Sitting of 16 March 1933

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

  FLAX AND HEMP TRADE (WAGES).
  Colonel GOODMANasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give the House information as to the decisions arrived at by the flax and hemp trade board, Great Britain, with regard to the proposal to revise the rates of wages in the flax and hemp industry; what are the new rates decided upon; and by what sums will the new hourly and piece-work rates differ from those previously in operation for the various classes of workers?
  The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): My hon. Friend will find full information as to the proposed new minimum rates of wages in the flax and hemp trade in the statutory notice of their proposals issued by the trade board, of which I am sending him a copy.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    GOVERNMENT POLICY (WAGE SUBSIDY).
    Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the successful efforts of the town council of Guildford in providing work for wages schemes, with a consequent saving to the Exchequer, he will state the difficulties which prevent the use of transitional payments to assist such schemes; and if his Department is considering how they can be overcome?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on 13th March to the hon. Member for Deritend (Mr. Crooke) with regard to the proposals, of which a number have been suggested to me, for using unemployment pay as a subsidy to wages.
    Captain FULLER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if this question is actually under earnest consideration?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is not only under active, but under daily consideration.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that the commissioners in the county of Durham are extending their operations where miners are living in colliery houses and reducing supplementary benefit on the grounds that they are not paying rent; and what action he proposes to take?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question on 23rd February.
    Mr. BATEY: Has the Minister not given any re-consideration to the matter since then?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I think that that supplementary question is one 'which has been asked and answered before, and that the statement was made that it was a matter within the discretion of the commissioners, who are, no doubt, prepared to take all the circumstances into account.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of cases where supplementary benefit has been reduced and the number abolished up to the latest available date in the county of Durham; and the total amount of money saved and the total cost of the commissioners and their staff since the 1st December, 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The latest available figures of determinations as to need given by the commissioners in Durham County for the period since their appointment were given in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member on 23rd February. It is estimated that the expenditure on transitional payments during the period from the beginning of December, 1932, up to 4th February, 1933, was about £50,000 less than if all the determinations current during the period had been given by the public assistance committee in accordance with their practice prior to December. The total cost of the commissioners and their staff from 1st December, 1932, to 31st January, 1933, was about £9,350 in addition to non-recurrent charges amounting to £2,085.
    Mr. BATEY: Does the Minister remember that the former figures were only up to 7th February, and that it is now 16th March; and surely it is possible to give another month's figures?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have made inquiries on that point. I am told that these figures are taken out every month, but we have not yet got later figures than those which I have given. I am expecting them every day, and the moment I get them I shall be willing to inform the hon. Member of them.
    Mr. BATEY: I will put down the question next week.
    Mr. BATEYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of recent cases where the county of Durham Commissioners have reduced transitional payments to the extent of the whole of the applicant's War pension (instead of the 50 per cent. allowed by the Act) or by a large proportion of widow's pensions that come into the home, he will state what action he proposes to take?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As regards disability pensions, I am assured that the Commissioners are complying fully with the requirements of the Determination of Need Act. As regards widows' pensions, these are not subject to special statutory provisions and must therefore be taken into account, but I have no reason to believe that in dealing with cases where such income is present the Commissioners do not pay full regard to all the circumstances of the case.
    Mr. BATEY: If I supply the Minister with the name and address of a man, with four years' War service, whose benefit has been reduced by the whole amount of the War pension, will he look into that case?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: If the hon. Member has any such case, perhaps he will send it to me.
    Sir PERCY HARRISasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that public assistance committees, in the administration of the means test, are refusing to make allowances for the payment of premiums on endowment policies; whether this has been recommended by the Ministry of Labour; and, if not, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: This is not a matter upon which it would be competent for me to make any recommendation. It is for the authority concerned to decide in any particular case how far they are justified when determining the needs of a household in treating as necessary outgoings expenses outside the ordinary requirements of maintenance.
    Sir P. HARRIS: From the information which is available, can the Minister say whether this practice is general throughout the country?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, I cannot, but I think that the information required by the hon. Member is information for which he ought to ask the Ministry of Health. I have not got it.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: If these determinations are based upon an absolute destitution test, can the right hon. Gentleman state how the persons referred to could afford any such thing as endowment insurance premiums?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Of course I do not accept that phrase "destitution test," but, again, if hon. Members ask me for information of that kind, the only answer that I can give is that it is not within my province, and I have not got it.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: But if such cases do exist, would the right hon. Gentleman intervene, to see that these people are not deprived of the payment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: There, again, I have no power to intervene in any case. This is a matter, I understand, within the purview and authority of the public assistance committee.
    Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKEasked the Minister of Labour the number of disabled men that were receiving transitional payment at the last convenient date; and, of that number, how many were in receipt of a disability pension of 70 per cent. or under?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: There are no separate statistics showing the number of disabled men drawing transitional payments. The figures only show the total number of men and women, respectively, with applicatilons for transitional payments.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour whether further inquiries have been made into the administration of transitional payments by the West Riding, Yorks, public assistance committee with regard to gross and nett earnings; and if he will state the nature of the reply?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: This is a matter for decision by the public assistance authority, who I am informed, have their basis of assessment under review at the present time.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister aware that for three months the West Riding Public Assistance Committee have been applying a scale based upon gross earnings, which, in mining areas, means actually more than double the amounts received by mine-workers?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I was not aware of that, but, if the hon. Member states it as a question of fact, of course I accept it. My answer is that the authority have their basis of assessment under review at the moment.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for transitional payment considered, and the number refused, during the last two months of 1932 and the first two months of this year in the Don Valley and Rother Valley areas, respectively?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is not the practice to compile these figures except for authority areas, but I will see whether I can obtain the figures for the separate Committee areas for which the hon. Member asks, and will communicate with him.
    Mr. COVE (for Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN)asked the Minister of Labour (1), how many of the unemployed persons of the ages 18 to 20 have had their transitional payment reduced on account of family income;
    (2), how many heads of families in receipt of transitional payment have had the payment reduced on account of wages earned by children of the family?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. PRICEasked the Minister of Labour how many of the 248,408 unemployed persons of the ages 18 to 20 have
    2112
    exhausted their right to unemployment benefit and are in receipt of transitional payment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Of the 248,408 unemployed persons aged 18 to 20 on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 20th February, 1933, 55,556 had applications authorised for transitional payments.

    SUBSISTENCE STANDARD (ESTIMATES).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Minister of Labour whether any recent scientific investigation has taken place into the weekly sum of money required for the maintenance of life on a, reasonable standard of subsistence; and, if so, what relation this bears to the allowances at present being made under the means test?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Certain unofficial estimates of the sum necessary to provide for hypothetical standards of living have, I believe, been made from time to time but I am unable to express an opinion as to how far the various standards adopted would meet with acceptance as being reasonable.
    Mr. MANDER: Does not my right hon. Friend think that information of this kind would be extremely valuable to the House in view of impending legislation?
    Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: May I ask whether it is not perfectly futile to put down a question of this kind?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer which I was about to give to the first supplementary question, though in different language, would have been on somewhat the same lines as the second supplementary question.
    Mr. MANDER: But is it not a fact that it might not be equally futile to put such a question to another type of Government

    STATE-ASSISTED SCHEMES.
    Mr. COVEasked the Minister of Labour the number of individuals directly employed since October, 1931, on schemes of employment initiated by the Government?
    Mr. A. BEVANasked the Minister of Labour the number of persons at pre-

    2113
    sent directly engaged on employment schemes sanctioned by the Government and the cost involved?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The average number of persons directly employed on the main classes of State-assisted schemes for the relief of unemployment over the period October, 1931, to January, 1933, was about 72,000. The number directly employed at the end of January, 1933, was 39,113. The total value of the schemes in operation at the latter date is not readily available, but in any case the hon. Member will appreciate that there would be no direct connection between this figure and the number of men employed at a particular date.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Do these figures indicate that the Government policy has resulted in about 30,000 fewer being employed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, I do not for a moment admit that; and it may well be that, if the former policy were still being continued, further men would be thrown out of work.
    Dr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the amount expended on works receiving Government grants in the Wales division for each of the last five years; and the number of people who have been given direct employment on these operations?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member as early as possible.

    TRAINEES.
    Mr. COVEasked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons who have received training in residential centres from the Aberavon division during the past 12 months; and the number who have secured jobs for which they were trained?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am looking into the points raised by the hon. Member and will let him have a reply as soon as possible.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour the cost of maintaining trainees in centres such as that at Presteign; and whether he can give figures to show what proportion of the trainees were found employment on leaving the centre?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The cost of training at an instructional centre is approximately 14s. 6d. per trainee per week excluding travelling expenses, capital charges and the amount of any insurance benefit or transitional payments to which the trainee is entitled. Until about a year ago, it was the policy to limit, the accommodation at these centres to the number for whom subsequent employment could reasonably be guaranteed and the percentage of placing was 80 per cent. or more. The present policy is to regard the primary object of these centres as that of counteracting the effects of long-continued unemployment, and the percentage of placing has materially fallen and is now round about 20 per cent. The hon. Member will appreciate that a maintenance of the former policy would have made it necessary to reduce drastically the numbers admitted to the centres.

    IRON, STEEL AND TINPLATE INDUSTRIES.
    Dr. J. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the number of insured female workers in the iron, steel and tin plate industries and the percentage of unemployed among female workers in these industries as compared with that obtaining in other industries in the United Kingdom?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The estimated numbers of insured female workers in the iron and steel and tinplate industries and in each of 100 other industry groups at July, 1932, and the percentages unemployed at 23rd January, 1933, will be found on pages 62 and 63 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February, 1933. Corresponding percentage figures for 20th February, 1933, will be given in the March issue of the Gazette to be published on 18th instant.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will they show the geographical distribution of unemployment? Will they show, for example, that there is more unemployment in South Wales as compared with the Midlands?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That is always done.

    JUVENILES.
    Dr. J. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Labour the number of young persons under 21 years of age who are unemployed in the Wales division, the percentage of unemployment of young

    2115
    people of both sexes, and the number of young persons who have become eligible for transitional payment?

    Insured persons under 21 years of age recorded as unemployed in Wales Division at 20th February, 1933.

    —

    Aged 16 and under 18.*

    Aged 18 and under 21.

    Males.

    Females.

    Males.

    Females.

    Number unemployed

    3,052

    1,393

    13,684

    3,705

    Precentage unemployed

    9·6

    14·2

    28·0

    24·8

    Number with applications authorised for transitional payments.

    —

    —

    6,020

    564

    *Persons under 18 years of age are not eligible for transitional payments

    Mr. COVEasked the Minister of Labour if he can state how many of the unemployed juveniles of 16 and 17 years of age have never had employment since reaching insurable age?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. COVE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take action in order to secure them?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: These figures have never at any time, by any Government, Been tabulated in the way asked for, and I am told that to give them would involve very laborious inquiries, but the next time we have a special inquiry on any matter, I will see whether I cannot have a sample case which would give the hon. Gentleman some indication in the direction desired.
    Mr. COVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in a number of areas there is an impression that a large number of these boys have no work at all, and therefore that they are providing a serious social problem?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: It is a serious problem, and I have no doubt that what the hon. Member says is true.
    Mr. LUNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 450,000 boys and girls leave school in every school year, according to an answer given to me the other day, and are the Government taking any steps to see that either their education
    Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the statement:
    is continued or something is done to find them employment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: With regard to the first question, the figures are substantially accurate. In fact, I gave them myself the other day. The whole question of what we can do and should do with regard to juveniles is at present under active consideration.
    Mr. COVE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be far better to raise the school-leaving age than to have the children permanently and totally unemployed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The hon. Gentleman should not address questions with regard to the school-leaving age to me.
    Mr. COVE: But the right hon. Gentleman is a Member of the Government.

    SEAMEN.
    Mr. LOGANasked the Minister of Labour how many British seamen, including all sea-going persons other than fishermen, are unemployed at the present time or at the latest convenient date, and the number in June, 1932?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of unemployed seamen, aged 18 and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain was 42,587 at 23rd January, 1933, and 37,882 at 25th July, 1932. Separate statistics in respect of seamen of British nationality are not available.
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman acting in collaboration with the Board of Trade in respect of this unemployment?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I am constantly in touch with my colleagues on this and other matters.
    Mr. LOGAN: Has there been any deliberation with regard to unemployment in the British Mercantile Marine, in view of the fact that foreigners are employed while British seamen are unemployed?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: That matter and similar matters are constantly under review between the Departments of the Government.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent unemployment among seamen is due to the fact that they sign the register between the conclusion of one voyage and the commencement of the next, even though they know definitely that they are going on the same ship on its next voyage?
    Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also state how it affects the city of Liverpool as regards tariffs?

    TRAINING CAMPS (WALKS).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the possibility of establishing training camps in Wales under conditions similar to those proposed for the Kielder estate in Northumberland?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have this under consideration.

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.
    Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Health (1) whether any cases have been brought to his notice in which grants have been sanctioned for local authorities' schemes where British materials have been specified and where the specification has been altered after the sanctioning of grants so as to substitute foreign material for British;
    (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that British materials are used in schemes sanctioned by the Ministry of Health since the issue of Circular 1060 of December, 1929;
    2118
    (3) whether he is satisfied that local authorities are loyally observing the condition as to the use of British materials laid down in Circular 1060 of December, 1929?
    The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): I have no reason to think that local authorities are not generally acting in accordance with this circular or, that any further circular is called for. Where a local authority applies for my sanction to a loan and I become aware that they propose to use foreign materials, I satisfy myself as to the circumstances and conditions of proposal before the loan is sanctioned. Consent to alterations in a specification has been given in a few cases where Government grant has been sanctioned, and good cause was shown for the use of foreign materials in place of British.
    Mr. ROBINSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider withdrawing the Ministry's grant in cases where Circular 1060 is not observed?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that any general action of that sort would be justified, because all cases have to be considered on the merits of their conditions in relation to the two considerations.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what grants are being made to local authorities to provide employment involving either the use of foreign materials or British materials?
    Mr. LEVYasked the Minister of Health if he will consider sending a circular to the local authorities stating that schemes of work of a revenue-producing character are favourably regarded by the Government and inviting them to prepare such schemes?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think any further communication to local authorities is required having regard to the full statement which I made in the House on the 15th ultimo.
    Mr. LEVY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression among local authorities is that expenditure of all kinds is not encouraged, and does he not think that it is important and necessary that he should correct that impression?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that, as a matter of fact, that is now the case. I think that the actual state of affairs is now well known to the local authorities owing to the recent pronouncements on the subject.
    Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he cannot in regard to such schemes as this point the attention of county councils to the fact that in some cases they can do work which has been considered hitherto the work of the district councils?

    WORK SCHEMES.
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Prime Minister if he can state what scheme for an extension of electric lighting facilities or national water and sewage schemes have been considered by the committee of business men set up to advise the Government in these matters?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): Particular proposals relating to these services are dealt with by the appropriate Government Departments. No point has arisen in connection with matters of this kind on which it has been necessary to consult the business men referred to.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who are the business men referred to?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I should require a separate question on that point.

    HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFITS.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in June next many unemployed persons will be in arrears as members of their approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts; that sums up to 18s. will have to be paid to clear these arrears; that in many cases payment of these arrears will not entitle the persons concerned to health benefits on account of not having been employed for a considerable time in an insurable occupation; and that, owing to the complexity of the law, many of them are ignorant of their position; and whether he will take steps to avoid the hardship which will follow?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The cases to which the hon. Member refers arise under the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1932. These were fully explained
    2120
    when the Bill was before the House and all insured persons were informed of the changes by a leaflet issued at the end of last year. All possible steps are being taken to ease the position for the insured persons affected, and arrangements have been made under which arrears due to unemployment may be redeemed by instalments at any time from now to the end of November next.
    Mr. BANFIELD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that many of these people believe that by paying these arrears they will be entitled to benefits, and that many of them are ignorant of the fact that it would not so entitle them?
    Sir H. YOUNG: That is not so in the common case.

    ALLOTMENTS AND SEED SUPPLIES.
    Mr. GRAHAM WHITEasked the Minister of Agriculture if it is now his intention to withdraw the restrictions under which local authorities cannot avail themselves of Sections 14 and 16 of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act, 1931, authorising him to defray losses incurred thereunder by local authorities in providing allotment gardens for unemployed persons and in making grants for assisting in the provision of seeds, fertilisers, and equipment for unemployed persons?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): The Government decided on grounds of economy that no funds could be provided for the purpose of operating the Sections referred to, and I fear that that decision must still be maintained. I would, however, remind the hon. Member that a grant is being made from the Development Fund to the Society of Friends to supplement funds obtained by that society for the purpose of aiding the supply of seeds, fertilisers and implements to unemployed and partly employed persons cultivating allotments.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Seeing that we now have approximately 350,000 more persons unemployed than 18 months ago, cannot the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this question?

    OCCUPATIONAL CENTRES (WIRELESS SETS).
    Captain SPENCERasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that charitable organisations and individuals are providing free wireless sets for use in

    2121
    unemployed occupational centres; and if he is prepared to remit the licence duty in such cases?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The Broadcasting Committee, 1925, considered the question of the grant of free wireless licences, and recommended that this concession be made to blind persons only. Effect was given to the committee's recommendation by the Wireless Telegraphy (Blind Persons Facilities) Act, 1926. My right hon. Friend regrets that he would not feel justified in asking Parliament to extend the concession to other classes of the community.

    ROYAL COMMISSION (RECOMMENDATIONS).
    Mr. BATEY (for Mr. LAWSON)asked the Minister of Labour if he is yet in a position to state when the new Unemployment Insurance Bill will be introduced, or if he can give any indication as to the present position in respect to this matter?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Tuesday by the Lord President of the Council to the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. McKeag).

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. BATEY (for Mr. LAWSON)asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state the Government's plans for engaging the unemployed on schemes of work?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement of Government policy made in the course of the Debate on 16th February.

    PRISONERS (SECOND DIVISION).
    Brigadier-General SPEARSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether the rules governing the treatment of prisoners in the second division are exhibited in the cells of second division prisoners in Wormwood Scrubs Prison and any other prisons receiving second division prisoners; and, if not, whether he will take steps to ensure that this is done;
    (2) what provision is made at Wormwood Scrubs Prison for the separation of second division prisoners from prisoners sentenced to hard labour or
    2122
    simple imprisonment and not in the second division?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The second division is intended to provide for the separation of prisoners of previously good character from those of depraved or criminal habits. No prisoners of the latter class are sent to Wormwood Scrubs, which is specially set apart for men of previously good character. Separation of second division prisoners from others who have not been placed in that division by the court is therefore unnecessary at that prison, and the treatment of all prisoners there is more favourable than it is possible to provide for second division prisoners elsewhere. The usual cell card of rules relating to the second division is therefore superfluous at Wormwood Scrubs and has been replaced by a special card based on the system in force at that prison.

  TRANSPORT.

    MOTOR DRIVERS' HOURS.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions and convictions, respectively, for the years 1931 and 1932 in England and Wales for offences against Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which provides for a limitation of time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No figures are available for the country as a whole, as the annual returns made by the police do not deal separately with this class of offence. In the Metropolitan Police District there were no prosecutions in the nine months of 1931 during which Section 19 was in force. In 1932, prosecutions were instituted and convictions obtained against one limited company and six individuals.
    Mr. LLEVVELLYN-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of very serious accidents, including fatal accidents, are due to the contravention of this Section of the Act of 1930, and will he take steps with a view to seeing whether the Act is complied with?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes; I am sure that that is kept in mind by the authorities.
    Mr. LESLIE BOYCEasked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware of the fatal accident which occurred recently at Kilndown, Kent, in which the driver of a lorry which fell down a bank was killed; whether he is aware that the man had been at work for 54 out of 98 hours; and what measures he proposes to introduce to render more effective the provisions of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930;
    (2) whether his attention has been called to an accident at Eastriggs on 17th February, when a lorry crashed through a railway fence and was run into by a train; and whether, as the driver of the lorry had been at work continuously for a number of hours in excess of the legal maximum and in view of other such accidents, he will take steps to bring about a more strict observance of the law relating to the hours worked by motor drivers?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The two accidents to which he refers have been brought to my notice and have been the subject of special inquiries by the police. I am in communication with my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, in regard to these cases. As regards the provisions of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to the hours of employment of drivers of heavy vehicles, a statement has already been made by the Government that the question of providing more effective means for the enforcement of this and other requirements of the Act is under consideration in connection with the Bill which will shortly be introduced for the better regulation and control of the transport of goods by road.
    Mr. PARKINSONasked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the present lack of observance of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act by the owners and drivers of commercial motor vehicles, he will amend this Section of the Act in the proposed legislation for the better regulation and control of goods transport by road; and if he will consult with the representatives of the employers and the employe's on the whole question of the conditions under which Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act is now operating?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I agree that Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is difficult of enforcement, and that its provisions, as well as certain other requirements of the Act, are frequently disregarded by the less scrupulous type of operator, particularly on the goods side of the road transport industry. As I have already stated, this aspect of the problem is under consideration in connection with the Bill which the Government propose to introduce in the near future. I am ready at any time to receive joint representations on the part of employers and employed with regard to the operation of the Section, and I understand that a conference has in fact already been arranged with certain representatives of the passenger side of the industry.
    Mr. PARKINSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the meantime exercise stricter supervision under Section 19, in view of the fact that we find that flagrant breaches of that Section are taking place?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I can assure the hon. Member that that supervision is being exercised at the present time.

    ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATIONS.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Minister of Transport if he will give the names of the representative organisations which he has consulted before making regulations under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in pursuance of Section 111 (2) of the Act; what meetings or conferences of representatives of such organisations have been called by him; and what the total cost of such meetings or conferences has been up to the 31st December, 1932?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Every effort is made by my Department to give full effect to Section 111 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, by consultation before regulations are made with all representative organisations whose interests are likely to be affected. This consultation takes place either by correspondence or by conferences whichever may be more convenient. It forms part of the ordinary duties of my Department and does not entail any special expenditure. The preparation of a list of all the numerous organisations consulted and of the occasions on which consultation has taken place would involve a good deal of labour,

    2125
    but if the hon. Member has in mind any case where he considers that adequate consultation has not taken place and will give me particulars, I will look into the matter.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is it not in the interests of this House, and the public generally, that they should be aware as to what organisations are consulted by the Minister of Transport before these regulations are made, and will he not take steps to furnish a report or memorandum giving a list of the organisations which have been consulted?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I do not think that any such list would be of much use to the House. I can tell my hon. Friend that there are a very large number of these bodies, and they are the most obvious bodies that should be consulted in the mater. To give him examples, the Association of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Commercial Motor Users Association, and the Cyclists Touring Club have been consulted, among others.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how far organisations connected with the general public, apart from trading organisations, have been consulted?

    EDUCATION (CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many local education authorities in England and Wales have taken steps to establish continuation schools for young persons in accordance with the provisions of Section 75 of the Education Act, 1921?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): After the passing of the Education Act, 1918, a few local education authorities established compulsory day continuation schools for young persons in accordance with the provisions of the Act, but subsequently discontinued the provision of such schools. At the present time there is only one local education authority in England and Wales which conducts such a school.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly inform me which authority that is?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The name of the authority is Rugby.
    Mr. LLEWELLYN-JONES: Is it not appreciated that the setting-up of these continuation schools is largely imperative at the present time, having regard to the large amount of unemployment among young people in the country?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Section of the Act authorises continuation schools for all young persons, whether employed or unemployed. It is not confined to the training and education of the unemployed only. If it were a mater of legislation, it would be a matter primarily concerning my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Can the hon. Gentleman say why places like Plymouth have abandoned their continuation school scheme? Was it due to pressure from the Board?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As far as I know, it was abandoned mainly because of the expense involved.
    Mr. COVE: Do I understand that this is entirely a matter for the Minister of Labour? Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a matter for cooperative consideration between the two Departments?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I said "primarily."
    .Mr. LUNN: Is the Department of the hon. Gentleman considering the question of extending these schemes to the children of the unemployed?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: A certain amount is being done, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in connection with the training and education of young persons, but as things are, if compulsory day continuation schools were to be applied under the Act, they would have to be applied to all young persons leaving elementary schools.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with any forthcoming extension of

    2127
    voluntary contributions to National Health Insurance and in view of the large numbers of previous contributors who have been forced to leave insurable occupations, he will consider giving to them an opportunity to regain membership by payment of voluntary contributions, as was provided in the Act of 1925, for the provision of widows' and orphans' old age pension benefit to insured contributors?
    Sir H. YOUNG: No extension of the scope of voluntary insurance under the National Health Insurance Acts is in prospect, and therefore the remainder of the question does not arise. The persons to whom the hon. Member refers have for the most part already had an opportunity of becoming voluntary contributors under existing legislation.
    Mr. GRENFELL: In view of the passage of time since that date, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread sense of injustice that prevails and of the ground for that feeling, and will he not move it forward five or six years?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I do not quite follow the grievance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but perhaps he will be good enough to communicate with me, and I will give it my most careful consideration.

    HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Minister of Health whether he has further explored and, if so, with what result the recommendation in the Report of the Committee on Local Expenditure that the administration of the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts, 1926 and 1931, should be placed in the hands of rural district councils?
    Sir H. YOUNG: As I explained on the Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill now before Parliament, I propose to give sympathetic consideration to any application by a rural district council for authority to administer this Act, if it appears that this course will lead to a greater use of the powers of the Act.
    Sir PERCY HURDasked the Minister of Health whether the contribution of per house payable by a county
    2128
    council under Section 34 (2) of the Housing Act, 1930, towards the provision of a house for a member of the agricultural population in a rural district applies to the case of re-housing under a clearance or improvement scheme; what in that event is the total weekly rent equivalent of the assistance obtainable under the Act for slum clearance; and whether means will be taken to make this position more widely known among county and district authorities?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The reply to the first and third parts of the question is in the affirmative. For each three-bedroomed house provided under the Act the total of the contributions under the Act is approximately equivalent to a weekly sum of 5s. If the house is in an agricultural parish the weekly equivalent is 5s. 6d.
    Sir P. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last paragraph of my question?
    Sir H. YOUNG: All possible means are taken to call the attention of local authorities to these powers, but, as a matter of fact, I contemplate special measures to that end in the near future.

    WORLD ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Prime Minister, if he can now make a statement on the forthcoming Economic Conference?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statements made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday in the course of the Debate on the Motion introduced by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White).

    ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Health the total amount credited to the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund during the year 1932 out of contributions paid under the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts, showing in particular the amount paid by owners of fishing vessels, either exactly or as an approximate percentage of the whole sum?
    Sir H. YOUNG: During the year 1932 the amount of £75,700 was credited to

    2129
    the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund out of contributions paid under the National Health and Unemployment Insurance Acts. I regret that no information is available as to what portion of this amount was paid by owners of fishing vessels.
    Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Health the number of pensions granted each year by the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund from the date upon which the National Health Insurance Act, 1928, came into operation, distinguishing between seamen and fishermen?
    Sir H. YOUNG: I am informed by the Governing Body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund that the number of pensions awarded out of the fund in 1929 was 1,995, of which 932 were granted to fishermen. In 1930, 1,233 pensions were awarded, 403 being granted to fishermen, while in 1931, 1,468 pensions were awarded, 415 being to fishermen. In 1932, out of a total of 800 awards, the number granted to fishermen was 221.
    Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is misleading to give figures for the last five years instead of for the whole period during which this scheme has been in operation?
    Sir H. YOUNG: These are the figures for which I was asked. I am quite prepared to give any further figures which the hon. Member desires.
    52. Colonel ROPNERasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, specially empowers the governing body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund to give preference in the award of pensions to masters and seamen having long sea-service in foreign-going ships; and what steps are taken by his Department to ensure that these objects are fulfilled?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part of the question, under the scheme for the administration of benefits out of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund, which has been approved by the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, special provision is made to give pre-
    2130
    ference to masters and seamen who have served in foreign-going ships over those who hake served in other ships.

    SEWER GAS.
    Mr. HUTCHISONasked the Minister of Health whether local authorities are required to keep gas masks to be worn by employés descending into sewers where there is reasonable ground to expect the presence of gas; and, if not, whether he will suggest to all of them that these gas masks should be provided and used?
    Sir H. YOUNG: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I am advised that, gas masks would not be effective in all cases of danger and that it is the practice to make tests before men descend into sewers. Having regard to the fatality recently reported in the Press, I propose to make further inquiry into the matter.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what kind of test is made, and whether it is by an automatic gas detector or some other implement?
    Sir H. YOUNG: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that question in order that I may deal with it in a satisfactory manner.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the whole population of London will before long be requiring gas masks if the Disarmament Conference breaks down?
    Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to supply hon. Members with gas masks to protect them against the hon. Gentleman?

  NATIONAL FINANCE.

    BEER DUTY.
    Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net revenue received from Customs Duties on beer for the 11 months ended February 1932, and for the 11 months ended February 1933; and the net receipts from excise duties on beer for the same period?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As the

    2131
    answer involves a table of figures, I will with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The net amount of revenue received from the Customs and Excise Duties respectively on beer during the 11 months ended February in each of the years 1932 and 1933 was as follows:

    —

    11 months to February, 1932

    11 months to February, 1933.

    £

    £

    Customs

    …

    5,903,000

    6,073,000*

    Excise

    …

    64,006,000

    63,388,000*

    Total

    …

    69,909,000

    69,461,000*

    Provisional figures.

    Sir H. CROFTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the profits of the brewing industry have fallen in the last calendar year by from 26 per cent. to 30 per cent. and that profits have still further declined as disclosed by interim dividends; and whether he will take steps to relieve the industry of the burden imposed by recent taxation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that declared profits in the brewing industry have fallen, but I must not be taken as necessarily accepting the figures quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend. As regards the second part of the question, my hon. and gallant Friend will not expect, me to anticipate the Budget statement.
    Sir H. CROFT: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the lower figure is the correct one, how long it will take before all profits disappear under the existing taxation?

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. LEVYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated cost of reducing the rate of Income Tax by sixpence and a shilling in the pound, respectively?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) on the 14th March last in reply to similar questions relating to certain Customs duties.
    Mr. LEVY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give careful consideration, when framing his Budget, to the importance of the stimulating effect which a reduction of the tariff would have on trade and industry, and alternatively the very depressing effect of not making any reduction?
    On a point of Order. By a slip of the tongue I understand that I mentioned the word "tariff." I intended to say "tax."

    REVENUE (IMPORT DUTIES).
    Mr. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the figures of revenue, to the last available date, in respect of foodstuffs, raw materials, partially manufactured and wholly manufactured articles?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore - Belisha): Separate figures are not available under all of these heads, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such information as it is possible to give. The hon. Member will appreciate that calculations, such as he requires, will take time to compile.

    BEET-SUGAR SUBSIDY (COMMITTEE).
    Sir HERBERT SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government propose to proceed with the appointment of the committee to inquire into the conditions of the United Kingdom sugar industry which was announced in his Budget speech in April, 1932; and whether this inquiry will be held and completed before any proposals are considered for a continuance of the beet-sugar subsidy when its statutory term expires in 1934?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for the Henley Division (Sir G. Fox) on the 7th February, the beet-sugar and sugar-refining industries have been conferring with the object of submitting agreed proposals for the consideration of the Government. These proposals have now been received and are being examined. In the meantime I have thought it desirable to defer the appointment of the committee to which the right hon. Member refers.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: Do I understand from what my right hon. Friend has said that he will not come to any conclusion on these matters until there has been an inquiry into the working of the present beet-sugar subsidy?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not say that.
    Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask whether there will be an inquiry into the working of the beet-sugar subsidy, which is involving the expenditure of public moneys to the amount of over £30,000,000, before any decision is reached as to its continuance?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think I can give that undertaking, but, as the matter is still under consideration, I think my right hon. Friend need not be afraid that any hasty conclusion will be arrived at.
    Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman not satisfy the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) by giving an undertaking that there will be a reasonable duty and get rid of the subsidy?

    LOANED WORKS OF ART (CUSTOMS DUTY).
    Sir WLLLIAM DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that five packages containing examples of modern Chinese art, which wore loaned for exhibition at the White-chapel Art Gallery by Professor Chytil, of Prague, have been stopped by the Customs authorities, who claim duty amounting to £450; and whether, as these works of art are not for sale, but merely for exhibition at the gallery, which opens its exhibitions free to the public, steps will be taken to release them for exhibition without payment of duty?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am having inquiry made into the matter, and I will let my hon. Friend know the result as soon as possible.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    LINOLEUM EXPORTS (DRAWBACK).
    Mr. G. WHITEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if arrangements have now been made for a drawback of
    2134
    duty in respect of the linseed-oil content of linoleum when exported?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.
    Sir P. HARRIS: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a promise that there would be a drawback arrangement, so that this industry should not suffer?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I must direct my hon. Friend's attention to the question I have been answering.

    JAPANESE COMPETITION (DOMINIONS).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is in negotiation with any of the Dominions with regard to their withdrawal from the Anglo-Japanese trading agreement without prejudice to the validity of the agreement as between this country and Japan?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): No, Sir.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the acute anxiety that exists in many of the Dominions in respect to this abnormal Japanese competition, and will he undertake, in the event of their requesting him to take the action indicated in the question, not to raise any overriding objection?
    Mr. THOMAS: The only Dominions affected are Canada, with very strong reservations, the Irish Free State, and Newfoundland. If I get any communications from them, I will very seriously consider them.

    COUPON TRADING.
    Mr. STOREYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the terms of reference of the proposed departmental committee on coupon trading will include the investigation of free insurance of readers by newspapers?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The composition and terms of reference of the proposed departmental committee are still under consideration.
    Mr. STOREY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that free insurance by newspapers is one of the most pernicious forms of gift trading,

    2135
    in that it increases the cost of advertising without any corresponding advantage to the advertiser?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not going into the merits of that subject, but I may inform my hon. Friend that that is one of the topics under consideration.
    Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask Whether another form will be inquired into, namely, the practice of writing open letters to prominent people, conveying the suggestion that they wish to commend a particular commodity?
    Mr. BUCHANAN: Will not the right hon. Gentleman just allow us to get a little of our own way in these matters without constantly interfering with us?

    INDIA (RAILWAY ORDERS).
    Sir H. CROFTasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the contracts placed with Continental firms by Indian railways for locomotive boilers, fittings and cylinders; Whether he is aware that the difference in price between the British quotations and those of the Hungarian State Railway workshops is small; and whether, in the interests of British industry, he will take the matter up with the Indian railways on behalf of British manufacturers in order that they may not be undersold by foreign State workshops?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My hon. and gallant Friend is presumably referring to contracts placed by the authorities in India under the rupee tender system. I have no information as to the details and would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply I gave on 27th February to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who, I think, was referring to the same orders.
    Sir H. CROFT: If it is a fact that these contracts for State railways are being placed on the Continent at a very low wage level, will the hon. Gentleman not urge the railways in India to give contracts to Great Britain, where most of the capital has been raised for the promotion of those railways?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Are we not to have an answer to that question?
    Mr. BUTLER: The usual practice under the rupee tender system has been followed in this case.
    Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not time that the usual practice was altered to a new practice more in accordance with the feelings of this House and the country?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Would it not be better to give a subsidy to the manufacturers in this country, and keep the business here?

    MANCHUKUO (JAPANESE FRUIT).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received in regard to the modification by the Manchukuo Government of the tariff in favour of Japanese oranges and apples in December last, contrary to international treaties; and what action he proposes to take?
    Mr. BALDWIN: No, Sir. In November last the Manchukuo authorities announced that the specific duties hitherto levied on imported oranges and apples had been replaced by ad valorem duties of 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. respectively; but I have no information of discriminatory action on their part in favour of the Japanese fruit.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make inquiries in view of the danger that this may be applied to the textile exports from this country?
    Mr. BALDWIN: I am advised that there is no discrimination.

  AGRICULTURE.

    MEAT IMPORTS.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Agriculture what further steps he proposes to take to assist the livestock industry, in view of the fact that the imports of beef and mutton in February, 1933, were greater than in January, 1933, and than in February, 1932, and that the daily average during February, 1933 was practically the same as for the daily average of the whole of 1932?
    Major ELLIOT: Imports of chilled and frozen beef were less in February, 1933, than in either January, 1933, or Feb

    2137
    ruary, 1932. Imports of mutton and lamb, on the other hand, were greater, the difference being attributable to increased imports from the Dominions. I would remind my hon. Friend that the undertaking given by Australia and New Zealand at Ottawa to limit their shipments related to the year 1933 as a whole and it will, therefore, be appreciated that a comparison of one particular month with another has no special significance.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether it is not the case that the emergency arrangements the right hon. Gentleman announced last December applied to the imports during the early months of this year, and why it is in those circumstances that imports of mutton were so abnormally high during February?
    Major ELLIOT: I shall be happy to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend afterwards. I think it is very difficult to deal with these complicated matters by question and answer.
    Mr. COVE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether prices increased during this period?

    CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK (IMPORTS).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Minister of Agriculture the reasons governing the avoidance of any effective restrictions on the increasing importation of condensed skimmed milk and similar products, particularly in view of their small food value and their competition with cheap pure milk?
    Major ELLIOT: The position of the market for dairy produce is at present receiving the Government's careful and unremitting consideration, and all milk products will be brought under review, including those to which my hon. friend refers.

    PRODUCTION (STATISTICS).
    Mr. LEWISasked the Minister of Agriculture if he will state for the last complete year for which figures are available the value, respectively, of the production in this country of eggs and poultry on the one hand and wheat, barley, and oats on the other hand?
    Major ELLIOT: The value of the output from holdings over 1 acre in England and Wales in 1931–32 may be estimated provisionally at about £19,500,000 in the case of poultry and eggs, and £11,000,000
    2138
    for wheat, barley and oats. The latter figure does not include the proportion of the crops retained on farms for seed or feed.

    MILK (MARKETING SCHEME).
    Sir P. HURDasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, seeing that milk producers have presented a scheme under the Marketing Act as recommended by the Reorganisation Commission for Milk, the Government now propose to establish a statutory dairymen's board and a joint milk council which the Commission consider essential to the satisfactory operation of their plan?
    Major ELLIOT: I have not yet received the scheme referred to, but I understand that I may expect it at any moment. Immediate steps will be taken by the Ministry on receipt of the scheme to publish notice of submission with a view to pressing forward with the statutory procedure laid down in connection with submission and approval of marketing schemes. Meanwhile, the proposals of the Commission to which my hon. Friend refers are receiving careful consideration. They raise important questions of policy on which I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

    WHEAT DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS (OXFORDSHIRE).
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of deficiency payments paid out under the Wheat Quota Act up to date, specifying the sum paid to farmers in Oxfordshire?
    Major ELLIOT: The Wheat Commission have paid advances totalling £1,283,535 to registered growers in the United Kingdom on account of deficiency payments to which they will become entitled under the Wheat Act, 1932. The sum paid to farmers in Oxfordshire is £26,125. These payments are in respect of wheat certificates lodged with the commission up to 30th November last. A further advance in respect of certificates received between 1st December and 28th February will be made on or about 25th March.

    MARKETING (FOREIGN TRADE NEGOTIATIONS).
    Sir JOSEPH LAMBasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the

    2139
    statement broadcast by the Danish Finance Minister in respect to recent commercial negotiations between Denmark and this country; whether he is aware of the anxiety entertained by British farmers as to the effect of such negotiations upon the operation of schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act; and whether he can give any assurance that no commitments will be entered into with foreign countries which will prevent the expansion of home production of food products regulated by schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: My attention has been drawn to the statement to which my hon. Friend refers. I can assure him that in the trade negotiations with foreign countries I am in constant touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
    Sir J. LAMB: Is the President of the Board of Trade not aware that there is a great deal of apprehension among agriculturists generally with regard to this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I hope that agriculturists generally know my right hon. Friend so well that they can entrust their interests to him.

    COAL INDUSTRY (WEMYSS COAL COMPANY).
    Lieut.-Colonel KERRasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is now in a position to announce the finding of the Scottish Commission of Investigation on the complaint made by the Hawick Co-operative Society against the standard tonnage allotted to the Wemyss Coal Company?
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): The finding of the Scottish Committee of Investigation in this case is as follows:—
    " The committee, having considered the complaint submitted by the Hawick Co-operative Society, Limited, unanimously resolve:

    1. That in the opinion of the committee the complaint was reasonably brought by the complainers inasmuch as the reason given the complainers for some difficulty they experienced in obtaining coal was contained in a document beaded An Apology to our Customers ' issued
    2140
    by the Wemyss Coal Company Limited, alleging that shortage was due to the operation of the Coal Mines Act, 1930.

    2. That the complaint as to the inadequacy of the standard tonnage allotted by the Executive Board to the Wemyss Coal Company, Limited, has not been substantiated and that the statements contained in the apology are in the opinion of the committee misleading. The evidence submitted to the committee suggests that the Wemyss Coal Company, Limited, have benefitted by the Act rather than otherwise."

    Mr. GUY: Could the Secretary for Mines tell the House who are the members of this Committee?
    Mr. BROWN: The members of the Committee of Investigation were as follow:

    Name.

    Representing.

    Sheriff G. Morton, K.C., M.A., LL.B., Chairman

    —

    W. Elger, Esq., J.P.

    Consumers.

    Donald A. Matheson, Esq,

    Consumers.

    M.V.O., J.P R. W. Brown, Esq,

    Owners of coal mines in the district.

    A B. Clarke, Esq., J.P.

    Workers employed in or about such coal mines.

    HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESH MENT DEPARTMENT).
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULTasked the hon. Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he can state the amount of cider which was consumed in the refreshment departments of the House of Commons during the past calendar year; and what proportion of this amount was genuine Somerset cider?
    Sir JOHN GANZONI: Sir, 204 gallons of draught, 84 dozen reputed pints and 98 dozen smaller bottles of cider were consumed last year. They were all Hereford, Devonshire or Norfolk brands.
    Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the opinion of experts and connoisseurs, the best cider comes from Somerset, and will he provide adequate facilities for hon. Members to enjoy this refreshing beverage for the future?
    Sir H. CROFT: Is it not a fact that the alcoholic content of Somerset cider is somewhat in excess of that of the ordinary working man's beer, and will he give warning to hon. Members accordingly?
    Sir J. GANZONI: I am always open to receive any helpful advice.

    GERMANY.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the recent breaches of the Treaty of Versailles by Germany; and what action it is proposed to take in the matter?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the alleged inconsistency with the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent agreements of the enrolment of auxiliary police and their presence in the demilitarised zone. These matters are under consideration.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask whether there is any prospect of a Debate which would raise the question of the promotion of peace on the Continent of Europe taking place at an early date?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If I thought that such a Debate would attain that object, I should be glad to consider it.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Am I to understand that there is no prospect of a Debate upon the European situation in the near future?
    Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend must recognise that that is a question which it is impossible to answer without notice.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Then my right hon. Friend will consider this point if notice is given?
    Mr. BALDWIN: If there is a general desire, of course one is bound to consider it, but that does not in any way pledge us to find time.
    Mr. MAXTON: If one of the parties requested that such a Debate should take place on the Consolidated Fund Bill, would the Government be prepared to arrange for it?
    Mr. BALDWIN: The subject for discussion on that Bill is always within the choice of the Opposition, and they can put down any subject.

    EMPLOYMENT (STATISTICS).
    Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr.THORNE)asked the asked the Minister of Labour the total
    2142
    number of workpeople employed in all trades and callings in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the years 1920 and 1930, respectively?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I have prepared a detailed reply to this question, which I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    I regret that the statistics desired hr respect of 1920 are not available. The estimated number of persons aged 16 years and upwards insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at July, 1921, was 11,337,650, including probably between 320,000 and 340,000 persons aged 65 years and over. At July, 1930, the number of insured persons aged 16 to 64 inclusive was 12,405,700. At the Population Census of 1921 the total number of persons aged 12 years and upwards returned as gainfully occupied in Great Britain, exclusive of employers and persons working on their own account, was 17,414,718. A Census of Population was not taken in Northern Ireland in 1921. Corresponding figures from the 1931 Population Census are not yet available. The figures given above include unemployed persons as well as those at work.

    TRADE UNIONS.
    Mr. BANFIELD (for Mr.THORNE)asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered and unregistered trade unions in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the years 1920 and 1930 respectively; and the membership of registered and unregistered trade unions for the same periods?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The numbers of registered and unregistered trade unions of employes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland at the end of 1920 and at the end of 1930 were 1,368 and 1,098 respectively. The memberships were 8,339,000 in 1920 (of whom about 7 millions were in registered unions), and 4,824,000 in 1930. (of whom about 3¾ millions were in registered unions).

    ALIENS (BEAT-SUGAR FACTORIES).
    Sir ALAN McLEANasked the Minister of labour how many aliens are

    2143
    now employed in beet-sugar factories in Great Britain under permits issued by the Home Office on the recommendation of his Department; and how many have been so employed for six years and upwards?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of aliens now employed in beet-sugar factories in Great Britain under permit conditions is 12. Two of these are leaving the country at the end of this month; of the remaining 10, 5 have been employed here for more than six years.
    Sir A. McLEANasked the Minister of Labour whether it is still a condition of the permit issued by the Home Office, on the recommendation of his Department, for the employment of aliens in beet-sugar factories in Great Britain that British subjects are trained by the aliens?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir. I should point out, however, that in certain cases where the foreigner has been in this country for a number of years, it may be decided to remove any restrictions upon his further stay, and in such cases the conditions would naturally no longer apply. I may add that no permits for the admission of foreigners for the beet-sugar industry have been issued since July, 1929.

    BORSTAL INSTITUTION, FELTHAM (PROMOTIONS).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary how many officers at His Majesty's Borstal Institution, Feltham, during the past 12 months, to the nearest date, have been passed over for promotion; and how far the seniority and experience of the officers is taken into consideration in making selections for promotion?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: During the last 12 months, 25 officers at Feltham Borstal Institution have been passed over for promotion. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question on the 9th instant.

    DARTMOOR PRISON (FARM BAILIFF).
    Mr. McENTEEasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the
    2144
    Prison Commissioners are advertising for a farm bailiff for Dartmoor Prison at a salary of approximately £1 per week more than the present bailiff receives, and that during the tenure of office of nearly three years of the present bailiff many first, second, and third class prizes have been won for cattle at local and district shows; what is the reason for the pending change; and whether the present holder of the office has been informed that he was not giving satisfaction?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: The post of farm bailiff at this prison has not been filled for some years. On the death of the last bailiff it was decided, owing to uncertainty as to the future of the prison and of the farm, not to fill the post, and, as a temporary expedient, two officers of the prison have been employed in succession on the work and given a special allowance. As it has now been decided to maintain and to make more extensive use of the farm property, it has become necessary to appoint a qualified bailiff, and the Prison Commissioners have advertised for candidates accordingly.
    Mr. McENTEE: Are we to understand that the bailiff who has been carrying out that work is not qualified? Has any complaint been made to the right hon. Gentleman to that effect?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: This was a temporary arrangement with one of the ordinary officials of the prison, who is not fully qualified as a farm bailiff.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (BUDGET DATE).
Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the business for next week; and also, as there have been some statements in the Press as to the date of the Budget, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us the date on which the Budget will be opened?
M. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, the 25th April. The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: Conclusion of the Second Reading Debate on the Agricultural

2145
Marketing Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Financial Resolution; consideration of Motions to approve the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1933, and the Scottish Raspberries Marketing Scheme. The House will recollect that Monday's business was the subject of agreement through the usual channels. It is hoped to take the Division on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Marketing Bill at about ten o'clock, in order to get through the remaining business without sitting unduly late.
Tuesday: Third Allotted Supply Day—Report stage of the Army, Air and Navy Estimates.
With regard to Wednesday, the House will realise that Government business can now be taken on Wednesdays, yesterday having been the last day appropriated to private Members' Motions. Next Wednesday, the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill will be taken, and the question of unemployment will be debated.
Thursday: Remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It has not yet been decided what subject will be debated.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Mr. LANSBURY: We have given the Patronage Secretary notice that on Thursday, if possible, we hope that the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister will make a full statement on the international situation, with special reference to all the questions which they have been discussing at Geneva and elsewhere, and I take it, also, in connection with the Sino-Japanese dispute.
Mr. BALDWIN: I am quite as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that there should be such a Debate at the earliest moment. I cannot yet say whether those Ministers will be back, but I purpose communicating immediately with them, if possible, to see if they can return in time for Thursday's Debate.
Motion made, and Question put,
" That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]
The House divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 31.

Division No. 84.]

AYES.

[3.49 p.m.

Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Eimley, Viscount

Albery, Irving James

Carver, Major William H.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Applin, Lieut. Col. Reginald V. K.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)

Askea, Sir Robert William

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Essenhigh, Reginald Clare

Atholl, Duchess of

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)

Everard, W. Lindsay

Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Falle Sir Bertram G.

Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

Christle, James Archibald

Fermoy, Lord

Balniel, Lord

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer

Fleming, Edward Lascelles

Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell

Clarke, Frank

Flint, Abraham John

Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell

Colfox, Major William Philip

Fox, Sir Glfford

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th.C.)

Colman, N. C. D.

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Belt, Sir Alfred L.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Conant, R. J, E.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Cook, Thomas A.

Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton

Bernays, Robert

Cooke, Douglas

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

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Cooper, A. Duff

Glossop, C. W. H.

Borodale, Viscount

Copeland, Ida

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Bossom, A. C.

Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry

Goff, Sir Park

Boulton, W. W.

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Goldle, Noel B.

Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton

Crooke. J. Smedley

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W,

Crookshank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)

Boyce, H. Leslle

Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Galnsb'ro)

Granville, Edgar

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Cross, R. H.

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Briscoe, Capt. Richard George

Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John

Broadbent, Colonel John

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Grlmston, R. V.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

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

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Davison, Sir William Henry

Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dickie, John P.

Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie

Donner, P. W.

Hamilton, Sir George (llford)

Burnett, John George

Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Butler, Richard Austen

Duggan, Hubert John

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

Hanbury, Cecil

Calne, G. R. Hall-

Dunglass, Lord

Hanley, Dennis A.

Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)

Eady, George H.

Harbord, Arthur

Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

Edmondson, Major A, J.

Harris, Sir Percy

Hartland, George A.

Maltland, Adam

Shute, Colonel J. J.

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

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

Smith, Braceweil (Dulwich)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-le-F.)

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Martin, Thomas B.

Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Smithers, Waldron

Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.

Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)

Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'trd & Chisw'k)

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Hornby, Frank

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.

Muirhead, Major A. J.

Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

Horsbrugh, Florence

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

Howard, Tom Forrest

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petert'fld)

Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

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

Normand, Wilfrid Guild

Stones, James

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

North, Captain Edward T.

Storey, Samuel

Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

Nunn, William

Strauss, Edward A.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

O'Connor, Terence James

Strickland, Captain W. F.

Hurd, Sir Percy

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

Hunt, Sir Gerald B.

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Sutcliffe, Harold

James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Tate, Mavis Constance

Jamleson, Douglas

Patrick, Colin M.

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

Janner, Barnett

Peake, Captain Osbert

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

Pearson, William G.

Thompson, Luke

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Titchfield, Major the Marquess of

Ker, J. Campbell

Peters, Dr. Sidney John

Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Petherick, M.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Kirkpatrick, William M.

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Knight, Holford

Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.

Turton, Robert Hugh

Knox, Sir Altred

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Islet)

Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Ward. Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Law, Sir Alfred

Ray, Sir William

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

Rea, Walter Russell

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Lees-Jones, John

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Leighton, Major B. E. P.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Levy, Thomas

Robinson, John Roland

Wayland, Sir William A.

Lewis, Oswald

Ropner, Colonel L.

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-

Liddall, Walter S.

Ross, Ronald D.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Lindsay, Noel Ker

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Weymouth, Viscount

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliff:-

Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

White, Henry Graham

Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick

Range, Norah Cecil

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Lloyd, Geoffrey

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Locker-Lampson.Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)

Russell, Richard John (Eddlsbury)

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

Wilton, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Salmon, sir Isidore

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

Salt, Edward W.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Womarsley, Walter James

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

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

McKie, John Hamilton

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

Savery, Samuel Servington

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Selley, Harry R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

George Penny.

NOES.

Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

Edwards, Charles

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Grenfell, David Reas (Glamorgan)

Maxton, James

Banfield, John William

Grundy, Thomas W.

Parkinson, John Allen

Batey, Joseph

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

Price, Gabriel

Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Tinker, John Joseph

Buchanan, George

Hirst, George Henry

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Cove, William G.

.Logan, David Gilbert

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Daggar, George

Lunn, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Dobble, William

McEntee, Valentine L.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Mr. John and Mr. Groves.

Resolution agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported born the Select Committee;
" That in the case of the Salford Corporation Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders
2148
ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit."

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL,
" to amend the law of Scotland relating to the Court of Session and procedure therein, to the appointment of officers in the said court and the High Court of Justiciary, to criminal jury trials and to the sheriffs and procedure in the sheriff court, and with regard to law agents' fees; and for purposes connected therewith," presented by the Lord Advocate; supported by Sir Godfrey Collins, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Skelton; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 71.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
STANDING COMMITFEE A.
Mr. William Nicholsonreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Alfred Law.
Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1933.
  SIR BOLTON BYRES MONSELL'S STATEMENT.
  Order for Committee read.
  3.59 p.m.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The announcement that the Navy Estimates this year are increased by £3,093,700 has aroused both hopes and fears, hopes in those who, believing in a strong Navy, believe that the deficiencies in the Navy are immediately to be made good, fears in others of some departure from our Treaty limitations. There is no justification for those hopes or fears. As the House of Commons well knows, we are building to a rigid programme, of which this is the fourth instalment, and the increase of a little over £3,000,000 is almost entirely automatic, and, except for new construction, does not fully meet all the potential needs of the Navy. Of this total of £3,093,700, no less a sum than £2,355,360 is required in order to make normal progress—and normal progress only—with new construction. Last year, 1932, we saved temporarily about £2,000,000 by adopting the expedient of postponing the 1931 programme for nearly six months. A similar postponement this year of the 1932 Programme would be quite impossible, and, as the House of Commons will see from that fact alone, the increase this year is bound to be £2,00,000. But that is not all. By postponing the 1931 Programme last year, we pushed the highest point of the curve in the expenditure on the Programme into this year, and so we have, in addition to the £2,000,000, an extra expenditure of £500,000 which has been pushed into this year's Estimate. Those two sums make up the automatic increase for new construction.
  If we take that amount for new construction from the total increase in this year's Estimates, I have left to account for a sum of £738,340, and it is very easy to account for that. Votes 13 and 14—what we call the Non-Effective Votes, which deal with pensions of both officers
  2160
  and men—are on the up-grade. They have been increasing for some time, and they will go on increasing for some time. Unfortunately, they have increased this year by the sum of £285,367 gross. Then, on the other side of our balance sheet, Appropriations-in-Aid—things that help us—are down. They were down last year considerably, and they are still more down this year by a sum of £346,566. It is quite easy to explain the reduction this year. It is due generally to the prevalent state of trade. We cannot get charters for our oil tankers; and old ships and scrap in general are fetching a very small sum. But the House will see that these two large increases in the Estimates — in Appropriations-in-Aid and Non-Effective Votes—about which I have just spoken, are entirely beyond the control of the Admiralty.
  There is only one other increase, and that is in the Fleet Air Arm. As in 1932, we are taking no new flight in the Fleet Air Arm, but two of the existing flights are in such a bad state that it is quite imperative to re-engine them with air-cooled engines. If we did not do that, it would not Abe safe to let pilots fly in them. The increase in the Estimate for the Fleet Air Arm of £64,000 is more than accounted for by these engines. Apart from these increases, £42,407 is all that I have got left to account for, and that sum appears under the general head of Maintenance. I pointed out last year that certain economies which we had taken in the Fleet and in Naval establishments could not be repeated without making serious inroads into the efficiency and, indeed, even the strength of the Fleet itself, and this year, so far as the small balance permits, I have made the best provision possible for such things as training reserves, which we had temporarily to abandon altogether last year, and an increase of expenditure in certain stores, more especially oil fuel for the Fleet, which is most important, as the Fleet was being crippled for want of action. We have also taken more money to make up arrears in certain works of paramount importance.
  I should like the House to understand that if it had not been for certain automatic reductions which we have had, such as the decrease in the price of stores and the real co-operation of the whole Navy, both afloat and in shore establishments, in helping us to economise, the

  2161
  Estimates would have had to be considerably greater than those I am presenting to-day. Since these Estimates were presented, we have heard a certain amount of criticism about the increase. No doubt we shall hear a great deal more, but I should like to point out to the House—no doubt it knows full well already—that the people who always deny us the right to an adequate national defence are precisely the same people who internationally are always clamouring for sanctions, for blockades, for wars to end war. They always profess to be worshipping the Goddess of Peace, but, to my mind, their real deity is an ancient heathen god of Wrath and Vengeance. But if these bloodthirsty pacifists, as I might call them, ever get their way, which God forbid, let the country realise what part the British Navy would be called upon to play in any form of castigation they wished to inflict. The First Lord of the Admiralty of the day, standing at this Box, would not be asking for an increase of £3,000,000, but for a sum of money that would well-nigh break the heart of the British taxpayer. Do not think I am not sorry for the British taxpayer, but I should like the British taxpayer to take some comfort from the fact that nearly the whole of the increased sum for new construction this year is going in wages. It is going in wages to people in this country. It is going in wages to those craftsmen whose combined skill produces ships. They have hada very hard time lately. They are people we cannot possibly do without, because their skill and the skill of their forbears has been largely responsible for the growth and development of our maritime Empire.
  The 1933 programme is, as I have said, a normal replacement programme, the fourth of its series. I have given some account of it in my printed Statement to the Navy Estimates, and all that I will add to it now, for the information of the House, is where these ships are to be built, which is always interesting to Members of dockyard towns and those who have private shipyards in their constituencies. Of the four new cruisers, Portsmouth will have one, Devonport will have a cruiser and a sloop, Chatham will have one sloop and one submarine, and the rest will go to private contract. One of the cruisers will be in replacement of His Majesty's Australian ship "Bris-
  2162
  bane," and the question of the replacement of the "Brisbane" is under discussion with the Commonwealth of Australia at the present time. Before I leave the subject of the programme, it may interest the House to be told the names of some of the ships of the 1932 programme, orders for which have all been placed. The principles to which I referred last year have been adhered to. The two larger cruisers will be named the "Apollo" and "Phaeton," and the smaller cruiser the "Galatea." The flotilla leader will be called the "Faulknor." The destroyers will have the names of "Forester," "Fury," "Fearless," "Foresight," "Foxhound," "Fortune," "Fame" and "Firedrake." The submarines will be called the "Clyde," the "Grampus" and the "Salmon," and the sloops will be named the "Lowestoft," the "Wellington," the "Harrier" and the "Hussar."
  I now turn to administration, which, I confess, is of more interest to me at the moment than the programme, because it is not yet restricted by any international obligation, and I wish to tell the House of some economies in the naval service which we have been able to effect, and I hope that those economies will not be without general interest in themselves. The first economy we have made, I am sure many hon. Members will be pleased to hear, is in the Admiralty itself—the staff. It is what we call the "merger." During last year we carried out a reorganisation of the staff which combines efficiency with a considerable saving in salaries, and I am sure the House will agree with me that this is a dual achievement which is as rare as it is welcome in any administration.
  Until 100 years ago the civil administration of the Admiralty was in the hands of independent authorities. One of those authorities was the famous old Navy Office. All those authorities were located in Somerset House, and were entirely independent of the Board of Admiralty. Many people saw the disadvantages of this state of affairs, but it was left to a man called Sir James Graham, who became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1830, to take what was no doubt then very drastic action. He brought all these civil departments under the authority at Whitehall of the Board of Admiralty, and so there grew up five depart-

  2163
  ments directly under the authority of the Board of Admiralty. The only link which the Navy now retains with Somerset House is the Naval emblem on that building which hon. Members can see as they pass by. One of these Departments, that of the Accountant-General, maintained an honourable, and, in some ways, separate existence for nearly 100 years, for it was only last year that we merged the Accountant-General's Department with that of the Department of the Secretary of the Admiralty, who was made Chief Financial Officer and Accounting Officer for Navy purposes in 1921. The effect has been to simplify and improve the organisation a great deal. But it has done more than that. It has effected a substantial saving in staff and salaries, and I hope that we shall save in a full year by this means £10,000. This has been done by avoiding some overlapping, which was taking place between the Secretary's Department and that of the Accountant-General. One of the most illustrious officials of the old Navy Office was the first man to call attention to such overlapping. On 5th April, 1668, which happened to be Lord's Day, Mr. Pepys made the following entry in his diary;
  " Dined at home, with W. Hewer with me; and after dinner he and I a great deal of good talk touching this office "—
  that is, the Navy Office—
  " how it is spoiled by having so many persons in it, and so much work that is not made the work of any one man, but of all, and so is never done."
  I commend that to hon. Gentlemen who like looking at the Admiralty Vote.
  " And that the best way to have it well done, were to have the whole trust in one, as myself, to set whom I pleased to work in the several businesses of the office, and me to be accountable for the whole‥‥; but this is not to be compassed."
  Perhaps Mr. Pepys was right; and it never could be entirely "compassed," but I cannot help thinking that if Mr. Pepys could have made an entry in his diary to-night he would have said that he was "mighty content" with what we have done.
  The next thing I wish to speak about is Dartmouth. Some months ago reports appeared in the Press that Dartmouth College was to be abolished. We immediately took steps to contradict the rumour, because I for one am convinced that we should never get a sufficient
  2164
  number of cadets of the right calibre in any other way. The only criticism aimed against Dartmouth which I thought had some force in it was the one directed against the cost of Dartmouth, so I. set to work to reduce the cost and undermine that argument as best I could. I have succeeded so far that we have reduced the cost of Dartmouth by 20 per cent., a very considerable achievement. I hope and believe that it is being done without any loss of efficiency. I should be very sorry if Dartmouth lost any of its efficiency. It is one of the very best educational establishments in this country. The chief reason for the high cost is the necessity of a dual staff—a naval staff and an instructional staff. We have made our principal economies in cutting down both. The first six terms at Dartmouth have been combined for instructional purposes. This means that we can have bigger classes and fewer instructors, and I am informed that the larger classes will by no means cause loss of efficiency.
  Mr. COVE: What size are they?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: About 25. I am told that the benefit you get in larger classes from mass-thought and competition balances the loss you may have from the lack of individual instruction. I have been told that fact on very high authority. Another cause of the high expenditure at Dartmouth is that Dartmouth was constructed to take a far larger number of cadets than the Navy at present wants, so that the overhead charges are much too big. By increasing the number of cadets, of course, we could reduce the overhead charges, but at the moment we do not want to increase the number of cadets. We are considering whether it would not be desirable to open Dartmouth College, at a suitable fee, to a limited number of boys who do not intend to make the Navy a career. There is much to be said for and against this proposal, to which I am in no way committed. I should like the House to realise one or two points. I have heard a good many parents say that they would like their sons to get the really unique advantage of the education at Dartmouth so long as it was not necessary for them to make the Navy a career. I do not think that the small number taken could possibly upset the public schools. The

  2165
  fees to be charged would make no difference to the public schools, because they would not be lower than the fees charged by the highest class of public school. We have not the slightest intention of competing with the public schools or of offering to accept boys at such low fees as could only be possible in a Government establishment. There is no question of subsidies. Indeed, the main object, if we do this, will be to lessen the cost of Dartmouth to the public by spreading the overhead charges over a larger number.
  Mr. LAMBERT: What number of boys?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I have given the information to the House, and I should like it to be discussed and thoroughly thrashed out. I am in no way committed. This brings me to another matter which is extremely interesting, not only to the Navy, but to all parents who may consider putting their boys into the Navy. It is the policy in regard to the number of cadets entered every year in relation to their ultimate prospects of promotion—prospects which, I think, can and should be very greatly improved, compared with what they are at the present moment. Every great war creates a surplus of officers during the periods of reduction which are bound -o follow, and for the last 14 years we have had, most regretfully, to retire a very large number of officers by special retirement schemes, always the worst part of the administration at the Admiralty. I want to draw the attention of the House to the new problem which has been created since the War, not ephemeral, but, on the contrary, one which will get worse if it is not tackled and tackled very soon. I refer to the serious change which has taken place in the proportion of junior to senior officers compared with what that proportion was only about 20 years ago. This is due, I think, almost entirely to the increased complexity of modern mechanism, and it has been thought necessary to have in ships almost double the number of lieutenant-commanders and lieutenants than was thought necessary 20 years ago solely in order to supervise important and often isolated stations in the ship in action. All this time there has been no proportional increase in the number of senior officers.
  2166
  The alteration in the balance between junior and senior officers has had at least two very bad effects upon the Navy. The first is that midshipmen and sublieutenants, especially in the big ships, never get a chance of taking charge at all. To have so many lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders for certain action stations is all right, but for the multifarious duties of the ship there are far too many officers, and the consequence is that the senior officers take charge and the junior officers do not get a chance. Another consideration is that petty officers are far too much supervised in their work and never get a chance of showing any initiative. The second bad effect of the proportion between junior and senior officers is that the promotion prospects of junior officers have been seriously diminished lately. As a matter of fact, at the moment it is very good, but I want to make it a good deal better. Many deserving officers fail to get over the first big fence of promotion to commander. What does this mean? It means the man being put ashore at an age when he cannot possibly give up work but at an age when it is almost impossible to get another job. I am sure that this fact must have deterred a good many parents from sending their sons to the Navy. So we intend to restore a more reasonable balance between junior and senior officers.
  We have already reduced the numbers of Lieut.-Commanders in the large ships, but we do not intend to carry this policy to such an extent that the livelihood of existing officers will be jeopardised. There is only one way of doing it, and that is, to start from the bottom and control the number of boys entering the Navy from Dartmouth, and making that number such that every Lieut.-Commander who approaches the top of his list and is fit for the rank of Commander shall stand a reasonable chance of promotion. This policy will have two great advantages. The Navy will provide a much better career for the individual, and greater efficiency will be obtained afloat by giving to the junior officers and petty officers their fair share of executive control.
  Last year when I presented the Navy Estimates I pointed out certain defects under which, in the best opinion of the Navy, the Service was suffering. The

  2167
  three principal problems which I then put before the House were: First, the training of the individual—officer, petty officer and seaman—with the idea of instilling responsibility and leadership and developing talent; secondly, the question of promotion, especially the promotion of the junior officer; and thirdly, the changes that occur in the personnel of ships during the commission. These changes occur far too frequently, with the consequence that a ship never gets a chance of properly settling down, officers and men never get a chance of properly knowing each other, and we cannot get that thing that we envy so much in the Army—the "regimental feeling." So this was the diagnosis that I made last year of what might be called the defects of the Navy, and, after a year's experience, I see no reason to alter that diagnosis.
  I want to tell the House to-night some of the remedies that we have taken in the course of last year to try to cure these defects. I will first take the changes in personnel. This is no new question, this frequent change of men in ships. I discovered that I was bringing this question forward in very good company when I came across a letter written by Nelson, in which he said:
  " The disgust of the seamen to the Navy is all owing to the infernal plan of turning them over from ship to ship, so that men cannot be attached to their officers, or the officers care twopence about them."
  I do not pretend that we have cured this evil in the course of the year. We have hardly touched the fringe of it, and I never expected that we should be able to cure it. I told the House last year that I thought that one of the chief troubles was that we were working on too narrow a margin of men; I mean, of men over and above those required to man ships. We are bound to have men on leave, men who are sick, men who are doing training, and men who are actually relieving crews out in China and all over the world. I warned the House last year that we should have to increase Vote A, and I said that it was a very serious affair. I have been somewhat taken to task by certain papers because Vote A is apparently to be reduced once more, and I must say that a look at the Navy Estimates would give you that idea. But
  2168
  it is not true. I think that everybody here who has served in the Navy knows that Vote A represents the highest number of men borne at any time in the year. The highest number last year was at the beginning of the year; the highest number this year will be at the end of the year. As a matter of fact, almost to-day we are at the lowest point of the curve to which Vote A has fallen since 1895. But almost from to-day it will start going up, and by the end of the year it will be increased by about 1,000 men. I could not do anything more than I have done. I could not do anything to touch Vote A until these Estimates came along, and in these Estimates we are entering the largest number of boys that our training establishments can hold; 2,500 boys as against an average of about 1,300 in the last four years. In addition to them we are entering 900 short-service seamen, as against an average of about 100 in the last four years. There is a special Motion dealing with this question of changes of personnel, which will be answered by my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, so I shall leave any more details of this question to that special Debate. But I wanted to take the first opportunity of correcting any wrong impression that Vote A was going downward, and to make the House realise that it is now on the upward grade.
  I now come to promotions. Last year I had to give the House a very gloomy picture of the prospects of promotion for everybody in the Navy, owing to the great block at the top of the flag-list. The captains who were being promoted to rear-admiral were getting too old; the age was getting up too high. I am sure that the House will realise the importance of getting young and active admirals promoted to the flag-list. Further than that, however, the captains' list was getting so swollen that we actually had to foresee a time when it might be impossible for a year or half a year to promote any commanders to captain. If we had had to do that, it would have been a perfectly heartbreaking situation for junior officers in His Majesty's Navy. So I am glad to say to-day, a year afterwards, that the situation has changed entirely for the good. It is very surprising that the situation could have changed so quickly in a year's time. The improvement is almost entirely due to the voluntary retirements of six admirals,

  2169
  who gave up willingly their hopes and chances when they saw what a very bad state things were in with respect to promotion. They gave up these hopes and chances in order to facilitate the flow of promotion of junior officers. I hope that they will reap their reward for their unselfish, public-spirited and high-minded action when they see the result that they have been successful in bringing about. The first result is that captains are now, only a year afterwards, promoted to rear-admiral with 14 months' less seniority than they had. But, far more important than that, instead of foregoing a half-yearly batch of promotions from commander to captain, we have increased the number of promotions by approximately 25 per cent., and I have every hope and belief that that increase will continue. Of course, this is a great encouragement to junior officers.
  The last thing about which I wish to speak is the question of the training of the individual. Last year I referred at considerable length to the training of the personnel of the Navy, and particularly to the idea of getting powers of leadership and command. To instil those qualities the younger you start the better. I am glad to be able to say that I have been down and seen one of the largest establishments for training boys, and there they are putting a very considerable proportion of their time into seamanship, boat-work and work of that sort. I was very surprised to see these youngsters, without any instructors, entirely on their own, taking charge of boats under sail and under oars in a most remarkably proficient way. In the large ships—and indeed in all ships in the Fleet—great attention is being given to seamanship training, to see that this work that boys get in their training establishments is carried on. It is more important to do it in the big ships, because the big ships are so insulated from the elements that the term "perils of the deep" means very much less to them than it does to the crews of destroyers or submarines, or to those who have to fly. A greater opportunity is being given to petty officers and leading seamen to take charge of their men, and I know one big ship where the officers are fallen out altogether and petty officers and leading seamen take entire charge of quite complicated evolutions.
  We have made a big alteration in the examinations for petty officers. Formerly
  2170
  these examinations for leading seaman to petty officer were carried out in the candidate's own ship and the candidates were examined by their own officers. Now a squadron board is formed; it is called by the admiral in charge and is composed of officers from all over the squadron or Fleet. This gives a good deal more importance to the examination, but it also ensures absolutely fair treatment to all the candidates, because they are all examined under precisely the same conditions. I want the House to understand that this examination is a real test of the practical ability of a man to carry out the duties of a petty officer, and is much more than a mere test of his educational attainments.
  I had hoped very much to ask leave of the House to build a ship—a sailing ship—for training purposes when I presented these Estimates. I am not doing so, because, apart from the question of finance, I found that a large number of senior officers in the Navy were opposed to this form of training. They advanced many practical objections, to which I can only oppose the arguments of a visionary. But the real question is this: the reintroduction of sail training into the Navy would be a radical change. If it is to be a success, it must not merely have acquiescence: it must be adopted with enthusiasm, and if it is not going to be adopted with enthusiasm I will not have it at all. What I said last year has, I know, raised great hopes among many officers in the Navy, and I know a great number who have given up their leave to go as hands in foreign sailing ships—because they cannot get into a British sailing ship—simply out of keenness and in order to train themselves for what they thought was coming. I do not apologise for having unduly raised their hopes, because I am quite sure that they will never regret the experience they have gained. Personally, I reaffirm my belief in sail training—not merely because it will teach a man to sail a ship, but because it will teach him seamanship; it will make him a seaman, and all that that implies. I wanted a sailing ship, above all, as a symbol of the fact that increased mechanisation must not blind us to the need of individual training. Even now, when my sailing shin has turned out to be a phantom and only the plans remain, I hope the Navy will never

  2171
  forget that every country can turn out mechanics but few can turn out sailors, and that it is owing to this fact that for a good many centuries we have borne the proud title of "Mistress of the Sea."
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE HALL: The very pleasant manner in which the First Lord has introduced the Navy Estimates to-day —it is only a repetition of the manner in which he introduced the Estimates last year—makes it very difficult for the bloodthirsty pacifists on this side of the House to find fault with the bloodthirsty warmongers on the other side of the House. We have listened to a lucid, informative and interesting statement. The present Government are fortunate in having the right hon. Gentleman as First Lord and the Navy also is fortunate in having him in that position. He is able to bring not only the practical experience of a naval officer but also the experience of many years as an administrator to his task. He made his statement very interesting by his references to Mr. Pepys and Lord Nelson, and I wondered whether he was going to give us a few more secrets from the archives of the Admiralty.
  We agree largely with what he has said regarding the training of men. I am pleased that he has taken up that matter. In regard to personnel the right hon. Gentleman warned the House last year as to his views regarding the shortage. May I ask him whether he is now satisfied with the numbers included under Vote A between now and the end of the year. I was expecting, as a result of the statement he made last November, that there was a possibility of a very substantial increase in the Estimates. We also agree with him in regard to the question of promotion; but this is a mixed blessing. It means retiring men who are quite capable of continuing their work, transferring them from the active list to the Non-Effective Vote. In the present Estimate there is no less than one-sixth of the amount of the Estimate included in the Non-Effective Vote, and, therefore, one can see what the retirement of these officers, at what may be regarded as an early age, is likely to cost the nation.
  The First Lord said that the increase asked for has aroused hopes and fears.
  2172
  I feel that it has aroused fears; and also hopes. We are now discussing the third Estimate for the fighting services; and in my opinion the most important one. It is the most important not only because they are the Estimates of the Senior Service but also because they are almost as large as those for the Army and the Air Force put together. The increase in the Navy Vote this year is large as compared with the increase in the Army and Air Force Vote. The hopes we had were that now that the Admiralty and the other fighting services have returned, as indicated by the Estimates, to what ma,, be regarded as their normal expenditure that the financial difficulty with which the country was confronted a year or so ago has now passed away.
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL indicated dissent.
  Mr. HALL: The First Lord of the Admiralty shakes his head. I have before me a Memorandum on the measures proposed by His Majesty's Government to secure a reduction in national expenditure, and in order to deal with what we were told was a grave financial crisis I find that the reductions in the three Fighting Services, provided for in this Memorandum, amounted to a sum of not less than £8,600,000. These expectations have not been fulfilled. Cuts were imposed on the social services and were largely carried out; but that cannot be said for the three Fighting Services. As a matter of fact, instead of a reduction of £8,600,000 being carried out the amount of the reductions actually imposed were less than £3,000,000; and this year the increases in the Estimates for the three Fighting Services amount to no less than £4,581,000. The First Lord rightly said that there were fears. We look upon these Estimates with considerable fears. I have heard no criticisms from economists on the other side of the House. The attitude of back bench supporters of the Government can best be described in the words of a leading article which appeared in one of the London newspapers when these Estimates were presented. It said:
  " The publication of the Navy Estimates to-day reveals the fact that, as we anticipated, here again the economists have been disappointed. They come to £3,093,700 more than the Estimates of 1932. That causes us no pain. Of all the foolish directions in which economy can be applied this is perhaps the most foolish."

