends to press it to a Division. If he does, he will not be surprised, of course, having regard to the action which the Government took in December, if they do not as a Government take any part in the decision which the House may come to in that Division. As your Lordships will remember, in December
1176
we stated that we were not prepared to commit the Government in any way in respect of the details of House of Lords reform when there was no prospect of carrying through legislation which might represent definite steps in that direction. Therefore, upon that occasion the Government abstained as a Government from any part in the Division. That course, which was a good deal criticised at the time, was undoubtedly very unusual and I do not think it can be repeated. Therefore, there will be no question of the whole Government abstaining. It remains true, that we do not propose on this question to act as a Government and that, so far as we are concerned, the question is a completely open one on which we would not suggest either to noble Lords who support us in this House or to noble Lords who sit on this Bench that they should vote one way rather than another.
Personally, if my noble friend Lord Elibank goes to a Division, I shall be obliged to vote with my noble friend Lord Midleton. I shall do so with considerable regret because I have always been in favour of the creation of Life Peers as one of the elements in House of Lords reform, as indeed are my noble friends who sit behind me and who were responsible for the debate of last December. It is a very old remedy and, if your Lordships will permit the juxtaposition of the phrase, I may almost claim an hereditary interest in it because a proposal to this effect was introduced by my father many years ago. I am satisfied that what has been said this afternoon is perfectly true, that no measure of this sort ought to be passed except at the instance of the Government, and, as I have explained, owing to the want of time and feeling in the House of Commons, there is no opportunity for the Government upon the present occasion. Of course, if a Government, whether this Government or any other, brought it forward and that was the only crumb of House of Lords reform that was possible, I personally should support it on the ground that half a loaf or very much less than half a loaf, a very small crust, is better than no bread. My noble friend Lord Midleton is right in saying that to try to carry such a Bill now and to adhere to such a Bill now on behalf of the Government would prejudice the larger

1177
scheme of reform to which so many of us look forward. That would be a pity and personally it is a responsibility I would not like to incur. Therefore, if nay noble friend goes to a Division I shall be obliged to vote for the Amendment.
I confess that I approach this question with a feeling of considerable dismay. I do not think any of us, to whichever House or Party we belong, can view with satisfaction the attitude of our countrymen towards the Parliamentary institutions under which they are governed. There is a loss of confidence in the country in its Parliamentary institutions. That is a most deplorable thing. It seems as if the great days of Parliamentary institutions were passing by or had passed by. Of course, it is very evident in a foreign country and in a very extreme form. We only have to look abroad to see that the old belief in the representative principles as patented by Great Britain and as spread throughout the civilised world, has lost a great deal of the strength which it used to have and has been abandoned in many countries not far from these shores. Even in our own country, though of course there is no such point of view favoured here, there is a loss of confidence. People look at the Lords and at the Commons and it must be admitted that they have not the same respect for either the one or the other that they used to have fifty years ago when I began my political life. That is a very formidable thing.
Your Lordships' House has its great merits and I am the last man to underrate them, but the apathy to which my noble friend Lord Midleton called attention cannot be denied. The want of interest which many noble Lords take in our proceedings cannot be denied. It is due to a great variety of causes—partly to the changed circumstances, and partly, if I may be brutal, to the change of financial circumstances in which many noble Lords stand. They are no longer free to spend as much time in the public service as their fathers were in happier times. But, of course, I do not attribute the loss of interest only to the social and financial circumstances of noble Lords. I shall not command general assent in what I am going to say, but I attribute a great deal of the loss of interest to the passage of the Parliament
1178
Act. I believe that the announcement on behalf of the country—because that is what it came to—that the country no longer trusted the House of Lords to the extent to which it had trusted it before was a fatal step, and that it was very unlikely that noble Lords who respect themselves would feel as much interest in their functions after the passage of that Act as they did before. Noble Lords there [on the Liberal Benches] are responsible for all that. We, at any rate many of us, have no responsibility for it whatever. We did our utmost to resist, and if our advice had been followed we should have resisted it to the very end; but we were over-ruled.
That is the Lords. But may I very respectfully look at the House of Commons. No one can pretend that the House of Commons enjoys the same respect as it formerly did. It is not appropriate for a member of your Lordships' House to criticise what takes place in the House of Commons, but it is difficult to believe that the limitations under which they have to transact their business are really satisfactory for a great deliberative assembly. It is, indeed, the fact that many of the provisions of Bills come up to your Lordships' House without having been discussed in the House of Commons at all. I cannot say that I am surprised at the alteration in the public feeling in respect of the House of Commons. It is a very formidable result, I say, that whether the public look at the Lords or look at the Commons they cannot look at them with the same respect and satisfaction as they did formerly.
But there is this difference between the two Houses, that we are anxious for some measure of reform. I am not aware that an analogous attitude prevails in another place. We are anxious for some measure of reform, but we are not allowed to do it. That is the great difference. My noble friend behind me and his friends in the debates of last December did their utmost, but everybody knows that whether the proposals proceeded from the Government, as they did in 1927, or from private members of your Lordships' House, as they did in 1928, there were no means of getting the House of Commons to consider them. The younger members of the House of Commons—younger, perhaps, much more in experience than in years—have a great

1179
responsibility. They prevented the proper consideration of the late Lord Cave's Resolutions when they were brought before that House, and the times are very critical. I must say I reecho with all the emphasis I can the words of warning which my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer uttered at the Queen's Hall a few days ago, when he enumerated as one of the handicaps under which this country stands in comparison with other countries the fact that it has no strong Second Chamber.
The responsibility, then, of the members of the House of Commons is very great. I wonder whether they feel as happy to-day in the attitude which was taken in 1927 as they did then. Those were great days, when there was a great confidence in the future fortunes of the Unionist Party. Well, I believe, as my right hon. friend does, in the good sense of the British people, and I think that, notwithstanding certain adverse circumstances, the General Election will result favourably for the Party to which I belong. But undoubtedly the prospect is not so obviously favourable as it was. I wonder what the younger members of the House of Commons think about it now? Is it another history of missed opportunities? When the time was favourable, when there was an opportunity of reforming your Lordships' House, that opportunity was allowed to go by. I repeat that I cannot contemplate the situation with complete equanimity. I earnestly hope—not, perhaps, in regard to the Bill of my noble friend, but in regard to other proposals which hereafter may be submitted to the House, a better history may result, and that we may look forward to a time not far distant when your Lordships' House and its constitution may be placed upon a better footing, more worthy and more able to perform the high function with which the country would entrust this House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I had no intention in joining in the debate, but I can hardly allow some of the remarks made by the noble Marquess to pass by without one or two words of comment. I certainly shall not join with him in the words of criticism which he applied to another place and the question as to whether it has, or has not, lost some of its influence in the country to-day. I
1180
would rather confine myself to his remarks upon the subject of the reform of this House. If, indeed, this House no longer enjoys the same influence, in the country to-day, the noble Marquess is of opinion that it is due to the passage of the Parliament Act. My opinion is that it was due to the causes which led to the Parliament Act, and not to the passage of the Parliament Act itself.
But I am certainly going to be as brief as possible, because there is an important measure later on the Order Paper, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, for which I imagine your Lordships would like to have plenty of time for discussion. Two other observations only I would venture to make. The first is that, if the noble Marquess is anxious to see some reform against possible dangers in the future, I think that the proper course would have been so to reform the electoral system in this country as to give everybody in this country some chance of being properly represented in another place. It would have been far better to have amended our antiquated system, which, good enough as it may have been when there were only two Parties in the State, is out of date when there are three Parties in the State. A reform in that direction might have gone far to allay the fears which he expressed.
And, lastly, I would venture to say that the admonition which he addressed to the younger Conservative members in another place naturally leaves us on these Benches perfectly cold. It does not matter to us very much what line they took, but I think we are entitled to say that His Majesty's Government had it in their power at any time in the last four years to make the reform of this Chamber the first and most prominent feature of their progamme for the Session. It was in their power to do so, and they might have done it. Other measures might perfectly well have been delayed while some measure that they thought desirable for the reform of this House was introduced. They did not do that. They postponed for some considerable time the introduction of the reforms associated with the name of the late Lord Cave. They were not introduced by any means at the beginning of the Parliament. Even then, I cannot understand why they were so much discouraged as to refuse entirely to accept any responsi-