  2173
  We do not share that view. We say that the Fighting Services, in common with all other Services, should submit to the reductions which were imposed. There is an increase of £4,581,000 in the Estimates of the three Services. Compare that with the position in 1931. In 1931 the expenditure, estimated for and carried out before the so-called financial crisis arose, upon the three Services amounted to £107,329,000. The Estimates which the House is asked to pass this year amount to £108,946,000. Therefore, within a very short time of the so-called financial difficulty, we find that the expenditure on the three Fighting Services has increased by £1,600,000, very little below the expenditure of 1930. The First Lord prefaced the statement on the Navy Estimates last year by saying that the amount asked for had been fixed with a strict reference to the needs of the financial situation and must not be regarded as an adequate provision for the needs of the Navy.
  He has said almost exactly the same thing this afternoon. He said that the Navy Estimates have been restricted by the exigencies of the financial situation and do not provide for all the potential needs of the Navy. I am rather inclined to ask him whether he believes that. I have in mind not only the statement of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon but also the statement made by Mr. Bridgeman when he was First Lord in 1929. The Estimates of that year amounted to £55,000,000, a reduction of £1,435,000 on the Estimates for 1928 and the right hon. Gentleman in his explanatory statement said:
  " This considerable reduction is being made although no diminution in the strengths of the Fleet and Fleet air arm has taken place. On the contrary, modern developments have shown the necessity for two additional flights of the latter.
  These Estimates satisfied the then Conservative Government and the then First Lord of the Admiralty. The Estimates this afternoon amount to £2,417,000 more than the amount asked for in 1929, and when you examine Vote I and Vote II you find that the savings under these two heads amounts to more than the difference, the increase, in these Estimates as compared with the Estimates of 1929. I know that construction is engaging the attention of the First Lord, as it has engaged the attention of his pre-
  2174
  decessors for many years. If one examines Votes 8 and 9, the Votes which deal with construction, you will find that in 1929 the amounts under these two Votes compare very favourably with the amounts this year. If we take the two Votes for 1929, Vote 8 (Three Sections) and Vote 9, we find that the amount was £22,698,000. The amount of the two Votes in the present Estimate is £22,433,000, a reduction of £268,000. But that reduction is accounted for almost entirely by the reduction in wages paid to men who are now employed in the various dockyards.
  I do not think that the First Lord can express any apprehension regarding the personnel for which he is providing in these Estimates or in regard to new construction. It cannot be said that the Navy, or in fact any of the fighting services, has suffered in any way whatever as a result of the so-called financial difficulty of last year. The First Lord and the Board of Admiralty are, after all, building almost entirely to what is provided for in the London Agreement, especially with regard to cruisers, though perhaps not with regard to destroyers and submarines. Is it necessary to lay down or to make provision for the laying down of the four cruisers provided for in these Estimates My right hon. Friend, of course, will argue that we are to carry out the term of the London Agreement. I would ask whether the other signatories to that Agreement are carrying it out by building up to the limit. Taking into consideration the difficulties with which the nations are faced to-day, and having regard to the fact that the Disarmament Conference is still meeting in Geneva, would it not be a gesture to that Conference to have some relaxation regarding the laying down of these cruisers?
  I expected that the First Lord would have given us some indication of the statement which has been made by the Prime Minister at Geneva to-day. We would like to know whether the attitude of the Government has changed in connection with this question. We must remember that we are now in the second year of the Disarmament Conference, a conference which was looked forward to with very high hopes for some years. At present the conference is just struggling on. The thought of that alone can have no other effect than as a shock to the

  2175
  minds of every representative of the 60-odd nations and the 1,700,000,000 people they represent. Here we are in a period of unparalleled misery, with millions of people in our own country and tens of millions throughout the world suffering from a want of the bare necessities of life. With the world passing through financial difficulties, here are the so-called civilised nations spending more on armaments than in any former time in history.
  For more than 12 months the Disarmament Conference has been sitting and has failed to produce any practical results. Far be it from me to suggest that the Government of this country are alone responsible for the situation, but I am of opinion that no great Power can repudiate some measure of responsibility for the deplorable disappointment of the high hopes with which the conference started. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are making an attempt to save the conference. I do not know whether their hands are strengthened as a result of the increase in the Estimates of the three fighting services in this country. I doubt whether that can be so. We fear that the nations of the world are falling back to their old war mentality. The old fears, the old superstitions regarding security, are returning, and the same kind of argument which was familiar before 1914 has returned and is used quite unashamedly in 1933.
  If the position could be approached as a question of international agreement was approached at the time of the Washington Conference, which was after all the first disarmament conference, what a wonderful result could be obtained. The Washington Conference resulted in 70 battleships being scrapped, some of them old, some of them in the course of construction and some on which 90 per cent. of the work had been completed. The total tonnage to be scrapped was 1,770,000, which saved the nations no less than £400,000,000. When the Disarmament Conference last year was in danger of breaking down some proposals were submitted by the then President of the United States. In our opinion His Majesty's Government have not yet given an effective reply to those proposals of ex-President Hoover. In the course of his speech in November of last year the
  2176
  First Lord of the Admiralty did refer to those proposals, but he simply reiterated what was then the attitude of the Government—that there could be no reduction in the number of capital ships and no reduction in the number of cruisers.
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: In the size.
  Mr. HALL: There was a proposal to reduce the size, but that was when we came to the replacements. Nothing could be done regarding the number of capital ships which we had, or the number of cruisers which we were entitled to build under the London Agreement. Has the attitude of the Government regarding capital ships changed since the London Conference was held in 1930? During that conference the Prime Minister and the Government dealt in a memorandum with the question of capital ships. The Government said that in view of its tremendous size and cost the battleship was of doubtful utility, and that the Government would wish to see an agreement by which the battleship would in due time disappear altogether from the fleets of the world. That was the view of the Board of Admiralty and the Government at that time. Why should that expression of opinion not be carried out?
  In the Hoover proposals did not the opportunity come to make some contribution to that end? Those proposals were made, as I have indicated, when it was thought that the conference could be saved, for had an agreement been reached it would have meant the scrapping of some of the larger ships. The 15 which were allowed to Great Britain would have been reduced to 10; the same thing applied to the United States; and the Japanese nine would have been reduced to six. The British Government have never explained why we should refuse to reduce the number of battleships by agreement with the United States and Japan, which alone is suggested. None of the other Powers, not even France or Italy, possessed postJutland battleships. The Government still insist upon the 15. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded me that he was prepared to reduce the size from 35,000 tons to 22,000 tons. I ask whether the figure of 15 is sacred and irreducible, and is the tonnage of 22,000 the lowest which the Admiralty can suggest?

  2177
  The tonnage of battleships has a very striking history. A revolution has taken place not only in the growth of the tonnage of battleships and the calibre of guns, but since the War in a reduction of tonnage and the calibre of guns. In 1906 the then Sir John Fisher, afterwards Lord Fisher, introduced the "Dreadnought," with its 18,000 tons and 12-inch guns, and we thought that the limit had been reached; but increases gradually took place, and in 1920 we saw the battle cruiser "Hood," of 42,100 tons, which cost £6,000,000. By this time all the great Admiralties were hard at work designing the ideal ship in which the lessons of Jutland and other battles could be embodied. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), who during the earlier post-War years was at the Admiralty, said that a few hours of actual fighting were sufficient to revolutionise ideas as to the armament and design of battleships. The ships which were proposed about that time were those which, in the opinion of naval experts, were of such a size that they alone could provide security for the country.
  Of what kind were those ships? The race had then begun. Japan proposed to build by 1928 two battleships of 33,000 tons, two of 40,600 tons, four of 45,000 tons, and two battle cruisers of 40,000 tons. The United States planned for the completion by 1925 of 12 ships of over 42,000 tons, whereas we in the autumn of 1921 proposed to lay down four battle cruisers of over 47,000 tons. Then the Washington Conference was held and limited the size of battleships to 35,000 tons. A strange thing happened. The lessons of the War, the few hours of actual fighting which would revolutionise ideas as to the armament and design of battleships, were found to be compatible with the idea of smaller and still smaller battleships. The 22,000 tons battleship now proposed by the Admiralty is, we think, an admirable proposal. But if 22,000 tons is the right size what are we to think of the "Nelson" and "Rodney," which are of 33,500 tons and cost about £7,000,000 each. Why should we not believe that the 22,000 ton battleship is the right size and not excessive?
  The Conference of 1922 limited the capital ship to 35,000 tons. At the Geneva Conference in 1927 the British Government proposed that the maximum
  2178
  should be 30,000 tons, which meant a saving of 5,000 tons and of £1,000,000 of money. In 1930 the British Government were aiming at a maximum of 25,000 tons with an expression in favour of complete abolition. This year at Geneva 22,000 tons has become an acceptable figure. The latter part of the record is creditable to the British Admiralty since, with ratios fixed, it is showing an attempt to reduce the size and cost of future battleships. At the same time it can be argued that the waste of competitive battleships is discreditable to the Admiralties concerned if they cannot be limited to 22,000 tons, or as we trust a smaller figure. We stand where the Prime Minister said he was in 1930, just before the opening of the London Conference, in favour of getting rid of battleships.
  Again, may I ask why the Government are adhering so rigidly to the number of battleships and other ships. I am not going into the difficulty which has arisen at the Disarmament Conference. We know the attitude of France, dependent as she is upon her submarines as a set-off against battleships. Italy has said that if the British Government scrap their capital ships, Italy is prepared to scrap her submarines and thus we see the battle going on. What we ask is that the British Government, through the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, should make some gesture which would bring about results and save the Disarmament Conference. We on this side would be prepared to leave it to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary if they would only carry out the principles to which the Prime Minister gave almost a lifetime of service until he joined the present Government. Not only the Prime Minister but the Foreign Secretary strongly advocated disarmament. "We remember what the Foreign Secretary's opinion was regarding disarmament before he assumed that office. I recently read an article written by the right hon. Gentleman in which he said:
  " There has never been a time in the history of mankind when so many people were, in their hearts, convinced that military preparation leads only to war. They may think that armaments are inevitable but they know that they are futile. The ghastly fallacy that if you wish for peace you must prepare for war, has very few defenders to-day. The world has been taught better. What is the good of having

  2179
  guns to play with if they are never to be let off? What is the use of drilling soldiers if they never fight? "
  He then quoted some poetry:
  " How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds,
  Makes ill deeds done! "
  He went to to say
  " We watch this piling up of the means of destruction but we know that instead of building a sure bulwark for peace, it is really assembling fuel for a conflagration even more terrible than the last."
  If we felt that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister had those words before them at Geneva this afternoon we would be quite content. To turn to the details of the Estimates, we are pleased to see that the First Lord in his Memorandum refers to the fact that a contract has been placed for a quantity of oil fuel produced from British coal. We think that this has come at an opportune time. For years among the warships of every kind controlled by the Admiralty only the two cruisers of the Australian Navy, the "Adelaide" and the "Brisbane, have been fitted to burn oil or coal. All the others are fitted as oil burners. In that respect this country stands alone. All the battleships of Japan, new or old, are fitted to burn either oil or coal and the same can be said of French and Italian battleships. In the Japanese Navy all cruisers completed before 1928, with the exception of three, were fitted to use either coal or oil, while some of the older cruisers are fitted to burn coal only. The same can be said of France and Italy. In the case of France some of the newer cruisers completed as late as 1930 are fitted to use oil or coal.
  This year the Estimate for oil fuel is £1,012,000 or £67,000 more than a year ago, while the amount for steam vessel coal is £208,000 or £27,000 less than a year ago. Thus we see the gradual increase in the amount of oil fuel and the gradual decline of the coal which is being use for naval purposes. These figures will be painful reading to those interested in the coal-mining industry, especially miners who are unemployed. Unfortunately, so far from the Admiralty reconsidering the question of using coal, all other nations are following the example set by this country. From replies given by the First Lord regarding the quality of the oil, it appears to be in-
  2180
  dicated that this oil to which I have referred is doing its work quite satisfactorily. May I ask whether it is being tried alone or whether it is mixed in the proportion of 50–50 or of 25–75 or of 75–25 with naturally produced oil? May I also ask whether it is the intention of the Admiralty so to encourage production that we can look forward to a large development of this venture? I trust that it will be possible to obtain a substantial proportion of the oil required for naval purposes in this way even if a fixed price has to be given for a fixed period, so as to encourage a number of the other producing companies to send their oil along to the Admiralty. If that guarantee were given, it would be of considerable advantage to the coal-mining industry, the Navy would be less dependent on foreign oil, and it would not be to the loss of the nation.
  In dealing with my next point I may be regarded as a little inconsistent but I wish to ask the Admiralty, seeing that there is no intention of reverting to coal, whether sufficient attention is being given to the use of internal combustion or Diesel engines. Reports from Germany indicate that the Germans are now placing these Diesel engines in all their new construction and that the installation of these engines means a reduction in personnel, that they give a very long range of action and tend to a general increase in efficiency. I should like whoever replies on the Estimates to deal with that point. The First Lord and the Board of Admiralty can regard themselves as very fortunate in that we see here a gradual reduction in Vote 10. Indeed, comparing Vote 10 in 1933 with Vote 10 in 1923, we find a reduction of almost one-third or nearly £1,000,000. In the Estimate for this year, out of the amount provided, no less than £588,000 is to be spent on Singapore. That, in itself, is £104,000 less than last year. Again, I say that my right hon. Friend and the Admiralty are fortunate in that this year we see the falling-in of the annuities which were being paid and which represented the amount borrowed under the old Naval Acts from 1905 onwards. It is interesting to know that all submarines are now equipped with the Davis submerged escape apparatus. May I ask whether all officers and ratings told off for submarines are being trained in the use of that apparatus?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL indicated assent.
  Mr. HALL: If so it is serving a very useful purpose. The First Lord in his statement referred to the fact that there was a large increase in the number of ships which it is proposed to put out to contract in private yards. We on this side do not regard that fact with very great happiness. During 1930–31 a number of destroyers were built in the yards. I understand from the statement of the First Lord that in the allocation of the new tonnage no destroyers are to be built in the Royal Dockyards but all are to be placed out under contract. It would be interesting to know the result of the experiment, if I may so describe it, which took place in 1930–1931 in the building of the destroyers in the yards. It would be interesting to have a comparison as regards cost. Is that why the First Lord or the Board have been so prompt to place all this new construction of destroyers in the private yards'? Those who sit on these benches representing as we do a great movement in this country would welcome any agreement which could be brought about at the Disarmament Conference leading to a substantial reduction in armaments. We hope, nay we pray, that the efforts of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be successful, for we are of opinion that only a world-wide movement for peace can provide a tolerable basis for the lives of men and women to-day and that the achievement of peace will prove to be one of the stepping stones to the salvation of mankind.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) concluded a very eloquent peroration with the expression of a desire for world peace. We all desire that peace shall reign in the world and that the Disarmament Conference shall succeed, but I am certain that my hon. Friend is much too fair a controversialist even to hint that the present Prime Minister is not thoroughly sincere in endeavouring to bring that Conference to success. The present Prime Minister, to his great honour, visited Washington on a somewhat similar mission some years ago, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is convinced in his own mind that the Prime Minister is really sincere in his efforts
  2182
  at Geneva to bring this Disarmament Conference to a success, as is the Foreign Minister also. I noticed that my hon. Friend, in dealing with this subject, had no constructive suggestions to put forward. I think that if there are two men capable of representing Britain at the Disarmament Conference, they could not be found more capable than the present Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and I am sure their heart is in their job. It is really a sad commentary on human folly that we are still talking of wars and preparations for wars, but the dangers which we escaped only a few years ago are very much too recent in our memories to permit us to risk failure to provide an adequate naval defence for our own country.
  I regret, with the hon. Member, that there is to be an increase in the Navy Estimates, but the defence of this country is really the paramount question. I can see, as an old member of the Board of Admiralty, that there will be a, considerable increase. My right hon. Friend has brought in additional new construction—I do not blame him—and additional personnel, and that is bound to be reflected in next year's Estimates. In dealing with my hon. Friend's arguments, I omitted to congratulate my right hon. Friend the First Lord, who is, as we all know, a fine, typical specimen of a splendid Service, on his opening speech. He talked about the heart of the British taxpayer being broken, but what we want in these matters is to be quite certain that the British taxpayer is getting value for his money, defensive value, for I do not think that under any Government the British Navy will be used as an offensive force, except when we are attacked; and I think the British public are willing to pay for that defence, providing they get their money's worth.
  My right hon. Friend talked about the reduction in the Admiralty staff. If I might go back to the time when I was at the Admiralty, in July, 1914, when we were preparing for Armageddon, the naval personnel then, officers and men, was 146,000; the other day, in February, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary told me the figure was 89,984. But the staff is very much greater, and I do not understand why. The Admiralty staff in July, 1914, when there were 146,000 officers

  2183
  and men of the Royal Navy, was 1,920; in February of this year it was 2,680. Why is there this increase of staff at the Admiralty? I have never been able to understand it. I have asked questions, but I have never got an explanation. If the proportions were the same as in 1914, of Admiralty staff to naval personnel, the staff, instead of being 2,680, would be 1,150. My hon. Friend gave me some figures about the out-port establishments, dockyards, and so on. In 1914 they were 69,284; now they are 64,122, although there has been this great decrease in the number of men afloat. Again I do not understand it. If the proportion was the same as in 1914, the dockyards and out-port establishments, instead of being 64,000, would be about 45,000.
  Therefore, it seems to me that the Admiralty is keeping something like 20,000 men on the pay-rolls ashore. Is that giving us value for our money? Will these gentlemen in comfortable berths ashore add anything to the naval strength of the country? I can quite understand that my right hon. Friend has great difficulty in this matter. The Admiralty may be tender-hearted and may not care to exercise the pruning knife ruthlessly, but I would suggest that there might be a division in the Naval Estimates, that they should divide the humanitarian side from the defensive side, because it is unfair to put on the Naval Estimates money voted, say, to help the Unemployment Fund.
  Having said that, I want to deal with another topic, and I will do so very generally, because all the time that I was at the Admiralty I knew nothing about the technical side of it, and never attempted to do so. There were far too many very able officers there who knew their job, but I am going to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Is there now co-operation between the forces, more especially between the Air Force and the Admiralty? That is, I think, extremely important. In the late war the Navy was supposed to have kept the ring. I remember that that phrase excited the late Lord Fisher tremendously; he was very angry about it. I want to ask, What are the co-ordinating links between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty? This new force is very formidable. Its development, of course, is only in its infancy, and we have seen what has hap-
  2184
  pened in the last few years. The cruisers, destroyers, and submarines which my right hon. Friend is laying down are very much the same as they were a year or two ago, but the Air Force has made a tremendous advance, and I want to ask, What are the relations between the Admiralty and the Air Force? Do they meet? Is the Air Force consulted by the Admiralty?
  Undoubtedly, in any future war—and one hates to talk about it or to think about it—the air must play a big part. I was much interested the other day to read of the mutiny that was quelled on a Dutch battleship by the dropping on it of one bomb. That is an enormous force. I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman is thinking that that bomb was dropped and that the aeroplane was not fired at. That is true enough, but the very fact that the bomb was dropped on that ship, and that it brought the mutineers to book, is a very interesting commentary on the efficacy of aircraft. With regard to the Fleet Air Arm—and I am putting these questions in no spirit of hostility; I want to help—who designed the machines that belong to the Fleet Air Arm? Was it the Air Ministry or the Admiralty?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The Air Ministry.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am glad to have that information, because that fact cannot be satisfactory. You have a double or a divided responsibility, which is absolutely disastrous. We know what it was in the great Battle of Jutland, when there was considerable recrimination between two admirals. I do not want to go into it, but they were both in one Service, and naval discipline controlled both, but in this matter of the Admiralty and the Fleet Air Arm, that the machines should be designed by the Air Force is wholly wrong. It cannot be right. I do not know anything of the relations between the two, and it would be out of order to make the suggestion, which I made some years ago, that the Air Force and the Admiralty should be amalgamated, but I do say that there should be the closest co-operation between the two. As I understand it, the connecting link is the Committee of Imperial Defence, but the Prime Minister is much too busy to coordinate the two. I notice that my right

  2185
  hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has come in, and I do not know whether he undertakes that as his duty, but that it is important from the point of view of the country getting the best defensive value for its money, I am certain. Let us take the question of the protection of commerce, which has always been the responsibility of the Navy. In the future it is certain that aircraft will be very formidable as against merchant ships, and I want here again the closest cooperation to exist between the two Services.
  May I ask a few questions about our naval bases? We have naval bases at both Chatham and Sheerness, and they are on the South Coast, and therefore within easy reach of aircraft from the Continent—within easier reach than other ports. Have the Admiralty considered this point? Have they asked the opinion, say, of the Air Ministry as to whether Chatham and Sheerness can be damaged almost irretrievably in time of difficulty? I am asking these questions because I want to know. These bases at Chatham and Sheerness are costing a great deal. Is it giving the nation fighting value for its money to keep two naval bases on the Southern coast, like Chatham and Sheerness, as close to the Continent as they can be, and has that been considered by the Admiralty and the Air Force? I can quite understand that the Admiralty would not care to shut up either Chatham or Sheerness. These towns have grown up round the Admiralty; I understand that perfectly. But there are greater considerations than that. There is the consideration of the safety of the country. Suppose our ships in time of difficulty—and I hate to think of this time of difficulty—are based upon Chatham and that is bombed, disorganised and possibly destroyed. Then it becomes a consideration for the safety of the country. Portsmouth may be open to bombing by aircraft, and I would ask if Portsmouth Dockyard, which is the principal dockyard, is defended by the Admiralty, the Army or the Air Force? I am simply asking these questions for information, because I am not a naval expert, but there are certain common sense principles that everyone can accept and I think that these questions require enlargement
  2186
  My hon. Friend opposite referred to the Singapore Base. In its inception I opposed it. It was commenced in 1921 and has had many vicissitudes, but the Board of Admiralty, backed by the Government of the day, have decided to build that base. What is to happen there? It is a very big base. In the Estimates this year there is a sum of £6,917,000 for the naval base itself. Then there is machinery £810,000 and furniture £23,000. That is a total 'Admiralty expenditure of £7,750,000. There has already been spent there on the oil fuel contract something like £1,000,000. I understand that the Jackson contract for the completion of the base is to be finished by 1935. That amounts to £5,100,000, and I do not know whether it includes the floating dock, £971,000. What are the plans of the Admiralty with regard to the future of Singapore? With regard to the Estimate of £810,000 for machinery, it is obvious that a base 8,000 miles away is valueless without machinery and without houses for the mechanics, and for the hundred and one things necessary for docking a battleship. Is it intended to erect this machinery and the other facilities for docking a battleship? Otherwise, this money will be wasted.
  I was informed the other day that the Air Force had spent £521,000 at Singapore and the War Office £600,000. That brings us into commitments of capital expenditure of something like £10,000,000. Of course, that is not much in these days, but in my younger days it was a great deal. I do not want to press my right hon. Friend the First Lord if he cannot given an answer now, but I think that the country has a right to ask as to the future of Singapore which has had this enormous amount of money spent upon it. What protection is there against aircraft attacks at Singapore? At Chatham and Sheerness we have the other forces near, but Singapore is 8,000 miles away and if it were attacked I do not know what would happen. I put these questions in no spirit of hostility to the Admiralty, but I am trying to help and to see as far as I can that the country shall get value for its money.
  5.50 p.m.
  Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I propose to ask for the attention of the House for a very few minutes and to limit myself mainly to addressing certain questions to

  2187
  the representatives of the Government. We are now moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, and there will be other opportunities for discussing specific points later in the Session. The whole House was pleased with the presentation of the Estimates by the First Lord. He knows well from long experience how to manage the House of Commons, and now that he has exchanged the whip for the trident his old experience is still valuable to him. The substance of the statement which he had to make to the House was very grave for he was inviting Parliament to vote this year an additional £3,000,000 from the taxes for the purpose of armaments, and this at a time when in all men's minds is the urgent necessity for the most resolute economy that can possibly be achieved. This Government and this House are pledged to an energetic enforcement of the rules of economy, and yet we find it necessary to consider increased Estimates, in addition to certain increases in the Army Estimates, of no less than £3,000,000 for the Navy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who has made many speeches in the House as the stern, uncompromising, ruthless advocate of economy, finds himself to-day, like most other Members when it is a matter in which they are specially interested, ready and willing to make an exception of this one instance because he himself, as a former member of the Board of Admiralty, is deeply interested in naval matters. I observed in the speech of the First Lord one omission. I listened to it with attention, but from beginning to end there was not one reference to the International Disarmament Conference. No one in the House and hardly anyone else advocates one-sided disarmament. No responsible person would run the risk of leaving this country disarmed entirely in an armed world. The future is too uncertain.
  " Let observation with extensive view,
  Survey mankind from China to Peru."
  In both those countries we see that the advocates of force have by no means disappeared, and the preservation of peace is by no means assured, not only in China and Peru, but in a good many countries in between. So we must pin our hopes upon joint and simultaneous action, and it is for that purpose that the Disarmament Conference has been labouring for
  2188
  so long at Geneva. Last July it arrived at a unanimous resolution which pledged all the States to favour a simultaneous reduction in all three arms—land, sea and air. With regard to the Navy, the conference at Geneva requested that the great naval Powers should enter into consultations with a view to effecting great reductions. That was last July. We are now in March, and so far as I am aware, we have had no account of what has been happening in those consultations. Now that we are asked to vote an additional £3,000,000 on the Naval Estimates, the House of Commons should be told what has occurred in those consultations, whether they have been proceeding, whether they have achieved any measure of agreement or any approach to it, and, if not, on whom lies the blame for the failure. The Prime Minister to-day in Geneva has been making a statement urgently appealing at this eleventh hour for a measure of agreement at the Disarmament Conference in order to save it from failure, and, while he is making that appeal in Geneva, the British House of Commons on the same afternoon is considering an increase of £3,000,000 in the British Navy Estimates. We should have some explanation of that apparent inconsistency and some indication of how these Estimates of the Government are related to the policy of the same Government as expounded at Geneva.
  At an early stage of the Disarmament Conference in November, 1931, the Assembly requested the Council to urge the Governments convened to that conference "to give proof of their earnest desire for a successful issue to ensure an organised peace, and without prejudging the recisions of the conference "—which had not yet met but was about to meet—" on the programmes or proposals submitted to it by each Government, to refrain from any measure which involved an increase in their armaments." That was acceded to by all the Governments participating in the conference, and for a year up to November, 1932, that truce was maintained, so far as I know, loyally and honourably throughout the world. In November, 1932, when it expired, it was renewed for four months at the request of the Disarmament Conference. That four months has just expired, and I want to ask the Government whether in any degree these Estimates indicate a departure from that truce. I imagine

  2189
  that the answer will be in the negative. I should like to be assured that these Estimates do not involve an increase in armaments but a replacement, and are merely carrying out the Navy Estimates of the Labour Government, the execution of which has been postponed, and that the ships now to be built were provided for by hon. Members opposite when they were in power.
  Mr. THORNE: When they were in office.
  Sir H. SAMUEL: Yes, when they were in office, but I do not know that there was any division of opinion on that point in the House of Commons at that time. I only wish to have the assurance, so that any uneasiness in the public mind can be allayed, that these Estimates do not involve any departure from the armaments truce agreed to at Geneva and that they are not justified by the technicality that that truce has in fact run out a few weeks ago. The great danger is that the world may think that we are starting a fresh competition in naval expenditure. The truce having lasted for this length of time, and these Estimates being now introduced, there may be a feeling in this country and elsewhere that Britain is now taking the lead, the initiative, in an increase in armaments' expenditure. I would like the Government to give us some reassurance on that point.
  We have in recent years been reducing our naval expenditure. In 1929 it was £56,000,000, in 1930 £52,000,000, in 1931 £51,000,000, and in 1932 £50,000,000, and now it has gone up to £53,000,000. There have been considerable savings on pay and in other matters, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us how much the expenditure of the Navy has been reduced by the cuts in naval pay, because if the Estimates are going up although expenditure on pay has gone down, what may be called the military expenditure of the Navy will have increased even more than is apparent on this figure. Further, the cost of many supplies has been falling with great rapidity in recent years, and there ought to have been a large saving on foodstuffs and materials of many kinds. Under these two heads, pay and supplies, there ought to have been a considerable saving which should be available for the benefit of the Ex-
  2190
  chequer, and therefore of the taxpayer, or else for increasing the efficiency and strength of the Navy. Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give us any indication of what has been the real increase on the naval side during the last few years, taking into account these savings in expenditure?
  I noted what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said about the increase of recruiting which is to take place at the end of the present financial year. He said the number of boys to be taken in would be doubled, and the number of short service seamen recruited would be increased, as I understood him, from 100 to 900. Does that involve a large demand for further increases in expenditure next year, and if so what is likely to be the amount? If the House agrees now, without comment, to this increase in personnel it may find itself next year faced by the First Lord of the Admiralty, whoever he may be, with a statement that this is an automatic increase already sanctioned by the House and told that a further increase, possibly of a considerable figure, in next year's Estimates is unavoidable and must be accepted by the House. These are the questions which I venture to address to His Majesty's Government. As I have said, there may be occasions later in the course of the passage of these Estimates through the House when we may have other observations to make with regard to the proposed increase in the amount to be expended.
  6.5 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral G. CAMPBELL: I wish to offer my humble congratulations to the First Lord of the Admiralty upon the introduction of the Naval Estimates and upon his explanation of them. I do not think he need have any fear that the House will hesitate to vote money for anything which is required for the naval defence of this country providing hon. Members are assured that full economies have been made in every possible direction. I am going to take the liberty of suggesting one or two ways in which I consider that further economies might be-effected. Like many speakers who addressed the House during the consideration of the Army Estimates, I am looking forward to the time when the Estimates for the three Services may be presented as one Estimate, and, further, looking forward to the time when we shall

  2191
  have a Ministry of Defence and one Minister responsible to this House for the defence of the country. In that way, and in that way only, shall we get the maximum of efficiency with the maximum of economy. Co-operation in itself may be a fine thing, and is often well carried out, but it is not perfect.
  I am sorry that the First Lord did not say a little more about what has taken place between the Air Force and the Admiralty, more especially in connection with the development of the flying boats. I cannot help thinking that the flying boat must have a future. There must be many duties which during the last War were performed by our cruisers and small craft which can now be undertaken by flying boats at a much cheaper cost. I cannot believe that the large number of cruisers which had to be employed during the last War in hunting down such vessels as the "Emden" would be required at the present time to deal with enemy raiders, because squadrons of flying boats stationed at focal points would put the enemy raiders at a great disadvantage compared with the position in the last War.
  The number of cruisers which, according to the Admiralty, will be required for the defence of our trade routes is estimated to be somewhere in the vicinity of 50 at the end of 1936. I am surprised, on looking at the Estimates, to see that the cost of a present-day small cruiser is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,500,000. That appears to be a very excessive sum when we remember that similar ships were built at a quarter of the cost in pre-war days. It does not appear to be very clear where the extra money goes. I hope the First Lord, surrounded as he is by high technical officers, will not allow himself to be led into building our cruisers as miniature battleships, fitted with every gadget under the sun. I do not think it is necessary in the case of a light cruiser, whose chief duty is the defence of the trade routes. Gun controls and things of that kind do not need to he of an elaborate nature, because electric control arrangements can very easily be put out of action by a single well placed shell.
  Another point I would like to mention with regard to the cruisers is that out of the number of 50 which the Admiralty forecasts for 1936 10
  2192
  or 20 will be obsolete, or, I should say, over age, and to allow that state of affairs I regard as false economy, because if we are to have a small Navy it is more essential than ever that it should be efficient and up to date. I hope that steps will be taken to see that al! our cruisers whatever the number we decide upon, are most efficient and up to date, because it, is not fair to send men to sea in ships which are not equal to those of a possible enemy. On the other hand, I do not in any way advocate that large sums of money should be spent on our present battleships. I am surprised to see from the Estimates that £1,500,000 is being spent on the old battleship "Barham," which is nearly half as much as it cost to build her in 1914.
  I hope that after the International Conference we shall see the battleship abolished altogether, because it is an unnecessary expense and I doubt its usefulness at the present time. If the Admiralty are to find the money for maintaining our strength in cruisers, and replacing the old ones, undoubtedly economies will be required in some directions. The First Lord rather cheered us when, in introducing his Estimates, he started on economy at the Admiralty, and I was hoping that some wonderful result would be forthcoming. I think he got as far as the fact that the Accountant-General's Department and the Secretary's Department had been amalgamated, and that he was looking in due course to save about £30,000. I do not call that a very great economy at the Admiralty. Figures which we were given in the House yesterday showed that the number of naval officers employed at the Admiralty is twice what it was in 1914, although the personnel of the Navy has been reduced by nearly half.
  The First Lord stated that this increase in naval officers was chiefly due to the fact that nowadays we have a large naval staff, such as did not exist in 1914. That is perfectly true, but in my view the naval staff has gone from one extreme to the other; I believe that we are far too heavily staffed at the present time. I feel that this increase of naval staff, not only at the Admiralty, but at our home ports, and in our flagships, has done more to stop the initiative, the in-

  2193
  dependence and the power of command of junior officers of the Navy than anything else which has happened since the War. One of the most remarkably successful events in the last War was the mobilisation of our Fleet in August, 1914, and its movement to its war stations, and that very fine accomplishment was performed, presumably, without a staff at the Admiralty. With all the staff now at the Admiralty I do not believe that that evolution could have been performed better.
  The point about the Admiralty is as to whether the staff should be naval officers or civilian officers. One seldom meets a naval officer who does not say that there are too many civilians at the Admiralty. I think that is a very open question, not to be settled in a few words. I think that the number of civilians at the Admiralty is far too great, but, on the other hand, I think the proper place for a naval officer on the active list is at sea, and that the administration of the Navy should as far as possible be performed by competent civilians. I go further, and say that if about one-third of the Admiralty were removed to-morrow by a stroke of the pen the efficiency of the Fleet would not suffer one iota, in fact, I am not at all sure that it would not increase, and undoubtedly there would be economy. I remember some few years ago, when there was trouble in Shanghai, meeting in Whitehall a naval staff officer from the Admiralty. He was bubbling over with excitement about the situation in Shanghai and I asked him how things were going. He said, "Isn't it splendid? We get in touch with the commander-in-chief in Shanghai in the matter of a few minutes now by wireless." All I replied was, "God help the commander-in-chief."
  The First Lord has gathered round him a Board of Admiralty which holds the respect and the confidence of the whole Navy. I think Nelson would have referred to the Board as a fine band of brothers. They are one of the finest Boards of Admiralty I have known since I joined the Navy; but I think we are asking a lot of them when we ask them to cut down the Admiralty. I do suggest, however, that they would add to their prestige if they asked the First Lord or, through him, the Prime Minister to appoint some such Committee as there
  2194
  was at the War Office and in other Government Departments to go into the question of the organisation of the Navy, to see whether reductions and economies can be made and exactly what staff is required and what is not. The Committee might report that all the people at the Admiralty were a lot of archangels, who could not possibly be replaced, but they might also ascertain that they could be replaced. A report from such a Committee would increase the confidence of the country, and we should know when we are asked to spend money on the Navy that it was not being wasted on the administration at the Admiralty.
  Any ordinary person who compares the size of the Navy with what it was in 1914, is bound to have great doubts which I do not think that anything short of a committee would remove. Before leaving the subject of the Admiralty, I would like to ask the First Lord whether he does not think that the time has now arrived for the Board of Admiralty to be strengthened by the Engineer-in-Chief of the Fleet becoming a member of the Board? The days of sail are gone, and the majority of the Fleet is now mechanical in one way or another. There is a higher technique, and the personnel of the Navy contains a large number of engineers. The Engineer-in-Chief and Engineering Branch during the whole of the Great War, never let the Navy down, and it is time that the engineering department was represented by a seat on the Board of Admiralty, for the sake of efficiency and justice.
  I cannot agree with the views of the First Lord on the subject of Dartmouth College. I was very much surprised to hear that he has made economies there and has increased the size of the classes of instruction. I am not for cutting down the education at Dartmouth College, because the education of the officers and students generally is of very great importance. The educational side of the Navy is very nearly the last on which reductions should be made. We now have officers entering through Dartmouth College, or, alternatively, through the special entry. If one is better than the other, why have two? If Dartmouth College is better than the special entry, presumably those who go into the special entry must know that their chances of

  2195
  promotion in the years to come are less than in the case of those who go through Dartmouth College.
  There are great sentimental feelings attached to Dartmouth which cannot be ignored, even though in these days of extreme necessity of economy we may have to put them rather on one side. My own experience, having commanded both Dartmouth cadets and public school cadets, leaves me no hesitation in saying that public school cadets make better officers than Dartmouth cadets. The initial training is far superior. Dartmouth is run, and must be run, under dual control. There are a captain and a headmaster. Co-operation in control in certain circumstances, and in certain conditions, undoubtedly works well; you have only to look at the National Government to see that. At Dartmouth the headmaster is there for a considerable number of years, while the captain is changed every two or three years. I do not think that that is an efficient way of running a training establishment, nor do I know any other training school or public school which is run on dual control.
  Another advantage of taking cadets only through the special entry is that the Admiralty would not have to look so far ahead in regard to the number of officers that will be required. The Dartmouth entry is four years earlier than the special entry, which means that the Admiralty has to look four years further ahead in the matter of lieutenants and commanders than it does with the special entry. I have heard it said that the public schools do not encourage boys to go into the Navy. There is a certain amount of truth in that, but that could be overcome. If schools knew that the special entry was the only form of entry into the Navy, and if the ages were adjusted, it would be more simple, and would suit the schools better. Naturally, at our best schools, it is not liked that the best boys who are good in Rugby and cricket should be taken away just when they were getting into the first eleven. I quite understand that, but that is only a matter of about six months' adjustment. A boy in the special entry is older, and he knows his mind better as to whether he wants to go into the Navy or not. I am sure that if the
  2196
  chances of a career of a boy in the Navy were dealt with on the lines I am suggesting, the First Lord might never want for boys in the Navy.
  The only objection that I have heard against closing Dartmouth College is that if Dartmouth were abolished the Admiralty would get too many boys from the secondary schools coming into the Navy through the special entry. I see no objection to that. I am not going to say that every boy from a secondary school or that every boy from a public school will make a successful naval officer, or every young student who distinguishes himself at the University in various ways. What I say is that men of character, such as are required for officers in the Royal Navy, can be found in all parts of the community in this country, and that it is up to the Admiralty to find them, which they could do by suitable examination and by taking into their confidence the headmasters of our public schools and other schools, and telling them exactly what they require. I hope that these two matters of the economies at the Admiralty and Dartmouth College will receive the First Lord's attention. I think that the expense of a Dartmouth cadet is far greater than that of the special entry cadet. If there would be any advantage, I should favour the closing of Dartmouth College as an educational establishment straight away.
  I should have liked to say a few words about the personnel of the Navy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] Time is going on, and also there is a special Amendment on this subject. One has to remember that, however good a ship may be, it is no good unless you have a well-disciplined and contented crew aboard it. I have been rather inclined, ever since the War, to think that the Admiralty have been paying too much attention to material, and not sufficient attention to personnel. I am glad to hear from the First Lord that this matter is receiving his personal and first-hand attention, and I hope that that will continue. Looking through the figures of the Estimates for this year, I came to the conclusion that the proportion of officers is far greater than that of the men. We have about one officer to every 10 men, and that is far too high a proportion in my opinion. It is help-

  2197
  ing to crush the younger members of the Navy from showing their initiative and power of command.
  The First Lord specially referred to the fact that improvement in promotion in the Navy has taken place during the year, owing to the voluntary retirement of six distinguished Admirals in order to make room for junior officers. The six officers who retired in that way were of high rank and they undoubtedly deserve the thanks of the country for their very fine public spirit, but I do not think that it is the proper way to obtain promotion to commander and captain in the Navy by officers at the top of the tree voluntarily retiring. It is not very fair upon the officers in the higher ranks of the Navy who do not retire to make room for the younger officers, because they at once lay themselves open to the suggestion that they are blocking the top of the List. I would prefer that the Admiralty brought in a very definite regulation as to the retirement of officers at the top of the Navy List.
  In conclusion, I would like to say how pleased I was to hear the First Lord's concluding remarks, when he said that he had been unable to obtain his sailing ship but he did tell us how some of the young officers had volunteered to give up their leave in order to make themselves fit for sailing ships; and some, I believe, are actually going to sail home in quite a small boat from China. That shows that we still have the right spirit in the younger generation in the Navy, and I hope that the First Lord will do everything to encourage that spirit. While we will always support further economies, let him ask the House for anything else he requires in the way of men and ships for the defence of this country, and I have no doubt that he will get it.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIES: I do not intend to deal with the vast details of the personnel of the Navy, but I desire to make one or two observations, not so much to the First Lord as to the Admiralty itself. I appreciate the importance of the First Lord making provision for safeguarding the shores of this country, but the Government's action in indicating expansion of expenditure is not in keeping with the cry of economy that we heard at the General Election, particularly in view of the enormous depression through which
  2198
  we are passing. During this year we have had evidence each day in the Votes that have been taken in this House, of a departure from the policy that we believed had been enunciated in the country during the last election—the policy of attempting to secure peace throughout the world. On Monday of this week, the House received with great admiration an announcement by the Lord President of the Council that the ban upon the export of arms had now been removed. At the same time he announced that two representatives had gone to Geneva to hold out the hand of friendship to other members of the League of Nations. While they are dealing with that matter at Geneva we are making preparations for intensifying the difficulties with which they will have to contend. The other nations in regard to our offer of peaceful friendship will say that they recognise that hand as the hand of Esau while this House is giving expression to the voice of Jacob.
  I want particularly to direct the attention of the First Lord to the importance of doing something tangible for the mining industry. I believe in the ideals of peace, and I believe in expressing them in this House. In doing so, I represent a very large volume of pacifist sentiment in my division. A departure by this Government from those principles is a betrayal of their promises to the people of this country during the election. It is true that man does not live by bread alone, but it is necessary that he should have bread to live, and, therefore, I desire to direct the attention of the First Lord to the possibilities that exist in connection with the fuel problem of the Navy.
  In the area from which I come, we have a very large number of miners unemployed, and this National Government, when it came into existence, tentatively, at any rate, promised those miners restoration of their employment. They have been sadly disappointed. The demand for coal, apparently, has gone down, both inland and export, and I think that this is an opportune moment for the Navy to do something tangible in attempting to restore that great basic industry. I know I may be told that to suggest going back to raw coal for the Navy is to turn back the clock of progress; but I want to submit very respect-

  2199
  fully, as a layman, without claiming any technical knowledge, but only claiming to have read the scientific developments up to date, that it is possible to utilise for the Navy fuel in the form of raw coal. I do riot think that the Navy has done all that it ought to have done in connection with that matter. Having regard to the fact that this country is dependent, whether for the purposes of its own defence or of attacking any other country, upon foreign fuel, I do not think all has been done that ought to have been done in attempting to develop our own resources.
  I want to submit that pulverised fuel has a very great potential future, and I would submit, further, that it may have a potential future even in the Navy. But, whether there are doubts or not about pulverised fuel being a practical proposition, there is a form, which is certainly technically sound and practically right, that could be used by the Navy, namely colloidal fuel; and I would like to ask the First Lord whether any experiments are being conducted at the moment in order to test the efficacy of colloidal fuel. If colloidal fuel could be developed and become a piece of practical politics as far as its use in the Navy is concerned, it would give a fillip to a dying industry. I have read recently that experiments have been conducted in the Cunard liner "Scythia," in which it has been found possible to combine 60 per cent. of pulverised fuel with 40 per cent. of oil. It has been claimed that that would give the boats a greater range than they have now, and it could be produced in this country, thereby making us independent of foreign supplies. To the extent that it would do that, it would enable us 'to balance our Budget, and our imports of oil would not be so great.
  It may not be possible for us to produce sufficient for the whole of our requirements in this country, but we could satisfy them to a very large extent. The amount that that would involve would not solve the problem of unemployment in the mining industry; it would be a drop in the ocean; but I want to submit that, when the Navy embarks upon its oil policy, other people follow it, and, to the extent to which the Navy departed from oil, or, at least, returned to something like sanity and used colloidal fuel
  2200
  of home production, an inducement would be offered to the mercantile marine and to the users of land engines in this country, and that would render enormous assistance in finding employment. I am not suggesting that that should be done on sentimental grounds; I want the question of the utilisation of pulverised fuel and colloidal fuel to be dealt with on a purely economic basis. I do not suggest that mining should be subsidised, but that the calorific value of raw pulverised fuel and colloidal fuel, and the means by which our boats are now propelled, should be tested.
  The information that I have procured indicates that it would be an economy to use colloidal fuel or pulverised fuel. I want to reinforce the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall), when he made reference to the fact that experiments are being conducted in Germany which have shown that great efficiency results from the utilisation of Diesel engines. Professor Bone, who has conducted very extensive experiments in connection with pulverised fuel in this country, says that the Diesel engine can now be run on pulverised fuel instead of heavy oil, and that, with small adaptations, it can also be used in ordinary internal combustion engines. I should like the potentialities in that direction to be examined. All that I would ask is that such examination should be made without prejudice, that the oil policy of the past should not prejudice the examination of the factors involved by the use of a new type of fuel. I am confident that, if such an investigation were permitted, it would reveal the fact that we in this country are losing on the calories that we import from abroad.
  We have to remember what an enormous development has taken place in steam practice since 1913. With ordinary raw small coal, the range of a ship has been increased by modern steam practice by more than 1,000 per cent. It used to take, in 1913, from 6½ to 7 lbs. of coal to generate a unit of electricity. In modern steam practice it is possible to generate a unit of electricity by the consumption of slightly over 1 lb. Of coal. I want to submit that, if the question of range in the Navy were a question of the amount of coal and the efficiency with which it is employed, the