1181
bility for a further measure with regard to the reform of your Lordships' House. It was always within their competence as a Government, and I should have thought, in view of the strict promise which they made that the matter should be dealt with within the lifetime of the present Parliament, they ought to have taken further steps in that direction.
It is perfectly possible that further measures (or that a measure) for the reform of your Lordships' House will be proposed in the course of the next few years. Whether they will be more drastic than will appeal to the noble Marquess or not I am not sure. Probably they will be, and then he will have this further cause to regret the fact that his Government, the Government with which he is connected, did not introduce during the present Parliament some measure for the reform of your Lordships' House.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, before the Question is put I should like to say one or two words with regard to the extraordinary speech, if I may say so, of the noble Marquess who leads the House. I re-echo what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, in protesting against, the attack—for that is what it was—which the noble Marquess made upon the House of Commons. I do not agree myself with his estimate of the view which the people of the country have of the House of Commons to-day; but if it is right in any sense, I believe the responsibility for that state of things rests almost entirely upon the present Government which, during its term of office, has done much to degrade the House of Commons, and certainly in very many ways it has done a great deal to lessen interest in Parliamentary proceedings. That cannot be denied.
The noble Marquess is always very ready to blame everybody but himself and his own Government. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, dealt with that point. Surely we could not have a greater travesty of the actual facts with regard to the rejection in another place of the so-called reform proposals of your Lordships' House than the noble Marquess put forward. The blame, if blame there be—I do not think there was blame—rested with the followers of the noble Marquess in another place. Therefore, he not merely attacked the House of Commons but he attacked his own
1182
Party there. The fact is that the proposals put forward were so indefensible, so out of date, that even The Times in a leader strongly animadverted at any rate upon certain features of them, and the members of all Parties in another place were not prepared to entertain them. That is a perfectly simple statement of fact, and if we do wish to have a true perspective of the case put in the speech of the noble Marquess I believe I have stated the facts correctly. I will conclude by saying that I was unable to find any close connection, indeed I was unable to find any but a very slight relation between the remarks of the noble Marquess and the business before the House, which is, after all, a Bill for the creation of Life Peers. As regards that I will not speak now. My noble and learned Leader has said something upon it, and I will leave the matter there at any rate for the time being.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: With the courtesy of your Lordships' House I should like to say a few words. It seems that the sense of the House is that this Bill should not be proceeded with to-day. If that is the sense of the House, and I gather it is in all quarters and Parties, I have no intention of pressing the Motion to a Division, so I, therefore, ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): Does the noble Earl persist in his Amendment?
THE EARL OF MIDLETON: My Lords, I do not think it would be desirable to ask the House to proceed with an Amendment upon a Motion which the mover, the noble Viscount, wishes to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill withdrawn.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Power to make regulations as to cotton cloth factories.
1.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report, dated the twenty-third day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State on the fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, to consider and report whether, and, if so, what modifications of the existing statutory regulations governing the use of artificial humidity in cotton cloth factories are desirable and practicable.
(3) Regulations made under this Act may be substituted for the provisions contained in sections ninety, ninety-one, ninety-two and ninety-four of the principal Act and in the Fourth Schedule to that Act, or for any of those provisions, and any of those provisions for which regulations are so substituted shall cease to apply as respects cotton cloth factories.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM had given Notice to omit the words "The Secretary of State may make regulations" at the beginning of the clause, and to add to subsection (1) the words "the regulations set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name, I should mention that there is a further Amendment, which is consequential. The effect of my Amendments would be to make the clause read as follows:—
"1.—(1) For the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report, dated the twenty-third day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State on the fifth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, to consider and report whether, and, if so, what modifications of the existing statutory regulations governing the use of artificial humidity in cotton cloth factories are desirable and practicable, the regulations set out in the Schedule to this Act shall have effect."
The result of the Amendments, if carried, would be that the regulations would have to be set out in the Schedule. I have not set out those regulations because I thought that the Government having superior knowledge would be able to set out the regulations in the Schedule better than I could do it myself. The result of the Amendments would be to limit the
1184
Act to the regulations mentioned in this particular clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out ("the Secretary of State may make regulations").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: I find it very difficult to understand these Amendments which talk about regulations set out in the Schedule and say that they shall have effect. There is no Schedule and there are no regulations set out in it. As that is the case I do not see that this particular Amendment makes any sense. Its object apparently is to take out of the hands of the Secretary of State the power of making regulations with regard to this Bill.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No. The object is to have in the Schedule the regulations which would be given effect to so that people can see them. There is no Schedule at the moment. I left it to the Government to put that in. They are cleverer people than I am.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I fully admit that; but there is no Motion. The noble Lord ought to have begun with a Motion saying that the regulations instead of being drawn up by the Secretary of State in the manner set out in the Bill should be put into a Schedule. There is no Motion to that effect.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Yes, in line 16, at the end of subsection (1) that is done.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I beg leave to differ. There is nothing of the sort. There would have to be a Motion first to put regulations in the Bill, and then the Secretary of State should be confined to them, but even supposing the Amendment were in order, it would upset the whole practice of the last forty years with regard to Factory Acts. Power has always been given to the Secretary of State to draw up regulations with regard to the Cotton Factory Acts and other Acts. These regulations are of a most intricate character; they never have been inserted in an Act of Parliament and it is quite unnecessary that they should be. What the Secretary of State acquires under this Act is something which the Secretary of State has been in the habit of having for the last forty years. In all these Acts he has that power to draw

1185
up regulations. What is proposed in this particular ease is that the Secretary of State should have, as he had in the Act of 1911, passed by a Liberal Government, and in a previous Act passed by a Conservative Government, power to draw up these regulations, and in this particular case it is proposed that when the Secretary of State has drawn up draft regulations he shall submit them to the employers and employed. Fortunately, after the lapse of some fifty years, and after three years of careful inquiry by a very competent Committee, an agreement has been reached between the employers and the employed.
Later on I propose—and I hope the House will consider that that will be a satisfactory solution and enable Parliament to keep its hold over these regulations—an Amendment that these regulations should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for thirty days so that Parliament, after having; seen the regulations should have absolute power either to delay them or to refuse sanction to them. I hope that Amendment, which I shall move later, will satisfy my noble friend. I can assure him that the Government in this particular case have been most solicitous to meet all objections. There was during the Second Heading rather a misapprehension that the Papers had not been laid before Parliament. The Report of the Departmental Committee on this matter was laid before this House on March 28 of last year so that the House really had ample opportunity to become familiar with it. The only complaint made was that the Government had been rather dilatory in carrying out the recommendations of this Committee. As a matter of fact, the recommendations are very good ones, and I think that both the House and the country are very much indebted to this Committee for the admirable Report they brought out on a subject which has been in dispute for the last fifty years.
It was objected to on the last occasion on the ground that it was a Departmental Committee, but there was only one Departmental representative on the Committee, and that was the Sub-inspector of Factories, Mr. Jackson, who has enormous experience of factories in Lancashire. He was thought to be the best person to serve and was appointed
1186
Chairman of the Committee. There was represented on the Committee a number of societies such as the Cotton Industry Research Association, the National Institute of Medical Research and the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, and it was hoped that, as a result of their labours, there would, after fifty years, be a unanimous Report which would be acceptable to those engaged, not in a dangerous occupation but an occupation which is carried on under circumstances of great heat and artificial humidity which are distressing to those employed in it. The Government propose to follow the usual precedent in this country in regard to these Acts, and to give the Secretary of State power to draw up these regulations which will be submitted first of all to those who are chiefly concerned—the employers and the employees. Then the regulations will be laid upon the Table of Parliament for thirty days so that Parliament will have the absolute power of approving or disapproving them. I hope, therefore, the House will consider that these suggested Amendments are not only unusual but unnecessary, and, as I submit, out of order as they refer to a Schedule which does not exist.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hope my noble friend who moved the Amendment will not persist in it. I think the Government have since the criticism acted very fairly. They gave an undertaking as to what course they would pursue, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Desborough, has indicated, everything will be done to carry into effect the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp, which suggestion—that these regulations should be laid on the Table of the House—I submit, really represents the views of the House better than the Amendment. To embody regulations in the Schedule of an Act of Parliament would cause very great inconvenience, because, if any amendment were required to be made as the result of agreement between employers and employed, that amendment would have to be the subject of legislation if you had introduced such a Schedule into the Act. This proposal of placing the regulations on the Table of the House for thirty days is a much more convenient way of dealing with the matter for it will enable further regulations to be made as and

1187
when the situation requires them to be made. I think the criticisms have had value for they have led to the Government taking the step which is now proposed and it is, I think, all the Government could be asked to do.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I quite agree with what was said just now that my Amendment, if carried, would alter the practice which has been going on for forty years. That is exactly what I want to do. There has been a bad practice going on for forty years and I want to stop it. For forty years Government Departments have said to themselves: "We are going to do certain things. We do not care twopence for the House of Lords or the House of Commons: we are going to do them." That is what I want to stop. I want to restore the power of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords. I quite agree that my two first Amendments are not practicable unless the Government would agree to draw up a Schedule and put the regulations in it. As my noble friend says he will not do that, of course it will not be of any use my pressing the Amendment, and I do not propose to do so. I may have a word or two to say later upon the question of the efficacy of laying these regulations on the Table. In the meantime I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: "Provided that no regulation so made shall have the force of law unless it does merely give effect to some or other of the recommendations aforesaid." The noble Lord said: This Amendment was not drawn up by me but by a member of this House who was at one time one of the leading Judges in the kingdom. Therefore there is no question about its being properly and well drawn. The object of it is to provide that the recommendations which may be given the force of law by regulations shall be those recommendations which are in the Report. I hope my noble friend will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, at end insert ("Provided that no regulation so made shall have the force of law unless it does merely give
1188
effect to some or other of the recommendations aforesaid").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment because on referring to the Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1911, one finds in the corresponding section the words "for the protection of health in cotton cloth factories." When in this Bill we find no such words one's suspicions are aroused. I therefore hope the noble Lord will put in some words of limitation.
LORD DESBOROUGH: A great deal of unnecessary suspicion has been aroused about this Bill, which I really think is much more circumscribed and has been much more carefully gone into than Bills dealing with cotton factories have been in times gone by. As a matter of fact, as I have told your Lordships, the Report was published a year ago. Not one single member of your Lordships' House asked for this Report for a whole, year, or very nearly a whole year. The Bill was read a second time and a fortnight was given before the Committee stage was taken. During that fortnight not a single Peer asked for a copy of the Report.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, yes, I did.
LORD DESBOROUGH: On the day of the Second Reading.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I did not know of it before.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The Report was before Parliament as a Command Paper for a whole year and not a single noble Lord asked for it. I submit that a Report which has taken a very distinguished body of men more than three years to prepare cannot be assimilated by my noble friend in an hour. I greatly regret that on the day of the Second Reading there happened to be no copies of the Report available—that had nothing to do with me—but I am told that the reason was that the Report had not been asked for and so there were no copies in the Bill Office. I took care that copies should be sent to those noble Lords who took part in the debate, and I took the opportunity to enquire at the Bill Office as to whether there had been a great rush for this Report. Not one single

1189
copy had been asked for by any single Peer, and the only copy that was asked for was asked for by one who is not a member of your Lordships' House. I do not know therefore, that noble Lords are very fully equipped for discussing those regulations. As regards this particular Amendment, the matter is already provided for in the Bill. The Bill says:—
"The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report."
I do not know that you want to strengthen that in any way. I think the Amendment of my noble friend would rather weaken it, because I do not know that the language of his Amendment is very good. It says:—
"… merely give effect to some or other of the recommendations."
I do not know what those words mean. The intention of the Bill is to give effect to all the recommendations.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The Amendment would not stop that.
LORD DESBOROUGH: Then I do not see that the words in the Amendment strengthen the words which are already in the Bill. The Bill is perfectly simple. Noble Lords, if a later Amendment is carried, will have a full calendar month during the sitting of Parliament to see the regulations that have been drawn up before they come into operation, and they will be able, therefore, to see that they do really carry out the recommendations contained in the Report. I do not see that the words of the Amendment add any strength to the Bill and they seem to me to be absolutely unnecessary. I may say that I do not think either the owners of these mills or the operatives in them would be satisfied if they lost the Bill this year. We want to get the Bill through before the hot weather, because the temperature in these factories sometimes rises to 80° Fahr. or more. These regulations are intended by ventilation and in other ways to reduce the temperature which rises to an unpleasant height.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I do not quite understand the argument of my noble friend. This particular Amendment will not delay the Bill in any way. If it would only bring on a little hot weather I should be very pleased, but it will not in any way delay
1190
the Bill. My noble friend asked the meaning of "some or other." As I told him this is not my Amendment. It was drawn up by a noble and learned Lord, a member of this House, and he asked me to put it down. He probably is a good judge of legal phraseology. As far as I can see the only effect of the Amendment would be to make it quite certain that the Secretary of State, or officials in the Department, should do nothing but bring into operation the recommendations, or any of them or some of them. I really hope the noble Lord will accept the Amendment. It does not in any way interfere with the Bill. It only makes it clear that the Secretary of State must confine himself to the recommendations in the Report.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This matter has really been discussed already rather prematurely. I am moving the omission of the subsection in order to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"(3) Before any regulations are made under this Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period resolves that the regulations shall not come into force, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulations."
I hope your Lordships will agree to this Amendment. During the Second Reading debate it was suggested, I think, that the period should be forty days and the noble Marquess the Leader of the House proposed twenty-one Parliamentary days. If we can get a clear calendar month I think that will be sufficient. There is a danger of the Bill not coming into operation before the hot weather and the words "without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulations" are inserted so that the Secretary of State shall not be prohibited from submitting under the same conditions new draft regulations so that it may be possible to get the Bill into operation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 1, page 2, line 5, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Desborough.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should have preferred, instead of "during the Session of Parliament" to have brought it more in conformity with other Bills, such as the Local Government Bill, Section 122, which reads "if an address is presented within the next subsequent 21 days on which the House is sitting." Under the present words "during the Session of Parliament," this House may not have sat 21 days. I should be glad if the noble Lord would consider the point between now and the Report stage.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I think the alteration proposed is a good one. "Not less than 30 days during the Session of Parliament." I suppose "Session of Parliament," is well known, but we may go away at Easter for sixteen or seventeen days, and that will reduce the thirty days to thirteen, and I think either what my noble friend suggests, or "sitting days," should be adopted. I would now like to say a word or two on the value of this proposal. I am not going to resist it, because it is better than nothing, but as regards the House of Commons it is not worth the paper it is written upon. I believe Lord Salisbury rather suggested this Amendment, and I am going to quote to him an authority which I know he will respect as to the efficacy of this proposal in the House of Commons.
Only two or three weeks ago I was sitting on a Committee next to Lord Hugh Cecil, and a proposal was made, and he turned to me and said: "No one knows better than you do that the proposal is utterly useless in the House of Commons. Nobody knows anything about it, it can only come on after 11 o'clock, and no one knows where to find it." It took me about twenty years to find out where these notices were, and then I found them in the desk of the Clerk at the Table. In order to get at them you had to ask him to open his desk, which was probably full of other things. Then perhaps the Speaker would address him, and he had to ask you to wait. It was very difficult to get them, and after you had them you could only move in the matter after 11 o'clock at night, when nearly everyone had gone, and if attention was called to the fact that there were not forty members present, the whole thing was over. In this House it is quite different. You can find out
1192
where the notices are, and move them at a reasonable time. So far as this House is concerned there is some protection, but none in the House of Commons.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert:—
("(3) Before any regulations are made under this Act a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if either House before the expiration of that period resolves that the regulations shall not come into force, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the making of any new draft regulations.")—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Short title, citation, construction, repeal and extent.
(4) The Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Act, 1911, is hereby repealed:
Provided that any regulation or requirement made or certificate or notice given under that Act or any regulation made thereunder, which is in force at the commencement of this Act, shall continue in force and have effect as though it had been made or given under this Act or under the regulations made thereunder as the case may be.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved to leave out of subsection (4) the words "Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Act, 1911, is" and to insert "provisions of Sections ninety, ninety-one, ninety-two and ninety-four of the principal Act and of the Fourth Schedule to that Act, so far as those provisions relate to cotton cloth factories, and the Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Act, 1911, are." The noble Lord said: Objection was taken on the Second Reading that the Secretary of State had power to repeal certain sections of an Act of Parliament. That was only following the precedent of former Bills, but in deference to wishes expressed the power is now given to Parliament to do this, and when this Bill becomes law these sections become inoperative so far as they relate to cotton cloth factories.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, leave out from ("The") to ("hereby") in line 41, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DESBOROUGH: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Factory and Workshop (Cotton Cloth Factories) Act, 1911").—(Lord Desborough.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It was introduced after very careful consideration by His Majesty's Government, who, as your Lordships are aware, are pledged to find credit facilities for agriculture. It has been fully debated in another place, and most of your Lordships will probably be familiar with the main provisions of the measure, but perhaps it may be convenient if I very briefly summarise the scheme. The Bill is divided into two Parts, Part I dealing with long-term credits, and Part II with short-term credits.
The object of Part I is to set up an agricultural security company, with capital, which can make advances to farmers. This Part of the Bill was primarily devised to assist tenant farmers who were in danger of losing their holdings through either the whole or part sale of the estate to which their holdings belong, and who could only safeguard themselves by becoming the purchasers. The proposed company would be in a position to make advances to the tenant repayable over a period not exceeding 60 years. Perhaps I should state here that the power to make advances would not be limited to the sitting tenant. An Amendment was proposed in another place, but was withdrawn by the proposer when he realised that it was not a sound business proposition, to ask the proposed company, who could only, after all, concern itself mainly
1194
with the security offered, to distinguish between one or two persons asking for a loan, merely because one was the sitting tenant, whose offer might be so inadequate as to be completely unacceptable.
The company would also be in a position to male advances to farmers who have already bought their farms, but who may have had to give a bond over the property which might be liable to be called up at any moment. The advantage of this arrangement will be quite obvious to your Lordships, because it will enable the farmer to determine his annual liabilities for a definite period of years, instead of leaving him liable to a sudden call upon his resources which he is entirely unable to meet. The company will also be empowered to make advances to any class of landowner to make permanent improvements under the Lands Improvement Acts. The need for an institution such as this has been felt for some time and has been increased by the fact that lately from one cause or another landed estates have been placed as a whole on the market, or have been split up and sold in small lots, so that tenants are faced with the alternatives of buying their holdings or getting out. Since the War the farmer's costs of production have risen so that he has a greater need of working capital which leaves him even less money by which he might possibly purchase his holding. By this measure, the Government feel that they are laying the foundation of a long-term credit schema in Scotland which will help to carry out the policy which has always been held by the Conservative Party to be a right and sound policy, that is, to increase as much as possible the number of landowners in this country. The principal agricultural societies in Soot-land have passed resolutions in favour of this scheme.
Turning to finance, the only expenditure in this Bill which will fall upon public funds comes in Part I, Clause 1. First, there is a guarantee fund which the Government are to give and which is not to exceed £125,000. This fund is to be free of interest for 60 years. Secondly, the Government are to give any sums that may be required for procuring the underwriting of the debentures up to £800,000 of debentures. Thirdly, they are