  2201
  range now would be over five times greater than it was in 1913. The First Lord shake his head, but it seems to be obvious that, if I can produce a unit of electricity with 1.2 lb. of coal, when it used to require 6½ or 7 lbs., I have inflated my range, judged by calorific value, by four or five times. That is an enormous increase, but, compared with the use of pulverised fuel, it is very inefficient. Pulverised fuel shows a far greater efficiency, and has revolutionised the use of raw coal since 1914.
  This country's greatness was built up on coal, but, when history comes to be written 100 years from now, unless we change our policy of taking oil from abroad and substitute coal, the historian will write that the decay of this great country started when we commenced importing calories instead of exporting them. I want to submit to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Admiralty Board that they should not be satisfied to depend upon private enterprise for these developments. It has been argued this afternoon that the life of the Navy is the life of this country, and it is worth while securing a proper circulation for the life of the Navy from our own products. Private enterprise ought not to be relied upon for these developments, but the Board of Admiralty itself, assisted by the Government, should conduct these experiments, in the hope of finding a practical solution. That would mean the utilisation of our own coal and the employment of the miners of this country.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. D. Davies) speaks from the experience of long and devoted service to the interests that he represents, and I am certain that his suggestions will receive the careful consideration of the Board of Admiralty. I rise to express a point of view upon which I have taken every opportunity presented to me in this House of remarking. I have felt it my duty for several years to comment on the Estimates of the Admiralty from a particular point of view. Before doing so again, I want to say that I can recall no circumstances in which these Estimates have been laid before the House in which more serious reflections were excited by the situation in which we find ourselves. The First
  2202
  Lord opened with an appeal to all quarters of the House to provide adequate defence for this land, and that appeal will not be made in vain. In the past, that appeal has been criticised in circumstances which are not available now.
  This is not the occasion to go into the details of the present situation, but it will be the general desire of the House that the representatives of this country, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, will be successful in the efforts which they are making to revive the conference on which not only the general mass of the people of this country, but the mass of the people in all lands, have fastened their confidence. Whether they will consider it part of their duty to make suggestions to the other Powers for the better conduct of the conference we must wait and see, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with; the way that conference has been managed. I think the representatives of this country might well take an opportunity of consulting with the representatives of other countries as to whether some better management could not be provided. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the conference appears to be drifting to disaster, and from all quarters of the House, representing opinion in all parties and in no party, there is a general desire that this effort of the representatives of the Crown to save the conference should be successful.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) asked to be assured that these Estimates did not indicate any departure from the truce which was completed and extended at Geneva and which is about to expire. He hoped it did not mean that Great Britain was about to lead the world into another increase in naval expenditure. His observations sounded to me like those of a man who was willing to wound but afraid to strike. Did he mean by that an 'attack on these Estimates, or was it merely an adjuration to the Government that they should take no course which would have the effect that he deprecated? On several occasions I have had some difficulty in understanding what exactly is the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends to this administration. They continue to sit on these benches, where we like to have their company. [Interruption.] The hon. Member says

  2203
  he belongs to another party. I am not referring to him. It is for the advantage of the House that we should be able to detect the opponents of this administration, and it is an advantage that they should sit together, but I find some difficulty in understanding what is the right hon. Gentleman's real intention. I see no inconsistency in the Government seeking every opportunity to continue and extend this truce while they lay before us the Estimates which they think necessary for the adequate defence of the country. I say that with some emphasis because of the view that I take of the present situation.
  I would not by any word or suggestion deepen the alarm that is felt outside the House as to the situation. I want to confine myself to a practical suggestion about these matters. At this time of day it seems to me idle to make general reflections About the desirability of peace, and adjurations to other nations to pursue peace. Those of us who take the responsibility in this trying hour of occupying the attention of the House have a duty put upon us to make a practical suggestion which may ease the way out of the impasse in which the country finds itself. I rise to make a suggestion which I have made in all previous Debates on these Estimates in which I have had an opportunity of taking part. I do not, for Obvious reasons, endorse the suggestions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite as to economies in the Service. I have no title to say anything about those matters, but this plea for economy in expenditure is wholly consistent with the provision of adequate defence of the country in a difficult situation. At the same time, we must relate that economy to the necessities of the situation, and, while the Government are pursuing at Geneva and elsewhere efforts to reach accord with the other naval Powers which will have the effect of bringing about economy, I want to bring to their attention a practical matter to which, I think, they might give very close and earnest consideration.
  The First Lord made use of an expression which I thought was rather unhappy. He spoke of Great Britain as the mistress of the seas. That is a description which is not calculated to assist the efforts that are being made at
  2204
  Geneva. It will do harm if it is intended to mean—I cannot believe it is—that Great Britain still claims to control the high seas of the world. That claim cannot in reason be preferred. It is inconsistent with our international obligations, and I hope it does not mean more than a perfervid and poetical description by a gallant officer who now finds himself in the proud position of presenting the Estimates of his great Service. While the Government are carrying out these Estimates as necessary for the security of the country in its present trying situation, they should pursue all endeavours to bring about a reconsideration of the defence of the trade routes. Those trade routes are not British possessions. They are the arteries of world commerce, and must be brought under the regulation of an international law with the provision of a tribunal before which disputes call be brought. At present that seems to be a far off event, but it is an aim which I ask this Administration to pursue. There is a particular direction in which, I think, immediate fruitful results can be obtained, and that is that discussions should be opened up with America in order that a friendly accommodation as to the protection of these trade routes should be reached. I believe considerable and representative elements of opinion in America are prepared to enter on that discussion which, after all, is in pursuance of the undertaking that we gave at the Conference of Versailles. Further, I believe that line of approach not only indicates the nearest way out of the difficulties between ourselves and the Americans, but points to the way in which accord and co-operation between these two great nations full of promise for the world can be approached.
  I hope the place of experts in these discussions will be carefully regarded. It is the business of statesmen to think out policy and of experts to recommend and advise the means necessary for the support of that policy. I, therefore, press upon the First Lord that in these discussions, which I hope will take place in confidence between the two Great Powers, matters of policy and the principles that underlie them shall be the express business of the statesmen, and that experts shall not be called in until that policy has been agreed upon, and then only when it is necessary

  2205
  to seek their advice. One of the main reasons why the Disarmament Conference has drifted almost to disaster, it seems to me, is not merely lack of good management, but the fact that experts have been allowed to wrangle interminably with each other year in and year out while the statesmen have failed to assert their rightful place and lay down the principles on which the Conference should proceed before calling in the experts to advise them. I make that practical suggestion. It makes for true economy, No one in his senses would desire that this country should continue the heavy duty of policing the high seas of the world when other nations were prepared to assist in that undertaking subject to this safeguard, that in that policing duty there should be a law which all nations concerned would take part in formulating, The result would be undoubtedly a scaling down of expenditure which would be full of advantage to every State concerned, end not least to ourselves. Furher, it would be an example which Great Britain could set to the world. We have given many examples in the past.
  It is the desire of our people in all parties and none that Great Britain should give a lead in these matters. I notice that some bills have been thrown here—a very improper action, but it is an indication to my mind of the desire that is felt throughout the country that the Govern-merit, while providing adequate support for the country in a very difficult situation, should lose no opportunity of pursuing the general work of peace and giving that lead to the world which Great Britain is expected to give. These appeals are being made in all directions. I observe that the clergy are to make another effort. I have not been impressed by the exertions of the clergy in the past. I think we have to get beyond these pulpit generalities, and some schools of politicians have to get beyond generalities about disarmament and have the moral courage, if necessary, to risk unpopularity by pointing to practical suggestions. I feel intensely, and strongly, about this matter, and I have tried to say that which I felt I ought to say with as little feeling as possible, because I know I am stating a view which is not acceptable to many Members of this House. In the last Parliament I had a very difficult administration to address as the Ad-
  2206
  miralty was in very inadequate hands. But in that Parliament numbers of those sitting on these benches were in general agreement with me. In this House the situation has changed. Parties have come together in comradeship, and in that feeling of comradeship and good-fellowship, Members can listen to a different point of view, and consider suggestions made in a general scheme of co-operation. I have ventured with great submission to make this short observation, and I commend it very strongly to the attention of my right hon. Friend, to whom I offer my congratulations.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. RALPH BEAUMONT: While it can hardly be pretended that the Navy Estimates are completely satisfactory, or that our shipbuilding programme has been so speeded up as to remove all our doubts and fears, yet I think it would be ungenerous not to admit that the increase in the provision for naval construction is extremely welcome. Further, while it certainly does not meet the full needs of the Navy, and it does not by any means ensure that we shall have our requisite number of up-to-date ships by 1936, it does represent a certain speeding up of building, and a definite determination not to allow even the urgent need for economy to cause further postponement of building programmes. Besides, this extra allotment of money for construction purposes will give a very welcome relief to our shipbuilding yards, where so many skilled workers unhappily find themselves in continued unemployment.
  There are, however, several disappointments in these Estimates. At first sight there appears to be a still further reduction in the personnel of the Royal Navy. I am certain that hon. Members were glad to hear from the lips of the First Lord that the reduction is more apparent than real. It is somewhat disappointing, however, to find that the number of dockyard workers again shows a further reduction. No doubt that is a continuation of the policy, which has been adopted during the last few years, of allowing wastage to take place, without at the same time allowing any new recruitment to replace that wastage. If that is allowed to continue of course the number will still further dwindle. One cannot help wondering whether this is not

  2207
  likely to threaten the efficiency of the dockyards, and whether the time will not come, in the not very far distant future, when the personnel of these dockyards will be found to be inadequate, not only from the point of view of construction but also from that of repair work.
  While it has been rightly decided that our shipbuilding programme can no longer be delayed, it does not appear that there is to be very much making up of lost ground in the direction of repair work. During the last few years not only have the building programmes been held up, owing to the demand for economy, but so also, to a certain extent, have larger repairs and detailed refits, which have to be carried out periodically. It seems quite possible, therefore, that the time is not far ahead when accumulated repair work will constitute too great a demand upon the capacity of the dockyards. When we further remember that the extension of the life of our ships, under various naval agreements, means that more frequent refits will have to be carried out to keep these ships at sea, one fears that one day there will be very serious congestion in the Royal dockyards, which will be further aggravated by the policy of allowing the present personnel slowly and surely to diminish.
  One further matter regarding the dockyards I would like to mention is that, during last year, there have been, at any rate at Portsmouth Dockyard, discharges of electrical fitters. These men have served their apprenticeship, and become skilled electricians at considerable expense of time and money, both to themselves and to the State. In addition to the hardship and disappointment caused to the men themselves by their discharge, it does seem to be very doubtful wisdom on the part of the State, and hardly an economy, to apprentice men for whom no permanent positions can afterwards be found, or to discharge numbers of these men, after their apprenticeship has been served, and thus lose a very valuable supply of skilled labour which the State has created at considerable expense. No doubt the amount of electrical work available depends largely on the rate of progress of construction. I should be very glad if the Civil Lord, when he replies, can reassure us as to this apparent waste of valuable material, and give us some
  2208
  indication of the policy of the Admiralty on the question of dockyard apprentices and ex-apprentices.
  In many directions these Estimates must still cause serious misgiving. The new programme still leaves us some way down the list of the navies of the world in modern destroyers and submarines. It is obvious that we cannot have our requisite number of under-age cruisers by 1936. We have learned during the last few years to expect very little, and so, I suppose, we must be duly grateful for the increase we have actually got this year. Urgent as the need for economy undoubtedly is, the time has come when this new construction can no longer be postponed and, furthermore, this increase in the Navy Estimates should be very heartily welcomed by those who are continually demanding that the Government should undertake schemes of development and encourage public works. After all, the work of building these ships is one of the very best forms of public work for, so far from being unproductive, it is productive of national security. The bulk of the money is spent directly or indirectly in labour. It means steady work for our dockyards, brings a real measure of relief to some of those yards where unemployment is so heavy and saves numbers of skilled shipwrights from the despair, hardship and deterioration which accompanies prolonged unemployment. I believe there is general and widespread disappointment that the Estimates so far submitted show little, if any, reduction; but very few hon. Members will deny that there is ample justification for this increase in the Navy Estimates. We are only making up a little of the leeway we have lost during the past few years and, as the First Lord himself admitted in his Memorandum, even this increase in the Navy Estimates does not fully provide for all the potential needs of the Navy.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. COCKS: In considering these Navy Estimates, one cannot help the thought coming into one's mind that there is growing up, all over this country, a great revulsion against war. For example, a speaker at a public meeting, especially in one of our industrial centres, who asserts that in no circumstances whatever would this country ever

  2209
  go to war again is certain to have that remark greeted with tumultuous applause. As the chaos of Europe grows greater, and the lightnings begin to flash over Europe, the revulsion against war is assuming rather strange forms. Take the case of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House the other day with reference to the trouble in the Far East. He seemed to think that the great thing was to assure the world that in no circumstances would this country ever be drawn into it. The same sort of feeling—for people know how horrible and terrible war is and how near is the danger—caused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) two days ago to make a speech in which he advocated that this country should free itself from all entanglements and all engagements; turn its back upon Europe and adopt a position of armed neutrality, even if that meant, as he said it would mean, a large increase in our Naval, Military and Air Estimates.
  Now I am an advocate of peace, and an advocate of disarmament, but I do not believe we shall ever be able to get peace by shirking our responsibilities, and getting rid of or denying all our international engagements. It seems to me that the policy advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping was exactly like that of a man, who, seeing another man waylaid on the highway by highway robbers, instead of going to his assistance shrugs his shoulders, turns away, and leaves him to be robbed or assassinated. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping I felt that he, too, was feeling the onset of the years. These were not sentiments he would have used some years ago—those glorious, far away days of his military adventures in Cuba, at Omdurman, of the advance from Antwerp, and the retreat from Pretoria. The right hon. Gentleman has played many parts, but I never thought I should be here to hear him advocate for this country a policy of pusillanimity.
  In my view the only way by which peace can be secured is by a policy of ordered security. I believe it is only by developing the structure of international law, and by visiting the offender against that law with swift and condign punishment, that we can bring about a condition in which disarmament will become
  2210
  possible. That is why in recent months I have viewed the situation in the Far East with such grave concern. If the Covenant of the League and the Kellogg Pact are to be flouted with impunity, then there is no chance of disarmament, and no chance of peace. If international law is to be disregarded and a policy of armed neutrality adopted, then the British Navy is too weak for the work it will have to do in the future. If we are to have neither the security given by an international system nor the aid given by allies—and the idea of having allies was also repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman—we shall have to proceed to build a far more formidable Fleet than we possess at present. The First Lord of the Admiralty make an attack upon what he calls bloody-minded pacifists.
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Bloodthirsty pacifists.
  Mr. COCKS: I was mixing up the right hon. Gentleman with what the Foreign Secretary said the other day. I do not personally take the line which he had suggested of at the same time advocating the reduction of the Army and Navy below the level of efficiency and advocating interference in foreign troubles and international conflicts. At the same time what is worse than this is the man who adopts the gospel of militarism and scorns arbitration and covenants for the preservation of peace, who thinks these covenants are of little avail, and yet, having brushed them aside altogether, is content with a fleet which in such circumstances is not strong enough for the work it has to do, and is in a large and important area of the surface of the world at the present time in a position of lamentable and humiliating inferiority.
  Apart from the way in which the Covenant of the League has been flouted, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the proposals made by the Government of Japan for disarmament as far as their Navy and our Navy are concerned. At the present moment the ratio in capital ships between ourselves and Japan is 15 to 9. The Japanese have come to Geneva and proposed that we should sink or destroy four battleships, whereas they should destroy only one battleship, thus making the ratio 11 to 8, and bringing Japan very much nearer to our strength. In 8-inch cruisers the

  2211
  ratio at present is 18 to 12, and the Japanese Government have proposed that we should sink six of those cruisers whereas they should sink only two, so that the ratio in future would be 12 to 10. We should then have only two more cruisers than they possess, although their Fleet is concentrated in one part of the world where we have great interests, whereas our Fleet has to guard trade routes in all the seven seas of the world. They have also demanded that with regard to smaller cruisers, destroyers and submarines there should be parity between the two Fleets. Such a proposal could not be considered for one moment. It is one which must be instantly rejected. I would say further, that if that State continues to flout the public law of the world and if she becomes as under her present rulers she seems bent on becoming, the Carthage to our Rome, it will be necessary either to increase our naval forces and have a bigger Fleet in the Pacific, or to enter into consultation with the American Government with a view to co-operating in some scheme of mutual defence of our possessions in that great ocean.
  I wish to deal with one or two questions of internal administration. I would ask the First Lord, why should we keep up Dartmouth College in order to provide secondary education for officers of two branches only of the Fleet—the executive branch and the engineering branch—and not the paymaster and accountancy branches or any of the other branches? The parents of those going into other branches of the Service or into any other Department of the State have to provide their own secondary education. It is only in those two branches that we have State-assisted secondary education. The First Lord said that he was afraid that he would not get the necessary entries into the Navy if Dartmouth were abolished. Since the introduction of the special entry system in 1913, over 1,000 cadets from public schools have entered the Navy, in addition to those who have entered the other branches of the Service. Of the 1,066 who have entered from public schools, 28 have already been promoted commanders, which shows that they were found to be efficient officers. In addition there have also been commissioned 470 ratings from the lower deck to the executive branch, and 230
  2212
  engine-room artificers to commissioned rank. Ten of these have been promoted to the rank of commander, and 40 promoted to that of engineering commander—a tribute to the ability of those officers. Surely, the objection to Dartmouth is the expense, for in spite of what the First Lord said about cutting down the expenses, he stated, in answer to a question yesterday, that the cost per cadet was £300 more than the cost to the State of cadets going in by the special entry system.
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: Over six years.
  Mr. COCKS: Yes, but £300 for each unit. That seems to be a matter of considerable importance. What has happened to the report of the Bennett Committee which was appointed some years ago and has reported, though the report has never been published? I understand that the Admiralty appointed another committee to inquire into the findings of the Bennett Committee, and that finally the whole thing has been shelved. One reason which has been put forward for retaining Dartmouth is that it enables officers in the Navy to get their children into the Navy cheaper than if they had to pass through the ordinary public schools. If the First Lord of the Admiralty says that that is not the case, I will withdraw what I have said.
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: It is the same for everybody.
  Mr. COCKS: Surely the sons of officers in the Navy come under a specially reduced fee system?
  Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: They all come in on their merits, and we have specially reduced fees according to the income of their parents.
  Mr. COCKS: Whether their fathers are in the Navy or not. I think that by abolishing the Dartmouth system and having instead the special entry system, there would be a wider field of selection at a more suitable age. After all, 132 is rather an early age to decide whether a boy is fitted to be a naval officer or not. There would also be less wastage between the years 13½ and 17½ owing to cadets being invalided or dying and if boys were taken at 17 it would be possible to secure more rapid expansion in the case of war. I suggest that the entries

  2213
  to Dartmouth should be reduced by 50 per cent. this year, and then gradually reduced until the establishment is abolished.
  Another point I want to put to the First Lord has reference to commissions from the lower deck, about which I put several questions to him recently. It is very desirable that the system of giving commissions to the lower deck should be increased. Last year only eight ratings were promoted to sub-lieutenants, and only four from the engine room branch. To promote only 12 out of the thousands on the lower deck is rather an absurdity when you say that you are going in for a democratic system and intend to promote men from the lower deck. How many does the First Lord intend to promote this year under this scheme? I was glad to hear from him yesterday that officers selected from the lower deck are to undergo a preliminary course at Greenwich to enable them to compete on equal terms with officers from the cadet entries.
  Something has been said about the surplus of officers. In 1914, although we had 146,000 officers and men in the Fleet, with far more vessels than we have now, there were only 1,493 officers, whereas to-day, although the establishment has been reduced to 91,000 officers and men, and although the units are far less numerous than in 1914, the number of officers has gone up to 1,748—a considerable increase. As far as the men are concerned their numbers have been reduced to the barest necessity of Service requirements. What happens as a result? I have been told that ratings coming home from foreign service are entitled to 14 days leave for every year that they have been abroad, but, having had their leave, they often find on going back that their names are posted for foreign service again. Officers get 30 days leave for each year they have served at a foreign station, and after that they are very often employed at home, or on shore training courses, or get pay without any employment at all, due to the fact that there is a surplus of officers.
  I am sure that the Navy is a happy Service, but I am told that at the same time there is considerable dissatisfaction about the reductions and cuts in the pay of the Navy. The men were cut by a
  2214
  larger proportion than were the officers. In 1922 a seaman gunner, with two good conduct badges, with a wife and two children, received 4s. 6d. a day, 3d. for being a seaman gunner, 6d. for his badges, and 3d. for grog money, a total of 5s. 6d., or 38s. 6d. a week. To-day he has been reduced to 35s. a week, and at the same time his marriage allowance has been reduced from 23s. 6d. to 15s. a week. He has been reduced in the last 10 years from 62s. to 50s., a very large percentage—over 20 per cent. The officers have been reduced only to the extent of 11 per cent. Ordinary seamen's pay has been reduced from 2s. 9d. to 2s. a day, a reduction of 27 per cent., and the seaman boy, who received 2s. a day in 1919, now only receives 1s. 3d., a reduction of 37½ per cent. On the other hand, midshipmen have not had their pay reduced at all. After all, the sailor works seven days a week and often in very unhealthy climates, and we cannot expect him to go ashore without spending a little money. It is time that some of the cuts imposed upon the Navy by the Bank of England were restored. The well-being of the Fleet is far more important than the well-being of financiers. I have far more regard for the health and happiness of the blue-jackets than I have for the bankers.
  I have said that I am a pacifist, and I am a believer in Disarmament.. At the same time, considering the dangerous state of the world to-day and the absolute failure of the Foreign Secretary—
  Mr. BUCHANAN: The Prime Minister, too.
  Mr. COCKS: Well, I do not exclude the Prime Minister. Considering the absolute failure of other Departments of the Government, I do not criticise the First Lord for bringing in slightly higher Estimates than last year. He is only doing what I hope I should do if I were in his place in the circumstances: standing up for the efficiency of the great Service of which he is the head.
  7.31 p.m.
  Mr. J. WALLACE: I shall not detain the House very long, but I cannot help thinking, after the speech of my hon. Friend, that it does not constitute a tribute to his great authority and well-

  2215
  known political knowledge that he should suggest that the Bank of England was responsible for the cuts in the Navy—or, indeed, for any other cuts. I do not suppose for one moment that he meant it seriously, but expect that it is merely another example of that political persiflage of which he is such a master. I shall not attempt to follow him in the points of his speech, especially in his elucidation of technical matters, because, frankly, I think that he knows much more about them than I do. But I have listened to a great deal of information during this Debate, first of all in the speech of the First Lord and then in that of the hon. and gallant Admiral, who, while supporting the Government, offered them the frankest possible criticism in the best possible spirit. After such a speech by one with his distinguished record and great knowledge and interest in the affairs of the Admiralty, I feel that I myself may take a little courage in pursuing the same course.
  Coming away from those great questions of policy and administration, I should like to give this Debate, just for a few minutes, a little local colour. I regret very much that it is no longer possible for me to read those Estimates and digest the information in those 403 pages with any particular personal interest, for I no longer, in the real sense, represent a dockyard constituency. At one time, not so many years ago, these Estimates had a direct relation to the fortunes and prospects of Rosyth Dockyard. To-day, however, by implication—because there is hardly a reference to Rosyth Dockyard—they deal only with the misfortunes of Rosyth. That great dockyard is comparatively silent and deserted. For some reason Rosyth has become the Cinderella of the dockyards of Great Britain, and there is no sign in the meantime that the Fairy Prince will come to the rescue with the magic slipper. That is a role which I should like to see filled by my right hon. Friend the First Lord; he could do it so perfectly and with all that grace, courtesy and charm which we all know he possesses in such a very high degree. In a time of great national emergency Rosyth played a memorable part, and the city of Dunfermline had every right to believe—and was led by
  2216
  the Admiralty to expect—that Rosyth would be maintained as a great unit in our system of naval defence. Millions were spent upon its construction, and I do not believe that there is a single naval officer of any standing who would not give willing testimony to its modern equipment during the War, and to its efficiency and outstanding service in the War years.
  Why has Rosyth been virtually thrown upon the scrap-heap, while the activities of the Southern dockyards are in full operation? Why is it condemned as only worth continuing upon a care and maintenance basis? I am in no way fitted to judge of the strategic reasons which may have influenced the decision to relegate Rosyth to the background, but in these days of the mechanisation and rationalisation of industry it seems extraordinary to me to ignore real efficiency and to preserve in the South the existence of dockyards less efficient and less modern. It is a reversal of the old order of the survival of the fittest. Rosyth, with all its modern equipment and facilities, situated as it is on one of the finest waterways of the world, has from the dockyard point of view become the despised and rejected. Is it too late to reconsider the claim of Rosyth, and to recognise the sacrifices and willing service which the city of Dunfermline rendered to the Government in the hour of the country's supreme need?
  I look at this question not only from the point of view of efficiency and justice, but also from the point of view of the serious condition of unemployment in that district. The whole constituency is under the gloomy cloud of unemployment. In the linen trade the factories have been closed down and thousands of men and women have joined the ranks of the unemployed. Prosperity has departed from the coalfields, and the whole industrial situation there in the Dunfermline district and Bo'ness is serious beyond description. I urge and plead for a reconsideration of the whole position regarding Rosyth and I do so very respectfully, in the name of justice and in the cause of efficiency, as a claim for the recognition of the rights of Scotland. After all, Admiralty decisions are not like the laws of the Medes and Persians, which could not be altered. This is a National Government; it must take the national point of view. I respectfully suggest that no