1195
to give an annual payment of £1,750 for ten years towards the administrative expenses of the company. The expenditure under the first two heads will fall upon the Consolidated Fund and the other will fall on the Vote for the Board of Agriculture. The Treasury may also subscribe sums not exceeding £200,000 in the aggregate towards taking up debentures. The share capital which is to be raised by the company and the guarantee fund which is advanced by the Government are to form the initial capital of the company. The guarantee fund is to be pound for pound—the share capital is to be not exceeding £125,000 as also is the guarantee fund. Under Clause 2 (3) (b) the dividend on share capital is restricted to 5 per cent, per annum. Later it is hoped that the debentures will form the main capital for financing operations. The rate of interest charged on the loans to farmers will greatly depend upon the rate at which the debentures can be issued. Under Clause 2 (3) (c) no loans on heritable security are in any case to exceed two-thirds of the estimated value. Bearing these facts in mind, it is hoped that the advantages of the scheme may induce investors to take up debentures at a rate of interest which will enable loans to be made to farmers on favourable terms.
I now come to Part II There is no difference in principle between Part I of this Bill and Part I of the English Bill, hut in Part II there is an essential difference. In each case the purpose is to enable an agricultural charge to be created in favour of a bank over floating assets, but the English Act provides for the creation of such a charge over the stock and crops, whereas in the Scottish Bill it is limited to the creation of a charge in favour of a bank over stocks of merchandise belonging to an agricultural society. The question of extending the provisions of the Scottish Bill so as to provide short-term credits to individual farmers has been carefully considered. The title of the Bill which was introduced last Session was altered in order to allow discussion on this Bill and amendment, if it should be thought desirable. Since the Bill has been in print this question has been a source of controversy. The Farmers' Union in Scotland has been in favour of short-term credits but the Chamber of Agriculture,
1196
a similar body consisting of tenant farmers and others interested in agricultural matters, are against it.
The Government feel that in framing this measure on its present lines they have gone as far as it is wise to go at the moment in Scotland. The introduction of the "chattel mortgage" system in Scotland would be a very great innovation and a greater innovation than in England. "Chattel mortgages" have been a fact since October, 1928, in England but it is not an entirely new departure. In England there is something of the sort in the bill of sale. In Scotland there is nothing of the kind. The various legal bodies in Scotland are opposed to the "chattel mortgage" system and, with the diversity of opinion among the agricultural community, it is felt to be better to wait and see bow the Englishman fares before we go further. With these remarks I would ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill as the Government feel that this measure will be an obvious benefit to agriculture as a whole.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Airlie.)
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, I may perhaps be allowed to congratulate the noble Lord on the very lucid manner in which he has introduced the Bill. No doubt, as a great Scottish landowner, he appreciates the need of facilitating the inevitable transfer of land on a large scale which is going on at the present time from the owner to the occupier. There is indeed no other alternative in view of the unfair incidence of Income Tax, Super Tax, Death Duties and rates for the many social services. Before making one or two criticisms I would remind the House that that process of transfer is already facilitated in Scotland more especially through the cheap loans which are made available. I admit, of course, that that process should be still accelerated. Under their cash credit system the Scottish banks lend freely to farmers with and without securities pledged, and often against the guarantees of other farmers.
Apart from that, loans are made at commissioners' rates by lenders to farmers. That is a rate which is fixed by experts periodically as being a fair basis for transactions between borrowers and lenders on heritable property and

1197
that rate is very generally adopted. Landowners often borrowed at that rate, which stands to-day at 4¾ per cent., for agricultural improvements, and now also they lend at that rate to tenants and others to facilitate transfers—to promote the sale of their farms. Your Lordships can compare that rate with the rate under the Bill, which is higher. There are many cases of forced sales, where purchase money is left on bond at commissioners' rates, sometimes even the whole price of the farm has been left on bond over the farm at a rate which is now 4¾ per cent., and the repayment of that money, which is done by agreement, may extend over thirty or forty years; so that the system of long-term credit was not quite unknown even before this Bill was introduced. But because owners were forced to sell under pressure of the public burdens, and must have purchasers as the only way out of the impossible position in which Parliament places them, the owners are driven out of the land system which they did no much, from custom or sense of duty—certainly not for profit—to maintain, and thus we lose a system which was at once attractive to capital and flexible in its working to a greater degree than any other, and the country, too late, is beginning to find out.
Part I of the Bill, as regards long-term credit, would be valuable were the interest low enough, say, the 4¾ per cent, already obtainable. A low rate depends on the Government guarantee, and that guarantee has been refused. It might be a guarantee of capital, or it might be a guarantee of interest. Since coming into the House I have heard from the noble Marquess, Lord Linlithgow, who speaks with some authority on this subject from having been engaged in the investigation of this and other similar problems in India. He says:—
"After exhaustive inquiry the conclusion at which we arrived (and I know of no reason why this should not be strictly applicable to Scottish conditions) was that the most effective method by which Government can encourage investment by the public of long-term money in land mortgage banks is by the guarantees of interest, but not of the principal."
I do not know whether this point of guaranteeing the interest has even been considered by the Government, but I would highly recommend Lord Linlithgow's opinion to their attention. The
1198
Government could then insist on measures calculated to protect it against loss.
The noble Marquess further says:—
"A moderate rate of interest on loans to farmers is an essential part of any such scheme, and, with amortisation to be provided for, it is very necessary that funds should be borrowed from the public as cheaply as possible. It is not enough to label a security a Trust investment, in order to attract investors, and without a Government guarantee it seems very questionable whether the debentures will be readily taken up by the public."
As a director of a Scottish bank I am very strongly of that opinion myself. Lord Linlithgow also says that if the Government will guarantee the interest on the debentures, the provisions for the guaranteed fund of £125,000, for the procuring at a cost to the Treasury of £10,000 of the underwriting of the debenture issue of £800,000, and for the taking up by the Treasury of the debentures to the amount of £200,000 become redundant, and should be scrapped, and with the scheme so simplified there would appear to be no reason why the company should not rest on the resources of the Board of Agriculture for the necessary administrative services, thus effecting a material reduction in administrative expenditure.
Lord Linlithgow makes another excellent suggestion which is one that had already occurred to me, namely, that—
"applications for loans might well be examined by a small advisory board of non-official persons, skilled in agricultural and business matters. The banks would, no doubt, be found willing to receive and transmit applications from prospective borrowers, and at the same time to place at the disposal of the advisory board their knowledge of the suitability of applicants, of which full and accurate information is most necessary for the successful working of the scheme."
On the Second Heading in another place, the Lord Advocate made it plain that the Government was not concerned to find loans at any specially cheap rate, and it is this which takes any real value out of the Bill.
The history of this legislation is illuminating. The Government, pledged to help farmers, negotiated with the English banks for a year or two. Under the lead of the Bank of England, which subscribed to the Mortgage Corporation capital, they reluctantly agreed to participate, though with one marked ex-

1199
ception—the Midland Bank, presided over by an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, who may be expected to know something of the business. The English Bill passed last July. The Scottish banks were never consulted till the end of June, a few days earlier, to be then confronted with this fait accompli. From the first the Scottish banks objected to the idea that they should provide the capital of the proposed Mortgage Corporation and manage that concern. They objected, not because of the amount of money involved as individual sharers of the capital but on a really important principle. It is no part of a banker's business under Government pressure to put capital into and undertake the management of a corporation formed to finance a particular industry. In the event of pressure having to be put on defaulting farmers to enforce, payment of principal and interest it puts the banks in an invidious and very objectionable position. The banks are saddled with the Government's scheme for an indefinite period and will be blamed if it is a failure.
As regards the issue of debentures to the public they would prefer not to be associated with these. Although they will be named "trustee investments" they scarcely come in that category. The banks were further aware that in Scotland, at any rate, under the system of cash credits which has done so much in the last 150 years to develop agriculture in that country, liberal advances are made to the farming community. The official mind seems to be under the extraordinary illusion that every farmer who buys his farm must of necessity borrow heavily in order to buy. Also they seem unable to realise that the seller may leave money on bond in the way that I have already described. The one real argument used in the conferences with the Scottish banks was that, most of the English banks having fallen in with the scheme, the Scottish banks had only to follow. Now there are few of us to-day who believe in Home Rule for Scotland but this sort of thing might help to revive it, because there are wide divergences between the two countries that have to be recognised, and this is one.
The Government undertook to consider amendments and then refused to do so at the conferences. The result is that four more or less reluctant institutions
1200
have agreed to put up their share and four banks have declined to take part in it at all. The Committee in another place was left in the dark as to how the other part of the capital was to be replaced, while the Lord Advocate, in Standing Committee debates on February 12 and 14, spoke of the four banks who had come in as "public-spirited." That was unfair to the banks who had offered to render every assistance by supplying information and so forth as is also the inference to be drawn from his reply, that only those banks coerced into support are sufficiently interested in the farmers to operate their credits. Again, to judge from the Committee Report, and the short period of the operation of the English Act in England, it seems that this Act may be abused by banks holding shares in the Mortgage Corporation in order to take business from those institutions who have the courage of their convictions. The Government, in my opinion, should have accepted the second part of Sir Robert Hamilton's Amendment on February 12—
"In subsection (3) (c) 'Provided that no applicant for a loan shall be debarred merely by reason of the fact that he is not a customer of one of the shareholding banks.'"
If any farmer in Scotland has not got the right to go to his own bank and put in an application through that bank to the agricultural corporation if his bank does not happen to be a shareholding bank, it is really an act of restraint of trade and an abuse of public money.
This, I would point out, may happen to about 50 per cent, of the Scottish farmers, as only half the banks are within the scheme. I cannot help thinking that had the Committee in another place been aware of that fact, they would have insisted on Sir Robert Hamilton's Amendment, which was only defeated by 20 votes to 15. It should not be in the power of a company using public money to abuse the position as indicated. The Secretary for Scotland indeed suggested that this would be a lever to force the other banks into the scheme. Sir Archibald Sinclair quite rightly pointed out that it was not the business of Parliament to do that. Upon this point the Lord Advocate did not fairly represent the position. When negotiations were

1201
going on it was never suggested that any bank standing out would have its customers debarred from facilities. Therefore his argument about altered arrangements does not hold good. He was also wrong about the value of "vetting" by constituent banks, as was the Secretary for Scotland. In what respect will the Corporation be better advised by a constituent bank pushing its own client on them as compared with one of the other banks? Are we to infer that only those who see eye to eye with the Government are "honourable men," under severe pressure? The Department for Overseas Trade, to give an example, depends partly on the recommendations of various banks. Why should banks be honest with one body and dishonest with another? I venture to urge the Government to show more respect to individual opinion and to adopt the Hamilton Amendment or, better still, to recast the Bill. There is not the slightest reason why the banks should have been asked to own and rim this Corporation.
As regards Part II, with which I will deal very briefly, the banks indicated that although "chattel mortgage" would benefit banks it would spoil the farmer's credit and, therefore, they would not support the change. The effect of that is to make a fundamental change in the law of Scotland by a side issue. In England you get a floating charge over assets. In Scotland, to make sure of your assets you must by the law have actual possession. Therefore, "chattel mortgage" is to be limited to somewhat mythical agricultural cooperative societies and thus coercion is applied to the reluctant farmer to become a cooperator under Act of Parliament. The Lord Advocate, it is true, did not seem to like the innovation. He might have applied his argument against forcing a measure against the wishes of the people to forcing a measure on banks, who have no votes, against their wishes. But I will not take up your Lordships' time by quoting those observations.
In conclusion, I have only to say that what the Government should have done was to operate through some existing mortgage corporation with a strong advisory committee of experienced, public-spirited men, which could very easily have been constituted. The banks would have been delighted to assist a corporation
1202
of that nature in every possible way. It seems really inexcusable that the banks were not consulted more than two years ago, for the most serious problem of further assisting land transfer remains unsolved by the present Bill.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I do not know whether it will be regarded as temerity for one who is a mere Englishman to express an opinion upon a Scottish Bill, but I should like not only to express my entire concurrence with the general objects of this Bill, but to congratulate Scotland on the relatively prosperous condition of what is here the most depressed industry. I should have thought that, bearing in mind not only the shrewdness and skill of the Scottish farmer but the relative financial soundness of his industrial condition, the Government might see their way in Scotland to guarantee at least the interest on these mortgage bonds or debentures or whatever the nature of the security may be, seeing that the loans are not to exceed 66 per cent, or 2/3rds of the present value of the land upon which there long-term loans will be obtained. I imagine that in Scotland, as in England, capital values have been considerably depressed during the last three or four years compared with what they were immediately after the War and that, presumably, capital values are something near to rock bottom and are not likely to afford a less adequate security for advances of money in the future than they have in the past.
I can only imagine, especially judging from the illuminating forecast of the fate, or potential fate, of all capitalists, including land capitalists, in this country, recently uttered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is possibly the fear of what may happen under a Socialist Administration which makes the Government reluctant to provide a guarantee in this connection, but I should like to mention, with some experience of what is happening in Continental countries competing with ourselves in agricultural enterprise, that there is no country with which I am acquainted where the Government, would be reluctant to give the guarantee that the noble Viscount asks for, or indeed there is no country in which the Government would not be prepared to extend help to the agricultural industry which they would be

1203
reluctant to extend to any other industry in the country, bearing in mind its exceptional importance from the point of view of national stability. There is another thing I think worth saying and it is this. In every other European country, at any rate Western European country, agriculture is conducted far more on a credit basis than it is in this country, and agriculture in this country is carried on to a less extent on a credit basis than any other of the great industries of the country. I cannot help thinking that the Government might feel more confident in providing attractive terms to farmers in view of the large amount of capital which, relatively, they invest in the business that they carry on at the present time under none too cheerful conditions.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

AGE OF MARRIAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion, made by Lord Buckmaster last Thursday, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
LORD DARLING: My Lords, since the debate stood adjourned, I have somewhat altered, and I hope improved, the Amendments which I then had on the Paper. With your Lordships' permission I will, before actually moving the Amendments, explain the position in which, as I understand it, the law at present is, and how it would be altered, as I think for the worse, by the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not quite sure—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—but I rather think he has already addressed your Lordships on this Motion. I make this observation in the interests of order all the more readily because I think the observations the noble Lord is about to address to us would be quite as relevant when we do get into Committee as now.
LORD DARLING: I beg your Lordships' pardon. I did not notice the form, of the Question. I had assumed that the House was in Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Avoidance of marriages where either party is under sixteen.
1.—(1) A marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen shall be void.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall affect any marriage solemnized or contracted before the passing of this Act, and any such marriage shall be or become valid in any case where if this Act had not been passed it would be or become valid.
LORD DARLING LORD DARLING had given Notice to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "void" and insert "voidable by either party to the marriage on an application made to the Court in accordance with Rules of Court before both parties to the marriage reach the age of sixteen." The noble Lord said: I will not repeat what I said when I was out of order, but will assume your Lordships remember it. I would, therefore, proceed to explain what I understand would be the change which would be made in the law by this Bill. I think it would do what I conceive the noble and learned Lord himself, if he considered a little further, would not desire to do. I should like to say at once that I am absolutely in agreement with him as to the propriety, and indeed the necessity, of raising to sixteen the age at which marriage is permitted. At present the age at which marriage is permitted by the law of England is fourteen for a male and twelve for a female. It has long been at that point, and I think the noble and learned Lord is perfectly justified in moving to raise the age to sixteen. Where I differ is when we come to the words of his Bill, because he would enact that "a marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen"—there I agree—"shall be void." I would put "voidable" instead of "void" for reasons which I will give.
If your Lordships would forgive me I would read what is now the law as it is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, an authority of a great many years standing. Many of your Lordships will