  2217
  longer should powerful Southern interests and considerations be permitted to override the legitimate claims and rights of that old country that lies beyond the Tweed. Even if strategic reasons prevail —and if they are sound they must and ought to prevail—I contend that in the departments of repair and reconditioning there is still great work to be done at Rosyth, and the interests of that yard in my judgment, are paramount.
  I leave that question, and wish now to refer for a moment to one or two smaller matters. Last year, when these Estimates were before the House, I referred to the question of the repair of oil ships I wish to bring that matter up again. Wherever there is work to be done on those ships at Rosyth, such as the scraping of the bottoms of the ships, the repainting, and the repair of zinc plates or underfittings, everything which can be done by the present staff at Rosyth should be done. There is a strong feeling up there that sometimes those oil boats are sent to Leith, although without any increase of the supervisory staff at all the work could be carried out at Rosyth. I should like to have that matter inquired into. Another small question is the employment of yard lads at Rosyth. Last year I mentioned this matter in the House, and the Civil Lord promised to look into it. Perhaps I may refresh his memory on the subject and, if it is not convenient to-night, ask him to let me have an answer at some other time. One more question: the dockyard at Rosyth frequently requires various classes of machinery, but up till now, although there is a very good engineering plant in Dunfermline, no quotation has been asked from local contractors. Might I ask my right hon. Friend to inquire into this matter also I Unemployment is so serious up there at the present time that even a few men extra employed in any of those works is of very great benefit to the city of Dunfermline.
  I do not wish to detain the House further. I have mentioned one major issue and one or two minor considerations, but in my mind the major consideration is uppermost. I beg for the further consideration of the whole Rosyth problem. Even if for the time being the Admiralty has written "Ichabod" on the walls of Rosyth Dockyard, I should like it to remember that the potential glory still remains.
  7.42 p.m.
  Sir PARK GOFF: I venture to intervene for a few minutes as representing the senior dockyard. As long ago as 894 A.D., Alfred the Great., after one of his scraps with the Danes, said:
  " There is no advantage in living on an island unless your Navy rides in undisputed sway over the waters that surround it."
  Last year we were warned that arrears of cruiser construction would be made good as soon as possible. The failure to build new ships has forced the Admiralty to retain vessels which otherwise would have been scrapped, with the result that the repair bill is mounting up and will continue to do so. Delay in shipbuilding only adds to the number of the unemployed, and all the costly equipment of our dockyards is lying idle. The general public has an entirely erroneous idea that the laying down of a battleship only applies to and involves armaments. When a battleship is laid down, orders are given to over 150 firms scattered throughout the country. It gives employment to the mines, to transport, to trades, to manufactures, and to every other kind of industry. Our ships are not luxuries; they are absolute necessities.
  The cutting down of the Navy, in my humble judgment, is the worst form of false economy possible. At Chatham there is a very acute shortage of men, particularly in the Seamen branch. There is a strong feeling in favour of keeping the men as far as possible in the same ship for a full commission. The reason, of course, is obvious. It is not in the interests of the ship or of the Service to make any change in a ship's company after it has been commissioned, just when a ship's company is getting to know their ship and their officers, and making their ship efficient, clean and happy: At present in the Chatham division there are two cruisers recommissioned for service abroad, the "Cumberland" for China, and the "Dispatch" for the Mediterranean, and in addition there are the annual routine reliefs for gunboats and sloops for China. The shortage of men there is so great that, unless men who have just returned from foreign service are again to be sent abroad, the only alternative is to pick them out of recommissioned ships in the Home Fleet, whereas in normal times the men required were recommissioned from the Royal Naval barracks. The shortage

  2219
  is insufficient to meet the requirements at sea, so the Home Fleet becomes a sort of extra depot for emergencies. The only alternative appears to be less ships maintained abroad, one or more ships put into reserve and the crews sent to barracks, or the Navy personnel increased, and, as everyone knows, the present number is absolutely inadequate.
  About four years ago when the Committee made their report upon the reduction of personnel they did not take into account, when recommending the bare minimum, the number of man days lost to the Service when men were on passage to and from foreign stations, particularly China, and also the time men were granted for foreign service leave, both before and after their foreign service. Everyone wants to avoid any feeling of insecurity or any lack of confidence in any way, but any attempt to run the Navy on a card index line must fail. The Admiralty is of necessity an impersonal body, but it is essentially a personal matter that the more freedom, power and authority which can be given to officers of the Fleet afloat the better it will he for the men themselves, for the Fleet and the Service at large.
  The Admiralty have now a great opportunity to keep their hold on the Fleet by a bold pronouncement of policy which they are prepared to carry out quite regardless of any criticism or of any obstruction whatever. Personally, I should like to see a training ship for boys as well as the "Frobisher" for cadets. I believe that training in sailing ships gives a far more thorough knowledge of seamanship than years of steam. I do not mean sail training qua sail training, so much as to learn seamanship in sailing ships. I have known it to be very successful in other navies. Boys from 16} years of age to' 18 after a few months at a shore training establishment are sent straight to a ship and to the fleet. A cruise for six months, or perhaps less, in a properly constituted training squadron would be much more valuable and beneficial in my judgment than two years in a fleet battleship. They will come to their ship thoroughly prepared and thoroughly grounded in their job.
  I believe that all our problems and all our difficulties to-day date back to Washington, which in my humble judgment, and speaking for myself, was a
  2220
  most colossal mistake. I also deeply deplore and regret, rightly or wrongly, the abandonment of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. That has probably considerably changed the whole world outlook. It has caused Singapore, at any rate, to loom very much larger on the horizon. Those who have been round the world realise and appreciate now more than ever the importance of the Singapore base, and yet when we come back to our island home how many know and appreciate that Singapore is an island? I may be singular, but I have kept my eye, as far as the senior Service is concerned, directed for some years towards the East. Even since I have been in political life I have been an advocate of the Singapore base. I have realised on many occasions its importance. I do not believe in anyone talking about places or countries unless they have been there and seen them for themselves, not only on one occasion but on many occasions, and stayed there. There are some people who go to countries, to distant lands, and smell them for about five minutes and then come back here and tell us all about them with the wisdom of Solomon, the authority of a dictator, and the invulnerability of Achilles. The chief and greatest characteristic of British sea power is that it is never domineering and never selfish. Lloyds is the main mercantile insurance for the world, the Baltic is the chartering market of the world, and the Court of Admiralty is where the foreigner comes to get justice and redress. If German is the language of science and French is the language of diplomacy, then English is the language of the sea. We came by the sea, we live by the sea, and our whole future is on the sea.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: I have listened with keen attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Sir P. Goff), and I am sure that his constituents will read it with pride and interest to-morrow. I hope that he does not wish us to infer that the non-building of ships is going to have any serious effect upon the employment problem, because is it not true that these ships have to be defrayed out of revenue which comes from taxes, and the higher the taxation the more is the spending power of the individual limited. I should like,

  2221
  if my right bon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will not take it amiss, to add my sincere congratulations for the manner in which he presented the Navy Estimates to-day. It is indeed a delight to hear the details of a Service expounded by one who is almost entirely its embodiment. There is a story told about a Scottish minister who in the course of his extemporary prayers became so familiar with his Creator that he ended one of his more intimate periods with the phrase "Paradoxical as it may seem, O Lord." I have to submit to the First Lord of the Admiralty a paradox and the relationship of the right hon. Gentleman to myself is very similar to that of the Creator to the Scottish minister. The paradox I have to submit to my right hon. Friend is that. the more Great Britain disarms the more secure does she become.
  Sir JOSEPH NALL: Rubbish.
  Mr. ADAMS: This is not an opinion confined to myself, in spite of the interjection of "Rubbish" on my left flank because the hon. Member will find that "Scrutator" in the "Sunday Times" pointed in the same direction last Sunday, and, if hon. Members will reflect for a moment, they will see that, in spite of the unilateral disarmament which Great Britain has carried out since the Armistice, there is no country in Europe, with the possible exception of Switzerland, that is more secure than ourselves. It is true that Great Britain may still irritate the foreigner, but we seem to succeed to-day in no longer antagonising him. In these circumstances, we are again "The envy of less happier lands." Is it not true that we cannot with that inevitable and decisive forefinger say, as we could 20 years ago, there, or there or anywhere on the Continent of Europe is a potential enemy. Let us consider and compare that with the situation of our immediate neighbours, France and Germany, whose opinions on armaments are quite different from our own. Each of them is neurotically watching the other for the merest simulacrum and scintilla of an insult. That is an entirely different situation from ours. They are admittedly the most insecure nations on the Continent of Europe. One of them is, in the words of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr.
  2222
  Churchill), "armed to the teeth," though he also suggested that she is "pacifist to the core." The other is apparently, for reasons which are neither clear nor compelling but entirely sentimental, passionately desirous to rearm.
  If I may continue my humble relationship with the First Lord I should like to approach him with a little prayer and a little entreaty. In the January issue of a remarkable production called "Home and Empire," superscribed with the Union Jack, I read:
  " The allegation too often heard from Socialists that this country is standing in the way of general disarmament has been described by the First Lord as not only stupid but unchristian; and when it is remembered how this country has reduced its armed forces in spite of increasing armaments elsewhere the words cannot be regarded as being a whit too strong."
  I want to make one comment on that statement, though I doubt very much whether the First Lord of the Admiralty ever uttered it, because his wisdom is celebrated. It would be difficult to reconcile the Sermon on the Mount with a 16-inch gun. But I suppose that my right hon. Friend the First Lord can be trusted not to repeat a statement of that sort if he ever, in fact, did say it. The Navy is not in any sense sacrosanct. After all, we not only represent the taxpayers in this House, but we are taxpayers ourselves; and when one considers that a sum of £53,000,000 has to be defrayed by the taxpayers it is a sum which cannot be sneezed at. Out of every sovereign a taxpayer pays in Income Tax, over 1s. goes in the form of ship money. And £10,000,000 nearly in spent annually in keeping our 15 capital ships in commission.
  I wish to revert to something which I have mentioned at greater length before in this honourable House, that in my view the battleship is to-day, as it has always been, the key to disarmament, at all events to naval disarmament. It is a notorious fact that she is the mother of that odious and loathsome craft the submarine. We have tried before, and we have found that it is absurd to try to out-build our naval rivals. I would like the First Lord in his reply to explain why it is that the Government have not more consistently pressed for a limitation of the maximum size of battleships to a size between 10,000 and 6,000 tons displace-

  2223
  ment. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken suggested that the Washington Conference was a calamitous occurrence. I suggest that that is really not in accordance with the facts, when one considers the burden on the taxpayer. Thousands of tons of shipping was scrapped on that occasion by ourselves, and the building of thousands of tons was deferred by the London Naval Treaty of 1929. As I have said, the money has to came from the taxpayer's pocket, and it means a tremendous drag upon industry. There are strong reasons in the minds of some naval experts why the super-battleship in excess of 10,000 tons should be unilaterally scrapped. To my mind those reasons are conclusive.
  But I have raised this point before in the House, and I do not want to expatiate at any length on it. I will, for the purposes of argument, take the orthodox view that these battleships can only be scrapped by general agreement. But I would like to know from the First Lord how it is that the figure of 22,000 tons, which is proposed to be the new limit for the super-battleship, has been arrived at. Indeed I cannot see any reason—I have examined this matter at some length, as far as a layman can— why 22,000 tons has been fixed and not 100,000 or 10,000; I have always been informed that the defensive purpose of the capital ship is to arrest any merchantman, the largest possible merchantman or liner carrying contraband or munitions or troops from one point to another, and if you get universal agreement to limit the tonnage of these ships to 6,000 or 10,000 tons I believe it is conceded by naval experts that that maximum would be adequate. It is obvious that in the case of the liner, however large, her decks and her structure cannot carry more than a gun of a certain calibre, six inches or 7.5 inches. I am informed by naval experts that a cruiser, or capital ship as it would be in the new dispensation, of 6,000 or 10,000 tons, would be quite adequate to deal with 'a liner so equipped.
  Yet we go on gambling with the super-battleship idea, toying with the possibility of constructing in 1936 a whole new series of these vast and vulnerable vessels. When I use the word "vulnerable" I am immediately reminded of the
  2224
  air, and I cannot forget that a battleship displacing, say, 30,000 tons, extends on the face of the ocean to the vertical attack of a bomber a target covering several acres. I am in great difficulty over this because I must remember that the occasion to-night is not the Air nor the Army Estimates. But if I may I would say in parenthesis that I think the whole basis on which we deal with the defensive Services is entirely faulty, because one can no longer treat the three Services with the detachment that was possible in former days. The more complicated, the more intricate and the more expensive the problem of defence becomes, the more obvious becomes the need of some Ministry of Defence. If I mention battleships I cannot escape reflecting about the bombing aeroplane, and when I consider the military value, the defensive value, of territorial infantry, I immediately have to consider the menace from the air. If the Territorial Army were equipped with wings there might be some justification for applauding an increase in expenditure or restoring expenditure upon the Territorial arm.
  This necessity for a real examination into the problem of a Ministry of Defence was definitely indicated in the report of a Sub-Committee of private Members on which I served last summer. I think I can say without arrogance that that sub-committee was a strong one. It consisted partly of experts, and partly of Members entitled and able to take a fairly impartial view. Those hon. Members who regularly attended it, consisted of two General Officers, an Admiral, a, Lieut.-Commander and two members of the Bar who might be considered able to sift evidence and estimate values. We were eloquently presided over in the tropical heat of last September by the hon. and gallant Member for Harrow (Sir I. Salmon), and, as he said at the time, we were giving the Government something for nothing. But the net result of our endeavours is that our suggestions have been substantially ignored.
  I say on quite general grounds that I cannot help feeling, with some hon. Members who have spoken earlier in the Debate to-day, that this increase in naval expenditure is to be deplored. For one thing the National Government came into power with no specific pledge at all, but

  2225
  with one very positive implied pledge, the pledge of economy. That, of course, is to some degree vitiated by this increase in expenditure. Furthermore, the Disarmament Conference at this moment is in a most critical condition, likely to be thrust over the precipice by any sudden shock from outside—any sudden or slight shock. And in consideration of that I do wish it had been possible to withhold this new expenditure for at least another year. Could we not, if these replacements were absolutely necessary, have found some means of suspending some of the expenses which normally would be incurred from year to year—at all events make it apparent that we were not increasing the Estimates by £3,000,000?
  It is often said about the British Navy that it has been unilaterally disarmed, but I would say, if hon. Members will come with me into the sphere of the highest values, that if unilateral disarmament is to be carried out at all I shall be very proud to see my own country do it first. After all, the Government just over a fortnight ago, on 27th February, did something unilaterally in the international sphere. They put an embargo on the export of arms and munitions—an embargo which was removed with an absolutely incomprehensible suddenness. If it was right to impose an embargo on 27th February it was right to maintain it on 13th March. But be that as it may, the decision was taken, and if hon. Members consider for one moment, upon the general question of armaments and arms and the embargo on arms, they will find themselves confronted with a quite simple issue of right and wrong, and if the folly of armaments is some day to be stopped, not perhaps by absolutely general agreement but by multilateral or unilateral action, I am patriot enough to want my country to lead in that direction.
  8.12 p.m.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: If there is one place in London that is the showplace of the British Navy for those Londoners who cannot afford or have not the desire to go to the southern coast, it is the Royal Naval Hospital at Greenwich. It is a most beautiful building, perhaps the most beautiful in England. It is to-day easily accessible by motor boat from Charing Cross and by many other means of transport. If it is the showplace of the British Navy to Londoners I beg the First Lord
  2226
  to give a little of his attention to the way in which the public can get into it and the way in which they are received when they get there. When I was a boy in London, in the intervals of medical studies I wasted much time in the painted hall and got a great love for the British Navy. But recently, when taking my own children there, first of all I was startled by the demand of a charge for admission, which I think cannot result in the obtaining of a sum of money proportionate to the irritation it gives, and, secondly, I was astounded by the dull and dingy nature of the painted hall and the incompleteness of the museum. The painted hall is dull, the great pictures are difficult to see, and the faces are not well recorded.
  The museum is a wonderful museum of shipbuilding, of the history of North Pole exploration and of Nelson's career. The articles on view are labelled in a way that was satisfactory in the days of Queen Victoria but has not kept pace with modern standards of museum equipment. The painted hall and the museum are practically all that the Londoner can see. Should he attempt to go to Admiralty House he will find, as I found, a notice in the hall "If you see a stranger hold him fast." Therefore the one building to which the Londoner might have free access, is worthy of a little personal attention from the First Lord.
  8.15 p.m.
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Captain Euan Wallace): I think the opening sentences in which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall) representing the Opposition, began his speech this afternoon, indicated the tone of this Debate for he began by saying that he had very little fault to find with the Navy Estimates of this year. I therefore find myself in the enviable position of rising rather with the object of giving information than of answering hostile criticism. I should like to say at once that certain matters which have been referred to this afternoon and notably some part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench opposite, and practically the whole of the speech of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) relate to training and personnel and, therefore, fall within the ambit of the specific Amendment which is to be moved later. I hope the hon. Member for Broxtowe will not think me dis-

  2227
  courteous if I leave the reply to the interesting questions raised in his speech to my Noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty.
  So many extremely interesting speeches have been made and so many interesting questions have been asked that it would be impossible for any representative of the Admiralty, fortified as he is bound to be with all the knowledge to be obtained from such a very great Department, to answer all those questions in the space of time for which the House of Commons would tolerate a speech from this Box. I would therefore say to hon. Members on all sides that any points in their speeches which are not specifically replied to must not be regarded as having been ignored or rejected. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the First Lord and indeed the whole Board of Admiralty will do everything they can to gather wisdom from this important Debate.
  Two of the principal subjects dealt with and the two which formed the burden of most of the speeches were, first, the subject of Disarmament and, second, the question of the utilisation of coal for fuel, with what may be regarded as the allied question of the use of Diesel engines. As far as disarmament is concerned, I think the House will recognise that it would be a singularly ill-timed occasion for a junior representative of the Admiralty in this House to make any general pronouncement when at this very moment our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary are at work in Geneva. I should like, straight away, to reassure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and to tell him that the Estimates which we are presenting, not only as regards new construction but as regards everything in them, represent no departure whatever from our established Programme. We are not speeding up, we are not going outside our strict rights, if I may call them rights, under the Treaty of Washington and the London Naval Treaty. I may, on this point, venture to remind him and also my predecessor in office, that one of the reasons for the increased expenditure to which they drew unfavourable attention is that this year we are engaged in financing a Programme which they themselves were responsible for laying down.
  2228
  I was asked by my hon. Friend opposite whether it was necessary to include four cruisers in this year's programme. I say unhesitatingly, Yes. It is only by including in this year's programme the four cruisers which remain to us under the proposals of the treaties that we can hope to have them completed by the end of December, 1936, and I do not believe that either the hon. Gentleman opposite or his right hon. Friend who is no longer in this House—Mr. Alexander—if they were at the Admiralty to-day, in view of what both have said on public platforms, would be willing to risk another unilateral gesture of this kind. My hon. Friend also asked me whether we still want capital ships and whether we still require 50 cruisers. The whole question of capital ships and cruisers has also been dealt with by try hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams). It is a very big subject, but I shall try to answer both hon. Members in the fewest possible words which will suffice. We do want capital ships because we believe that the abolition of the capital ship would make the cruiser the capital ship of the future—the biggest unit—and we believe the result, so far from leading to economy, would be to involve us in considerably increased expense. We do say, however, that we could do with a capital ship of much diminished displacement. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds asked why we had selected the figure of 22,000 tons. I think it fair to say quite briefly that 22,000 tons, in the view of the Board of Admiralty, represents the minimum figure which will give adequate protection, suitable endurance and tolerably decent living conditions for the people who have to pass their lives in the ship.
  As regards the proposals made by President Hoover, I was asked why we did not support them. The short answer is that we preferred our proposals which, though they were not made exactly the day after the other proposals, had actually been in the Admiralty some time before they were published. We preferred them because we believed they were simpler and cheaper and would, in the long run, effect more real disarmament. I cannot resist saying that it seems a little odd that there are numbers of people in this House who, when any proposals for disarmament are put forward, seem to have a devastating

  2229
  affection for anything proposed by a foreigner as against anything proposed by us. We have to realise that in regard to disarmament there are two factors to be taken into consideration. There is, first, the factor of relative limitation. if the Navy is to perform its function of keeping the trade routes of the world open for the British Mercantile Marine, engaged in its peaceful avocations, it makes all the difference what ships you are unfortunately obliged to regard as potential enemies. There is besides that relative limitation, the absolute limitation imposed upon us by the number of sea miles that we have to protect, and the House of Commons and the country would be deluding themselves if they believed that, because everybody else in the world was willing to do away with naval forces down to what may be termed zero, this country would be wise to do the same or, indeed, would be able to do so.
  I turn to an entirely different subject which was dealt with in the principal speech from the Opposition and was also touched upon in a very thoughtful and obviously well-considered speech from the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. D. Davies). The question of the "back-to-coal" movement is of such public importance to-day as to demand, even at the risk of boring those who are familiar with the subject, a reiteration of certain basic principles. First of all, we ought to be quite clear as to the size of the problem and the possible good effect upon the coal industry if we were able to solve it in the way which hon. Members opposite, and indeed in all quarters of the House, desire. If it were possible for the Royal Navy to return entirely to the use of coal for fuel, it is estimated that we should, in peace time, use approximately 800,000 tons a year. That figure represents less than one-third of 1 per cent. of the total output of the British coalmines. Therefore it would be a great mistake for anybody in the country to delude themselves into thinking that the prosperity of that great basic industry, the coal trade of this country, could be restored by the efforts of the Royal Navy alone.
  Apart from that, everybody who has studied the question knows very well indeed that the case against burning coal in its raw state under the boilers of His Majesty's ships is absolutely unanswer-
  2230
  able, and nobody has put that case more clearly or more forcibly than my hon. Friend opposite when he was Civil Lord of the Admiralty. I do not think it is any exaggeration to say that, taking it all round, the endurance of an oil-fired ship is approximately double that of a coal-fired ship of the same dimensions, and hon. Members will see that, at a time when the amount of tonnage which we are allowed to construct is very strictly limited by Naval Treaties, that factor is even more important than it used to be before the War, when any nation constructed exactly what it, liked. Therefore, for all practical purposes, I think we are bound to rule out the idea of burning coal in its raw state.
  There remains the possibility of extracting from the coal of this country liquid fuel which will have the characteristics and advantages of oil, and there are, as hon. Members know, to-day two processes by which this can be done. There is, first of all, tike low-temperature carbonisation process, to which my right hon. Friend has already referred and expressed his satisfaction that, through the enterprise of one British firm, we have been able to secure a quantity of this home-produced oil, and to burn it by itself—it has not required any mixing—in the boilers of His Majesty's Ship "Westminster." Because, however, we have been able to get a. certain quantity of oil fuel of a very high quality from British coal, we must not imagine that the millennium is necessarily within reach. The main product from the low-temperature carbonisation process is not the fuel oil which we require, as hon. Members opposite know. The main product of that process is a semi-coke, which is sold at 59s. a ton, and is a most excellent fuel. We use it at the Admiralty to warm the members of the Board, and I believe it is used in other Government Departments.
  But while one ton of coal produces 14 cwts. of semi-coke, it only produces 16 gallons of tar, which in turn produces anything between five and eight gallons of fuel oil. Therefore, the essential thing about this process before it can find any fuel for the Navy is that a market should be found for this solid product. If it were possible for the whole of the 40,000,000 tons of coal used for domestic purposes in this country to be treated in this way, that is, if some Govern-