1205
remember the late Lord Halsbury very well, and you would not desire words of higher authority, I am sure. He stated what I have said about the ages and goes on:—
"A marriage under the age of consent is not absolutely void, but only voidable by either party, on the person under age reaching the age of consent. If the girl was under twelve either party may disaffirm the marriage on her attaining that age, and, similarly, in the case of a boy under fourteen, if, at the age of consent, the marriage is affirmed by the parties, it becomes a valid marriage, and cannot afterwards be questioned by either, and cohabitation after the age of consent amounts to an affirmation of the contract."
I propose nothing revolutionary. I would only desire to leave the law of England as it is, except that I would agree with the noble and learned Lord opposite in raising to the age of consent the age at which a person may contract a marriage—namely, sixteen.
See the consequences if the Bill is passed in the shape in which the noble and learned Lord presents it to your Lordships. I know him so well—I have noticed his predilections in other matters—that I doubt whether he really did draw this Bill. It seems to me that it has about it a touch of want of consideration for the feelings of others which I never suspect in the noble and learned Lord. Even when they are not human beings he is incapable of neglecting their feelings. What would happen? I am assuming your Lordships have raised the age to sixteen. Let us start from that. Under the law as it would then stand, if people under the age of sixteen—or if either was under the age of sixteen—contracted a marriage and children were born, as often happens, those children would be bastards. They would be born illegitimate and how are they ever to be legitimated? The most the woman could do would be to take out, if the time had not gone by, a summons and get an affiliation order. But the children—there might be more than one—would be under all the disabilities of children illegitimately born. Actual and sentimental disadvantages would attach to them, and these would continue always unless their parents were to get married.
In the most harrowing case which the noble and learned Lord brought before your Lordships' notice a week ago of course they would not marry. These
1206
people would not, but I dare say some would marry. Then the children would be legitimated in consequence of Statutes brought into this House by the noble and learned Lord himself. But if they did not marry, what would happen? The children would be like all other illegitimate children, although their parents had gone through a form of marriage, because that form of marriage would be worth nothing. It would have effected nothing.
But there are other disadvantages besides that. This man and woman, having been married and the marriage being void, might live together for many years as man and wife. The woman is entitled in these circumstances as the law stands to pledge her husband's credit for all things necessary for a woman in her situation. Suppose they live together, let us say for 20 years, though it would be true for any number of years, Suppose they had lived together as man and wife under this marriage which the noble and learned Lord would declare to be void, and the woman had gone on getting things on the assumption that she was a wife and people had been supplying her on the assumption that she was a wife, and the man then refused to pay for them, turned her out of doors, refused to give her a shilling or to pay for what she had had as absolute necessaries for her children, and the tradesman then sued. The man would simply say that they were never married, that he was not liable and was no more liable than his next-door neighbour. That would be a disadvantage which could not happen as the law stands but could happen if this Bill is passed as it was introduced into the House.
I have taken a case of civil law. Let me take now a case of criminal law. A husband and wife by the law of England are not competent witnesses against one another in criminal proceedings, except one of them complains of the other, as in a case of assault and battery or something of that kind. Suppose a case in which a man who has gone through a marriage like this is indicted for some offence—it may be for murder, it may be for obtaining money by false pretences. I venture to trouble your Lordships with this because I want to see how the Bill would work if it became an Act of Parliament. I should not like to have had a Bill like this passed when the noble Marquess opposite was Lord Chief Justice

1207
of England and to have had to help him to get out of the puzzle I am going to put.
Suppose a person is indicted for anything you choose and the first witness called for the prosecution is—let us call her Mrs. Brown. The moment she is called the prisoner says: "I object to this woman being called and giving evidence. She is my wife. She cannot give evidence against me." What is the magistrate or the Judge to do? The man produces a marriage certificate and he says: "Look there. That is the certificate. I married that woman." How is the Judge to get on? It is a good marriage unless she was under sixteen at the time it took place. How is the Court going to find out on the spot and at once whether the marriage took place when the woman was under sixteen or over sixteen? As far as I can see you could not ask her. In face of the Court she is the man's wife who must not give evidence against him, who is not competent to give evidence against him. How are you going to get on? For these reasons, although I thoroughly agree that the age should be raised to sixteen, I would ask your Lordships to consider gravely whether the word "void" should not be changed to "voidable."
You may very well say to me, what process would you have if it is to be voidable. I might say I will have the law just as it is. I have read a passage from an authoritative book showing how to get rid of marriages which are voidable. It is perfectly well known. But I go further. If I am in order I should like to move the Amendment in a slightly different form from that in which it appears on the Paper. I have shown your Lordships from the authority that I have read that the marriage at present is voidable on the application of either party. That is the law of England as it stands. I think that here is an opportunity for improving the law in that respect, and if I may I would move the Amendment in this form, to leave out "void" and to insert "voidable by either party to the marriage who at the date thereof was under sixteen years of age." That would allow the marriage to be voided only by the aggrieved party and would keep it a good marriage as regards the person who was of age. I venture to move this Amendment for the reason that it seems to me that it would
1208
work a grave injustice if the word "void" remains, and I would move it in the way in which I have just indicated to your Lordships, if I may, because I think it would be an improvement on the law as it stands although it would alter it in a very slight particular.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("void") and insert ("voidable by either party to the marriage who at the date thereof was under sixteen years of age on an application made to the Court in accordance with Rules of Court").—(Lord Darling.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: An Amendment is moved on Page 1, line 7, to leave out "void" with the object of inserting the words as printed subject to an Amendment which I will put later. At present the Question is: That the word "void" stand part of the clause.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is quite impossible for me to know what were the motives that moved each one of your Lordships when you gave assent to the Second Heading of this Bill. I can only know the motive that impelled me to its introduction, and I think your Lordships will see, when I tell you what that motive was, that it is wholly impossible for me to accept—I had almost said to consider seriously—the Amendment now on the Paper. What disturbed me when the facts were brought to my knowledge was this: Relations between a man and a girl under the age of sixteen constitute a grave criminal offence, and the reason is that the man has taken advantage of the girl's inexperience and immaturity, and the law regards that—and I am glad to think the law does so regard it—as a grievous wrong. It appeared to me something that could hardly bear to be stated, that what the law said was a thing for which a man might be sent to gaol for a long period of time, could be repeated with perfect immunity if the man could only get the wretched girl to consent to a marriage. I beg your Lordships to remember that this Bill does not, as the first form of the Amendment might suggest, only affect boys and girls under sixteen and fourteen years of age. It is a Bill which, in its most material aspects, will affect the marriage of men with girls under the age of sixteen, and as I have said, when you think for a moment that a man who commits this

1209
wrong against a girl can be sent to prison, there is something to my mind infinitely degrading in the thought that you can cover with the cloak of marriage what is nothing but a grave criminal offence.
That was the reason why I introduced the Bill, and it is perfectly plain that this Amendment does not touch that objection, and gets nowhere near it, because what it says is that these two people may enter into a marriage; and the younger may have an opportunity of declaring the marriage void. Can you imagine such a thing as that? In support of the doctrine the noble Lord, who appears to have engaged successfully in excavations of legal cemeteries, has exhumed certain mummies of the law as to what has happened between a girl of twelve and a boy of fourteen. No such effective marriage could ever have taken place, and yet it is in those circumstances that he asks you to accept this Amendment. I have, as I ought to have, respect for respectable legal doctrines, but for anything like that I have nothing but the most profound contempt, and if he tells me that my Bill is going to alter the law, I say that it has added a new advantage which I did not know it possessed, and which I am only too glad it should have.
If your Lordships are prepared to reconcile yourselves to this position, that a man may marry a girl and may under the cloak of marriage, commit against her what we all now accept as a definite wrong against the girl's immaturity, and against her inability to undertake the terrific responsibility of relations with a man, and that unless somebody comes and says the marriage is to be void, it is to be as binding as any other marriage—that is to destroy the whole foundation of this measure. If your Lordships, moved by other considerations than those which move me, take the view that you went too far when you gave me, as I thought, a cordial welcome when I introduced this Bill, then I regret it, but if you still retain the same opinion I hope you will unhesitatingly reject the Amendment.
LORD HANWORTH: I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord takes the view which he does of the Amendment. We all share the views that ho has expressed about the particular case which
1210
led to his introducing this measure. Everyone of us would desire to make such a wrong impossible. The question is whether or not the noble and learned Lord has chosen the best way of effecting his end. Let us put aside the horrible ease which he mentioned and take into cold consideration what his Bill would do. It is not impossible to suppose that a man of any age might with consent marry a girl less than sixteen years of age. It is not necessary in every case to suppose that a rape should have been committed. It is quite possible to suppose that a girl of fifteen has married a man of greater age. Some considerations may arise out of the relation. There may be a difference of opinion that may arise. Are you satisfied, without further consideration, that in such a case the marriage laws should be so altered that a marriage between persons either of whom is under the age of sixteen shall be void? Are you going to say that, in all cases of such marriages, which have taken place without criminal intent, without the horrible and nauseating details which belong to the particular case which has been mentioned—are you going so to alter the marriage laws that that shall be possible? For my part I think we are legislating in a great hurry. I do not think it is right, merely for the purpose of stopping a particular offence, to legislate and alter the whole of our marriage laws.
For my part I would like a great deal further consideration to be given to this sort of case, and I do not think it is at all fair to Lord Darling to say that he has been digging in cemeteries of the law. I have such respect for tradition that I prefer the law which has stood and lasted from generation to generation, and has proved to be sound, and has found its place constantly in repeated editions, because it is good law. A gibe like that is quite unworthy of the noble Lord who made it. These marriage laws, of course, are very old laws. It would be necessary to go back to the days before matters of marriage were handed over to the Courts as at present constituted, and to go back to the ecclesiastical law, to find what where the precursors of the laws as they now stand. As a matter of fact I am not at all satisfied that this clause as it at present stands ought to be passed, and I am still less satisfied that we are wise to pass it because of the

1211
appeal made by Lord Buckmaster. I should prefer grounds to be given quite independent of the morbid and horrible details. I should like to consider this question as to whether we are prepared to say that in any case where there has been consent, where there has been no violence, but where one of the parties is under sixteen years of age, that marriage is to be void. For my own part I am not prepared to say it, and therefore if the noble Lord goes to a Division I shall support Lord Darling, because I think we are legislating in a hurry and such legislation always proves to be bad.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I cannot but think that we are paying too much attention to possible dangers which can nearly always be suggested in these cases. I should have thought the arguments of my noble and learned friend who has just spoken should have been made on the Second Reading of the Bill. The principle of the Bill has been accepted. The only question now is this Amendment which is proposed by Lord Darling. I have every respect for the authority quoted by Lord Darling, but I do not understand why, because of that, we should not pass the Bill which is now before us. I gather from both noble Lords who have spoken from the other side that everybody will agree that something should be done to prevent the cloak of marriage being thrown over an act which is declared to be a crime and punishable under our law. I do not for a moment wish to argue as to why we said that the age of sixteen was to be the age of consent. It is obvious. Then why should there be a marriage? I do follow the argument that persons who have been married under the old law of marriage should not have their marriage made void because they have married under a condition of law under which, rightly or wrongly, such marriages were permitted. The Bill deals with that. It says in terms that it does not affect any marriage contracted before the passing of this legislation. We need not trouble ourselves with anything that is past. The law is left as Lord Darling stated and nothing we do to-day will interfere with it.
LORD DARLING: I did not in the least mean to say that. I said that the law would be left in the state that it will be voidable if my Amendment were passed.
1212
The law of marriage is voidable now and it would remain voidable if you changed "void" to "voidable."
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I do not think my noble friend understands the arguments I am putting to him. Of course I understood that. The law, as he has stated it, is perfectly good law as to what happens at the present day and nothing in the Bill is going to change the law as affecting marriages that happened before the passing of the new legislation. They remain voidable as has been stated. What we are proposing to do is to prevent a marriage of that kind taking place in future so far as we can do so by legislation. The proposition is that the marriage shall be void and not voidable as is suggested by the Amendment. Once it is stated that the law makes a marriage void there cannot be any hardship in the future. None of the difficulties that have been pointed out can arise because the law has declared that such a marriage is not a marriage. If you were proposing to change the law so as to affect the past then I could quite understand the difficulties that might be put, but none of them really exist when you have once stated that for the future all these marriages are void. All you can do then is to say whether it is a marriage with a person of the age at which marriages are legal.
It is a little difficult to understand what reason there is why we should be afraid to do this. After all, there are other countries as to which we very often make observations upon the relations between the sexes and especially upon the young and immature age at which women are allowed to marry. I do not want to discuss that. I am sure that your Lordships are very well aware of the agitation in this country and elsewhere in relation to marriages at these early ages in the East. Is our law to be continued? Are we to say that such a marriage is good? As I understand it, from what is proposed in the Amendment that marriage may be a good marriage. It is voidable only; it is not made void. I confess I cannot see any reason why we should not take this step to-day as affecting marriages from the date of the passing of this legislation and say, as we do every day, that henceforth a thing which hitherto was lawful or was voidable shall in future be void. No difficulty would occur. Any of the troubles that have been indicated by

1213
my noble and learned friend Lord Darling will all solve themselves. It is a much more difficult question if you put the word "voidable" in. I put, for example, the point of calling a wife in a criminal case. I do not want to discuss in detail what the law would be to-day in regard to the question, but the question whether there is a marriage or not is solved at once by the word "void." You do not solve it by the word "voidable." You leave the Court in the difficulty of having to say whether the marriage is to stand or not.
LORD DARLING: I have tried to point it out, but apparently I failed. It would not be void simply on the man producing a certificate which showed that the man and woman had married. It would only be void upon its appearing that the woman was under age. That would not appear on the certificate because they are always false. What I put was that you would, have to have a further inquiry to find out how old the woman was.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I understood all that, and it does not seem to change the position in the slightest degree. Of course, you can put difficulties of that kind as to what is to happen over a matter of age when the Court comes to decide. We are not afraid of them in practice, they always disappear in Court. The noble Lord is straining his ingenuity to try to show that they would trouble the Court. They certainly would not trouble the Court over which he presided in the days when I was Chief Justice. I ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment, which will impair the value of the Bill if it does not destroy its usefulness. It is a simple thing to say that we will not, from this day forward, countenance the marriage of a girl under the age of sixteen when we say that the Ordinary act with her under the age of sixteen is an offence and is a criminal offence, and that it shall not be made an innocent offence merely by marriage.
THE EARL OF DESART: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will not doubt that I, in common with most of the noble Lords who were present when he moved (he Second Reading of this Bill, was moved by the considerations he gave to-night. Speaking for myself, through my own fault it may be, I was listening to his advocacy of the Bill without having thought out what its effects would be on
1214
our marriage law. I still, of course, accept, as I suppose everyone would accept, that, both for physiological and moral reasons, anything more undesirable than the marriage of a girl under sixteen cannot be imagined. I am bound to say, however, that, even when the Second Reading was being discussed, it did occur to me that somebody might have thought about the child—always in divorce cases I think that the innocent children are those who deserve consideration—but I was not prepared at that time to say anything which should at all militate against your Lordships giving the Bill a Second Reading. I thought that I should have an opportunity in Committee of moving an Amendment which might have got rid of that, and also of other difficulties which had occurred to me. But, quite frankly, whim I came to look at it, I found that my ingenuity could not devise anything which would meet the points which I had in mind, and if I lay myself open to a rebuke from the noble Marquess that I am saying things which ought properly to have boon said on Second Reading, or that might be said on Third Reading, I think I may properly do it because at present, although I feel a great deal of difficulty about my noble and learned friend's Amendment, it would do something towards getting rid of the difficulty which I feel, though not going to the full extent that I desire.
What this Bill does, and what it is obviously intended to do, is this. I will take the case of a man who marries a girl under the age of sixteen. What it is intended to do is to say that a child has been begotten, and is either coming or has been born, but neither the parents of the child themselves, nor anybody, shall be able to regularise the connection that has already been formed. As a question of morality, of course, this Bill will not prevent those connections being formed, but what it will do, if it passes, is to leave the girl with an illegitimate child, and her character smirched, while the child is left finally and permanently illegitimate, except in circumstances very unlikely to arise, and nobody can do anything for them. What would be the position of the girl? Her character would be smirched. Her child would be illegitimate. She has no way whatever, even u everybody connected with the matter desired it, of putting it right, and the child is left in the air altogether.

1215
I am not suggesting imaginary cases. I will refer to one or two actual cases, which I think are significant of the sort of situation that may arise. There was a case in 1926, of a man of eighteen and a girl of fifteen. He had got her into trouble. She was pregnant. The man wanted to marry her, and the girl wanted to marry him. Both sets of parents consented. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children were interested, and they wrote both to the boy and the girl, holding the view that criminal proceedings seemed: to be a tragedy. They were married, and no proceedings were taken. Another is the case of a man of eighteen, who got into trouble a girl of fifteen and a-half. Inquiries were made. Both sets of parents desired that they should marry. The youth desired to marry the girl. No proceedings were taken. I have other cases of very much the same character, it does seem to me a strong thing to say that you shall not in any circumstances be able to do anything for these parties; that they shall be condemned, the child to illegitimacy, the girl to lose her character, and the parents to look on impotently, though they desire that the affair should be rehabilitated.
I do not say that this is final, but what it did bring to my mind is that this Bill ought to receive a little more consideration. That is all that, from the very beginning, I have desired to attain. I naturally support the principle of the Bill, but I think that hurried legislation, on a matter which does affect the marriage laws of this country, ought to be brought in by a Government. I sought—and I still seek—guidance from the Government, and I appeal to them to consider whether in some way or another we cannot be assured, by further inquiry, that evil repercussions which may be avoidable will not result from this Bill. I do not know how that can be done. There are ways in which the Government could take the responsibility. A Select Committee might go into the matter. At my age I am not anxious to take part in political or public controversy, but I shall be more than satisfied if I can get some assurance that, before this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, an inquiry will be made to see what its real effect may be. With regard to my noble and learned friend's Amendment, I should have, I think, to
1216
support him, but I am not in the least eager about it, because I think it produces some uncertainty. But sooner than take nothing I would take that. What I do want to see is some inquiry.
VISCOUNT FITZALAN OF DERWENT: My Lords, I naturally look upon this Bill from the point of view of how it will affect my co-religionists. I should like to say at once that I welcome the principle of the Bill. A canon law of my Church raised the age only a few-years ago, in 1917—the age of boys from fourteen to sixteen, and of girls from twelve to fourteen; and at the same time it enjoined that the clergy of my Church should dissuade from marriage to the fullest extent in their power at any earlier age than was commonly the custom in their respective countries. But what I particularly want to urge at this moment is what fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Han-worth, and also from my noble friend Lord Desart—namely, that more time is required for the consideration of this Bill.
After what they have said it is not for me to enter into the legal points which have been raised. I can quite understand the eagerness of the noble and learned Lord to get this Bill through as quickly as possible, because I have no doubt he has hopes that it may get through in another place this Session. But I cannot help suggesting to him that, if it does go to another place in its present form, I do not think there is very much change of its getting through, because time is important, and, from what has been said in this House, I am sure a great deal more will be said in another place; whereas, if it is possible for the Bill to receive further consideration by being referred to a Select Committee, I believe after that it might have some chance if it went to another place with these points cleared up. At any rate, I most earnestly urge that in some form or other further consideration should be allowed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will realise that one or two of us were not very imprudent when we urged him not to press the Bill the other day without giving further time for noble Lords to look it through carefully. We have heard this evening

1217
a discussion of a most interesting kind in which noble and learned Lords standing very high in their profession and having a very great knowledge of this subject have differed diametrically in their views of this Amendment. That is not the only point. We have just heard a speech from my noble friend who is not a lawyer, but who represents in a special degree in your Lordships' House the great religious connection of which he is a member. He says that he is not prepared finally to resolve this particular question which is now before your Lordships without further time. It has reached me that it is not only members of the Roman Catholic Church who are uneasy, but that there are members of the Church of England who have taken steps to communicate with those they know to be in authority, not to oppose the principle of the Bill but to plead for a little more time for consideration in order that they may make up their minds upon this very point as between "void" and "voidable." No doubt that is one of the matters they have in mind.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in his speech said that surely it could not be contended that an act which is highly criminal before marriage should be allowed by the simple process of getting the marriage through first. He knows as well as I do that that is not the real case which presents the difficulty. It is not the case of two people, a man and a woman or a boy and a girl, who up to the moment of marriage have had nothing to do with one another and then, after marriage, do the very act which had they done it before marriage would have been a criminal offence. That is not the difficult case. The difficult case is where an undoubtedly criminal offence has been committed, where there has been connection and the woman or the girl is pregnant. Not only is it a difficult case, but upon the figures submitted to me, 64 per cent, of the marriages of girls under sixteen up to now present this very feature. In 64 per cent of the cases the girl is pregnant before the marriage. That is the real case to be considered What is to be the position and how is that position affected by the Bill? The effect of the Bill is that the child when it is born will be illegitimate, and the wishes of the parents in these cases Very often will be made of no effect. They desire that
1218
the girl should be married (I do not say in every case) for the obvious reason that, her position should be regularised, and that the child should be born legitimate. That is the difficulty. I confess that upon the balance of a very difficult consideration when the Second Reading was under discussion, I was on the whole inclined to cast my opinion with the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buck-master. But I knew it was an exceedingly difficult position and that is the reason for the hesitation which your Lordships no doubt marked in the speech I made.
We have been witnesses to this remonstrance made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Darling, Lord Desart, who was Director of Public Prosecutions, and Lord Hanworth, Master of the Rolls, a very distinguished lawyer, and also by my noble friend Lord FitzAlan, who spoke for the Roman Catholic body, not necessarily in his case at any rate, presenting any opinion so far as this difficult issue is concerned, but saying that he would like to have more time. I am afraid the Government cannot resist that plea. I know it may be very unwelcome to the noble and learned Lord. No one admires more than I do his great zeal in these matters, but I think that he must yield to the express wish of so many distinguished members of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not quite understand the meaning of this Motion. Does it mean that the Committee upon this Bill, having been prolonged to an unusual hour, is to go over to another day? Is that the purpose of the Motion?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is.
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is that this debate be again adjourned. Why? No reason whatever has been given to suggest a reason for further adjournment. There has been an elaborate discussion. I say frankly that it is not difficult to get up an elaborate discussion in this House. Given the time that there has been at the disposal of the people here, it is easy to ask three or four people to come, and speak and then to say, "See what a mass of opinion there is arrayed against this Bill!" What further time does anybody need in order to ascertain

1219
in his own mind whether sixteen is the right age at which marriage should take place in this country or whether it should be, as it is now, fourteen?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No; the question is whether it should be void or voidable.
LORD BUCKMASTER: AS to that, it may be that my mind is incapable of receiving these arguments, but I simply fail to understand how any one who is in favour of raising the age of marriage can possibly be in favour of raising it subject to the condition that you can make it voidable. Let me deal with the case put forward by the noble Marquess and referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Desart. A girl has been attacked and made pregnant by a man who ought to be sent to gaol, yet you say that to save the reputation of the girl he ought to marry her. I am amazed that people in such a case can say to a child: "You have to be married for the rest of your life to the man who put you into this condition, although he is only a boy, in order to save your reputation and the reputation of your child." I say it is the most ignoble thing that can be done—redeem-
Resolved in the affirmative, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

GAS UNDERTAKINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on account of the late hour I propose only formally to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I understand that my noble
ing this girl's character by that means and making legitimate the child so conceived in order that you may say that, because the law will allow it to be born in wedlock and be the child of marriage, you have redeemed its state. These people have merely to wait and the child can be legitimated by the operation of the existing law.
If the idea of this adjournment is to enable your Lordships to say that this system of forcing children into marriage because they are going to have children ought to be supported by the authority of your Lordships' House I should certainly not consider it for a single moment even if I stood alone. I think it is one of the last and the worst things done to children in this country. I am quite unable to accept any further adjournment of this matter. I can see no reason why it should be adjourned. If your Lordships think otherwise I must accept it, but I cannot possibly assent to it.
On Question, Whether the House shall now resume?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 11.

CONTENTS.

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Novar, V.

Davidson of Lambeth, L.

Peel, V.

Desart, L. (E. Desart.)

Clarendon, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Liverpool, L. Bp.

Fairlie, L. (K. Glasgow.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Scarbrough, E.

Bledisloe, L.

Hanworth, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Howard of Glossop, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Sempill, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Darling, L.

Sinclair, L.

Templemore, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Allendale, V.

Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]

Newton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Redesdale, L.

Cawdor, E.

Arnold, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Stanmore, L. [Teller.]

friend Lord Banbury of Southam has certain criticisms to make. He was kind enough to tell me he will bring them forward on the Motion to go into Committee. I beg to move the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I do not propose to say anything now. I object to certain clauses in the

1221
Bill which perpetuate the old abuse of giving Departments powers, to make Regulations, but owing to the time, and understanding that my position is not prejudiced, I will reserve what I have to say until the Committee stage.
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I quite recognise that no discussion is wanted now, and I am willing to fall in with the
1222
arrangement. I would only say at this moment that as far as we on this Bench are concerned we give support to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills, which are not Private Bills, do meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in Committee Room C, House of Lords, on Wednesday next, at eleven o'clock.
WESTMINSTER CITY (MILLBANK) IMPROVEMENT BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That in pursuance of Standing Order No. 163A relating to Private Bills, he had, on the requisition of the Chairman of Committees, appointed Robert Arthur Grosvenor, of 4, Chester Square, London, S.W.1, Retired Captain, as guardian or protector of the infant, Hugh Frederick Grosvenor, to represent such infant before the Committee on the Bill.

IVEAGH BEQUEST (KENWOOD).
Petition of the Earl of Iveagh and of Walter Edward Guinness and Christopher
1224
Harry Bland, praying for leave to introduce a Bill to confirm and give effect to a Deed of Trust relating to a gift by the first Earl of Iveagh for public purposes of property at Kenwood in the Metropolitan Boroughs of Hampstead and Saint Pancras, in the County of London, and the Borough of Hornsey and the urban district of Finchley, in the County of Middlesex, and for purposes connected therewith, together with a copy of the proposed Bill annexed thereto: Read, and referred to I he Examiners.

CORN EXCHANGE COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
SHEFFIELD GAS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Leave given to the Joint Committee on Private Bills (Consolidation) to report from time to time. First Report, being a report on the Sheffield Gas (Consolidation) Bill [H.L.], made: Bill reported with Amendments.
LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN, DISTRICT, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.