  2231
  ment of the future forbade the burning of bituminous coal in open grates, we should then get anything between 800,000 and 1,200,000 tons of oil fuel. I think most hon. Members will agree with me that the time when we can, by legislation or otherwise, compel the consumer to pay 59s. a ton for his fuel, however excellent it may be, is still some way distant.
  The other process, hydrogenation, offers the possibility of getting the maximum amount of oil or petrol from coal, and the amount of oil or petrol obtained simply varies according to how far you carry the process, and you are not bothered with having to dispose of another product. The cost of this process is, however, so high that it would only be a commercial proposition to produce petrol of a high grade by this process, and not fuel oil, since the difference in the volume obtained is comparatively negligible, and the difference in price is very considerable. Therefore, I think the House will agree that we have still got some considerable way to go in that direction. I should, however, like to add—and the same thing applies to the pulverised fuel and the colloidal mixtures to which the hon. Member for Pontypridd referred—that the Admiralty are fully alive to the strategical disadvantages of our dependence upon a foreign fuel supply. We are also fully alive to the economic benefits which would accrue to this country if it were possible to get our supplies from home, and I can assure the whole House that our researches into this question in every single one of its aspects are persistent and unremitting and that they will continue.
  The other question, somewhat allied to this, which was raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare and also the hon. Member for Pontypridd is that of the Diesel engine. I was asked last year in this Debate, and we were asked to-day, why we did not use Diesel engines in the Navy, because they have them in the German "Deutschland." The short answer is that we do not use them because they are not so good. There are at the moment three kinds of Diesel engine. There is the large slow-speed engine now used in merchant vessels of some kinds. That is much too heavy for the Navy, and for another thing the engine stands too high. Then there is
  2232
  the medium-speed engine, which we do use in submarines. We have some very good ones in the new "River" class of submarines. We use them in submarines, not because they are more efficient than steam plant of the same power, but because you cannot use steam plant in submarines; and it is equally a fact that these medium-speed Diesel engines are not as efficient in that they are considerably heavier per effective horse-power produced.
  There are, thirdly, the high-speed Diesel engines, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and which are used in this German battleship. The difficulty with them is that you cannot get a power unit more than about 7,000 horse-power. Therefore, to be of any use as the propelling machinery for naval craft, you have to couple a lot of these engines up, and that involves the use of clutches and gearing, with the net result that here again your weight of plant per effective horse-power produced is considerably more than in steam plant of the same capacity, and it has the additional disadvantage of being more bulky. At the same time, we have a high-speed Diesel engine in the Admiralty laboratory, which I think I may say is in a fairly advanced stage. We intend to push on with our experiments, and I hope that before next year's Estimates come round it will be possible to produce something which we shall be able to put into a ship.
  There is another question which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare asked to which I think I ought to reply. He referred to the experiments which we made in building destroyers in dockyards and asked what were the comparative costs. They turned out to be more expensive to build in dockyards than by private contract. I have not the precise figure with me, but I think it was in the neighbourhood of £10,000. That does not mean that we have abandoned the idea of building any more destroyers in dockyards, because any establishment, be it a Government dockyard or a private firm, which builds a destroyer for the first time, obviously does not do it in the most economical way; and the Board of Admiralty have not the least doubt that if and when it may be necessary or possible to give further orders to the Royal

  2233
  Dockyards for destroyers they can be built at practically competitive prices.
  The hon. Member for Central Portsmouth (Mr. R. Beaumont) referred to the wastage in dockyard employés. We have felt bound to pursue this policy for some years for the simple reason that our Building Programme has been diminishing. The future is uncertain, and there are many Members who hope that it will diminish still further, and we should have failed to discharge our responsibility to the taxpayer had we engaged on a Government job a large number of people whom we might subsequently have to discharge. I go further and I say that we may congratulate successive Boards of Admiralty and Civil Lords on the fact that we have been able to spread out new construction and repair work not only among the Government yards, but among private contractors, in order to prevent as far as possible dislocation and discharges on what I may call a falling market. So far as the discharge of the electrical fitters is concerned, I am afraid that it is inevitable that every dockyard from time to time should have to discharge men in one trade and take on another. It depends on the stage of construction of the ship and the kind of work that is being done. I hope that it may be possible for the electrical fitters to get back in time, and we may derive a little satisfaction from the thought that an electrical fitter after he is discharged from a dockyard is better able to get a job than most men in other trades.
  Let me turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. J. Wallace). I must tell him, as I had to tell him last year, very sadly but as sympathetically as I was able, that it is not possible for anybody representing the Board of Admiralty to hold out any hope of such a radical change in policy as would alter Rosyth from a care and maintenance basis to the status of a fully working dockyard. The hon. Member accused the Board of taking rather a narrow view. I assure him as a fellow Scotsman that if I took a narrow as opposed to a national view, I would much sooner see some work going to Rosyth, but I am satisfied, as my predecessors were and as the First Lord is, that under present conditions it is not possible to increase work there. The specific question which he asked me with regard to
  2234
  repairs to oilers happens to be one which was discussed this morning at the Admiralty Industrial Council. I am in a position to be able to tell him that the answer is that there are only 23 men in the Constructive Department at Rosyth, that they are fully occupied without repairing oilers, and that if we had to repair them it would mean bringing in extra staff. The hon. Member, therefore, must take comfort from the thought that what employment is lost in Dunfermline is gained by our mutual friend the Minister of Mines at Leith.
  Mr. J. WALLACE: It is no consolation to me to know that fewer people will be employed in Rosyth repairing oilers. My point is that by taking on more men it is not necessary to increase the supervisory staff, which was before the excuse for not doing work at Rosyth. Its claims from that point of view ought to be considered.
  Captain WALLACE: The claims were considered last year and have been reconsidered, and I cannot do more than look into them again, but I fear that no new facts are likely to come out of it. I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) would have found it possible to come back by now, for I have been saving his interesting speech as long as I could. He asked a pertinent question as to whether we were getting our money's worth for our expenditure, which I am glad to see he recognises as being most important. He has made with his usual clarity what I may call the stock case against the Admiralty Office. I do not propose to take up the time of the House by giving him the stock answer because there is in existence an excellent memorandum by the Secretary of the Admiralty which demonstrates beyond the possibility of a peradventure that the decrease in the numbers of the Navy since 1914 is no proper criterion of the decrease which is supposed should have taken place at headquarters. All kinds of other factors have to be considered and I should enjoy giving them to the House but I resist the temptation.
  The second question which my right hon. Friend asked was in regard to our co-operation with the Royal Air Force. I can assure him that we co-operate with them very closely. We have had for

  2235
  some time at the Admiralty a special department under the Director of the Naval Air Division. We have in more recent times appointed a Rear-Admiral in charge of the aircraft carriers, with the most beneficial effects from every point of view. I was fortunate enough the other day when I was in Malta to attend a conference on the results of some exercises which had taken place during the winter cruise and among many things which impressed me, nothing impressed me more than the very close co-operation which was maintained between the Navy and the air arm throughout two very long and rather difficult exercises. My right hon. Friend seemed rather to resent the idea that our aeroplanes were designed by the Air Ministry, but the First Lord and, I think, the rest of us, are willing to believe that the Air Ministry can design aeroplanes better than the Admiralty, and we are very glad to leave the technical side of the Fleet air arm in their hands.
  Finally, the right bon. Member for South Molton asked me about Singapore. I am only going to say this. Of course the Board of Admiralty does envisage eventually having a properly equipped and defended naval base at Singapore. Everybody who has studied the problem, indeed, anybody who has ever bothered to look at a map of the world, or one of those round globes which are seen in nurseries, must realise that such a base is necessary in order that our Fleet may have complete mobility in all parts of the world. Not only is this view held at the Board of Admiralty, but it is also held by other members of the British Commonwealth, who have signified their acceptance of that view by substantial contributions to the cost of the base. I think that may be taken as an indication of our eventual intentions. For the moment, the work is progressing satisfactorily, and there is every reason to believe that Sir John Jackson will complete his contract in time. For the moment we only contemplate the completion of those heavy engineering works which are now in progress and which form the backbone of the scheme.
  Just one word in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan). I am sure that he will be very glad to know that as the result of a
  2236
  generous benefaction the Royal Hospital School is moving from the congested area of Greenwich to a new home in the country. We hope to get that move carried out at the beginning of next term. It is then proposed to hand over the buildings which have been occupied by the Royal Hospital School at Greenwich to a board of trustees under the Office of Works, and there to create a suitable, and I hope impressive, Naval museum. Those relics which exist, as my hon. Friend said, in large numbers, and in very inadequate accommodation in the Painted Hall and other places, will then be displayed under better conditions.
  Curiously enough, no one has drawn attention in this Debate to the value of the trade which the Navy, to my mind, exists to protect. I think it is perhaps worth while to point out that last year the declared value of our imports and our exports was £1,119,000,000, and that the estimates for the naval defence of that vast trade represent less than 5 per cent. of its value. Only four months ago the First Lord himself reminded the House that every day there comes into our ports 110,000 tons of merchandise and 50,000 tons of foodstuffs. It is quite true that the conquest of the air has already compelled us to envisage the naval defence of our 80,000 miles of trade routes from a new angle, and may require us to make further modifications. The Royal Air Force can co-operate with, and can in some cases supplement, but in my view it can never supplant the Navy in this vital role of commerce protection, and it is, in the words of the preamble to the old Naval Discipline Act, 1866:
  " the Navy whereon, under the providence of God, the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depend."

  PERSONNEL.
  8.50 p.m.
  Captain PETER MACDONALD: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
  " in the opinion of this House, it is essential that special attention should he paid to the provision of ample qualified personnel, both on the active and reserve lists of the Royal Navy, with an adequate margin for drafting and training, and to the maintenance of the high standard of training necessary to meet the increasingly responsible duties caused by modern naval developments."

  2237
  In moving this Amendment I do not intend to dwell at any great length upon general considerations. The necessity for this country to maintain an adequate and efficient Navy has not only been dealt with in this Debate but has been maintained by men of practical intelligence for many centuries past. However much we may deplore it, the fact remains that whatever negotiations have taken place with the nations of the world since the War have not encouraged us to place any reliance in, or to leave our people dependent upon, such security as may be attained by international agreement. So long as this country remains dependent not only for its prosperity but for its very existence upon its trade routes, so long is it absolutely essential that we should maintain an adequate force to protect us from such weapons as may be employed against our trade routes by our potential enemies. I know there are people in this House who take the view that the developments of aviation since the War should cause us to take an entirely different view of the methods to be employed for the defence of this Realm and the Empire. Whatever may be said for the co-ordination of the Navy and the Air Force I still maintain that the main work of protecting the trade routes must rest upon the Navy. Aircraft, both military and civil, can be countered by anti-aircraft guns and by other aircraft, and if aircraft are to operate over our trade routes it is absolutely essential that they should have bases from which to operate. These bases can only be provided by ships, and ships of His Majesty's Navy. Ultimately, therefore, whatever may be said for co-ordination between the two Services, the main duty of defending the -trade routes must remain with His Majesty's Navy. Furthermore, as aviation develops, and aircraft operate further and further from their home bases on land, it becomes more necessary that the trade routes of the country must be forced further and further afield from the normal trade routes, which will entail not fewer ships but more and bigger ships for their protection.
  The case for a strong and efficient Navy being made out, what are the Lords of the Admiralty doing to maintain that strength and efficiency? I note in the Estimates that provision is being made
  2238
  for new construction. Whatever criticism may be offered in opposition to this expenditure, and there has been considerable criticism, I maintain that in view of the delayed Programmes for construction in the last few years the increase of £3,000,000 in the present Estimates for this purpose is a very small one. In addition, there is the further consideration. that this new construction is giving employment to thousands of men who otherwise would be unemployed. It is estimated that 80 per cent. of the cost of a ship is for labour, and that 80 per cent., and perhaps more, is being paid or will be paid in wages to men who otherwise would have no means of livelihood for some time to come.
  Arguing from that basis alone, the laying down of these new hulls is justified. I know that there are people whom the First Lord described as "bloody-minded pacifists"—I think he called them, or "blood-thirsty pacifists"—who main-main that this is a wrong method of spending money on employing labour, but it may be far better to build battleships and have bread than to preach pacifism and starve. That is a view which I am quite sure is taken by many men in our private shipbuilding yards and dockyards. While I welcome the fact that the Estimates provide for an increase in materials and ships, I deplore that corresponding provision is not made for the personnel. I deplore the fact that the personnel has been reduced by an additional 1,100 officers and men this year. That is a very dangerous tendency. When you consider that the personnel has been decreased by 13,000 in the last five years, it makes us wonder if the Lords of the Admiralty are placing far too much reliance upon the mechanics of the Navy and are not sufficiently considering the old argument that it is the men who man the ships and that it is a question of the man behind the gun.
  The London Naval Treaty places no restriction upon personnel. It is interesting to notice what other great Powers have done and how they have taken advantage of that fact. In 1914 the United States had 67,258 officers and men, and in 1932 they had 107,000 officers and men, an increase of 40,000. Japan in 1914 had 50,645 officers and men, and in 1932 89,000, or an increase of 39,000. Italy in 1914 had 40,023 officers and men, and in 1932 53,000, or an increase of 13,000.

  2239
  Great Britain in 1914 had 146,047 officers and men, and in 1932 91,410, a decrease of 54,637. The United States from 1914 to 1932 increased their personnel by 59 per cent.; Japan in the same period increased her personnel by 75 per cent., and Italy by 32 per cent. Great Britain decreased her personnel by no less than 37 per cent., until to-day she is on the same basis as Japan, whereas according to the London Naval Treaty the Japanese Navy should have been at a ratio of three to five compared with ours. In view of those figures, I am inclined to ask whether the Lords of the Admiralty are sufficiently considering the necessity of maintaining a personnel, as well as ships and guns, to man the Navy in the future.
  I come to the question of training. I am very pleased to learn from the Memorandum accompaning the Estimates that provision is being made for the training of the active personnel. I was pleased to hear from the First Lord that greater attention is to be given to the individual responsibility of young officers and petty officers in the Service. On the whole, that seems quite satisfactory. It is regrettable to hear that the Admiralty have had to cut down on the question of sea-training. I know that there are many arguments, in these times of economy, for cutting down expenditure, but I ask if it is wise to cut down so severely in sea-training. The questions of fuel and of the wear and tear of guns and machinery are strong arguments, but nevertheless I have always been of the impression that an essential part of the training of a sailor and of a seaman was in seamanship and navigation. Unless officers and men are to be given a chance of sea-training, I cannot see how they can be prepared to meet an emergency when it arises. I share the regret of the First Lord that sail-training is not looked upon with favour by the Lords of the Admiralty. That is very unfortunate. It is, to my mind, a very economical form of training, because no fuel is required and no machinery is likely to be in any way damaged. You have the opportunity of sending cadets to sea for long periods to get the experience of seamanship and navigation which every sailor should have.
  I remember on returning from a cruise, a couple of years ago, being on the bridge
  2240
  one day with the captain of the ship when he said: "Will you look through that glass? You will see a very fine sight, one which you will never see again." I said "What is that?" He replied, "It is one of the last of the windjammers." I looked through the glass and I did see a very beautiful sight. Against the skyline, in full sail, was a four-masted, full-rigged ship. I knew that everybody on board would be anxious to see it on a pleasure cruise, so I asked the captain if he could change his course and go up nearer. He did, and everybody on board —there were about 2,000 people—rushed to photograph the ship. There is no one who does not treasure that photograph to-day, because there is no sight more pleasing to the eye than a ship in full sail. That ship was the "Bremen," and we were informed that it was a training ship for German cadets. When it drew up nearer, we were told that they had been practically six months at sea, and that they were 14 days out from Amsterdam. Surely that is the kind of training that is needed. Training ships could be obtained from the mercantile marine. Lying on our mud banks are many ships suitable for the training of cadets and officers. Why should they not be commissioned and sent to sea? I regret very much that the Lords of the Admiralty have turned down the, to me, very welcome suggestion of the First Lord as to the adoption of sail-training for naval cadets. It makes me feel that the Lords of the Admiralty to-day have no romance in their souls; it has been driven out by steel and oil.
  There is one other question with which I want to deal, and that is the question of the reserve. It occurs to me that surely, when the active personnel of a Service is being cut down, it becomes all the more necessary to concentrate on the reserves of that Service. One finds that, although the Army is provided this year with £900,000 for the training of Territorials, the Navy is provided with only £355,000 for the training of its reserve. I submit that that is too low a sum. I regret very much that there has been a decrease of £3,000 in Royal Naval Reserve expenditure, and I notice, from the Memorandum of the First Lord, that this is due to smaller requirements for the training of officers and the obligatory training of men. I should like an explanation as to why there is a smaller re-

  2241
  quirement for the training of officers at a time when the active personnel is being cut down. I should have thought that it would have been all the more imperative, in such circumstances, that greater reliance should be placed on the training of reserves. I think that this tendency is a very unfortunate and very dangerous one.
  I also regret very much that the training periods both for the Royal Naval Reserve and for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve have been reduced this year. In the case of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, the only provision made on this Vote is £63,000. Surely, that is a very modest sum, particularly as there are so many Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve officers and men to-day in the Mercantile Marine who are unemployed, and who would jump at the opportunity of putting in some time in training for His Majesty's Navy. I would ask the Financial Secretary if some consideration could not be given to the question of providing further training for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, particularly at the present time, when there is so much unemployment in the Mercantile Marine.
  I notice another list, headed "Officers on Retired and Emergency List," and for the training of that list the sum of £200 is provided. What is this list It contains the names of about 150 officers. I wonder how many of these have had a single day's training since they left the Service? I notice that the name of the First Lord is on that list, and I think that, perhaps, he is the only officer who by virtue of his position has had any connection whatsoever with the Navy since he retired. He shares the honour of being on the list with a captain 77 years of age. I am wondering what kind of emergency would bring that veteran hurtling back to the Colours, and whether he would be allowed to bring his bath chair with him? Surely it is time that these lists were gone into further. If it is necessary to have an emergency list, there are 10,000 retired officers who could be drawn upon, instead of having a redundant list, such as this, of officers who in many cases are over 70.
  We have heard a good deal to-day about the training of cadets. In that connection there has been a good deal of vacillation in the past. I think the first idea was that boys should be entered at
  2242
  a very early age, 13 or 14, that they should spend four or five years in the "Britannia," and should then be sent to sea. Subsequently, it was decided that they should spend two years at Osborne and two years at Dartmouth, with a year at sea. Since then the "Britannia" has been scrapped, Osborne has been scrapped, and all that remains of the old system of training is Dartmouth. One or two speakers, who have, perhaps, a greater knowledge of the Navy than anyone else in the House, and particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burnley (Vice-Admiral Campbell), suggested that the percentage of selected candidates for Dartmouth is too small. In fact, my hon. and gallant Friend even went further and said that Dartmouth should be done away with altogether. I do not go that far; I think there is room for Dartmouth; but there is room also for cutting down in the cost of that institution. It cost about £50,000 this year over and above the fees paid by the parents of cadets. I think that that is rather a large sum, and could be cut down. I agree, however, that there is scope for a greater number of cadets for the Navy being chosen from public schools. I think, myself, that the age of 13 or 14 is too young for a boy to be expected to decide definitely what his future career is to be, whereas at the age of 17½ he has some idea of what his qualifications and his desires are, and has a far better chance, if he enters the Service at that age of making a success of his career than if he is pushed into it at 13 or 14, sometimes, perhaps, against his will, and expected to make a success of it.
  I should like to ask whether the Navy is not to-day too much at the mercy of the technician? We seem to be pouring out money on technical improvements in the Navy. We are spending as much as £1,500,000 on a small ship, and as much as £1,000,000 on reconditioning an old ship nearly 20 years of age, but, nevertheless, we find that the cost of the active personnel and reserve is continually being cut down. I cannot help feeling that that policy is dangerous and unwise. I would like to know, as others have indicated to-day that they would like to know, whether the Admiralty is not a little too expensive. When we consider that the active personnel has dropped by 37 per cent. since 1914, while the civilian

  2243
  personnel at the Admiralty has increased by 65 per cent., it makes us wonder how these people are employed. I know that the clerical work of the Admiralty has greatly increased since 1914, but it seems to me that that percentage is thoroughly out of proportion, and that the matter should be looked into. I see that, by certain changes which the First Lord enumerated to-day, a saving is to be made, but only a saving of £10,000. When one considers £10,000 in relation to £53,000,000, it is a very small amount indeed to save on that Department.
  I think also there might be a great saving, both in money and in efficiency, if sailors were not retired at such an early age. Forty years of age, when they are at their prime and at the height of their efficiency, is far too early and is far too heavy an expense to be borne by the taxpayers, because that adds to the non-effective Vote, which has gone up from £8,000,000 two years ago to £9,000,000 this year, and it will be increasing each year. Surely a great deal could be saved by keeping men on after the age of 40. It would save not only in the efficiency of the Navy but in other ways. The men who retire are swelling the ranks of the unemployed among the mercantile marine. That is a very serious matter, and it is causing a good deal of feeling between the Services. Why the men should be retired at 40 when an officer only reaches that stage at the age of 50 and is kept on the active list until 65 I cannot conceive. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give some explanation. I hope he will take these suggestions and criticisms that I have made as constructive as they were intended to be. It is very difficult to find anything fundamentally or radically wrong with the personnel or training of the Navy. I have come in contact with them a great deal, and I say without hesitation that a finer, or a more efficient body of men will not be found in the world. But in spite of that, I do not think it does to look upon the matter with too much complacency, and it is because I believe that on the strength and the efficiency of the Navy depend the security not only of this country but of the whole Empire, and the peace of the world that I move this Amendment.
  9.18 p.m.
  Commander MARSDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I do so with the greater pleasure because I think my hon. and gallant Friend has certainly struck the right subject for discussion. As far as construction goes, we are more or less tied down by our various Treaties, but in the manning and training of the Fleet we have a subject on which the House can do a lot of useful work, I do not say by adversely criticising the existing training but rather by helping the First Lord by urging him on to further efforts in that direction. At the first glance it would appear that, in regard to the numbers of the Navy, we are very much down on last year, but I now appreciate the fact that the lowest ebb of the whole of the financial year is to-day. Every day after this we shal have more men. There are 800 more boys under training this year than last. Then there is the direct entry of ordinary seamen, which started last October. Allowing about 200 men to each of the three ports, at the end of the financial year I estimate that that will give about another 800 men. I do not think that number is anything like satisfactory. I had it in mind to suggest something that my hon. and gallant Friend has already mentioned, and that is that we should utilise in some manner the unemployed in the mercantile marine. When we enter men on the short service system, as far as I know they need have no qualifications beyond possessing certain physical requirements and some sort of education, but not very much. It seems an extraordinary thing to enter men as seamen who need have no knowledge whatever of the sea. If you enter them for any other trade, the first qualification is that they should be really masters of that trade. So I suggest that we might consider the large number of seafaring young men along our coasts who would already have valuable qualities before they entered the Navy, including a close knowledge of the sea, probably greater than most men rated as seamen in the Navy would acquire after 22 years' service. They also understand discipline and know that the captain is captain of the ship and gives the orders.
  My hon. and gallant Friend has suggested that the reserve should be enlarged and that these men might be used in the Fleet now. I should like to

  2245
  suggest another form of short service entry of five years for young men who can bring some certificate to show that they have some experience and knowledge of the sea. If they are entered for a short period, they have not a long term of years before them in case they do not like the conditions. We were told to-day that there were 42,000 unemployed in the mercantile marine, an increase of 5,000 in six months. Surely amongst them there must be several thousands whom we might enrol for five years service. It would be economical. We could explain that they could not get married and would not receive a marriage allowance and there would be no question of a pension for them, though I hope we could be generous enough to give them some reasonable bonus at the end of their term, always leaving an avenue open for a few who might be exceptional to remain on. I commend that suggestion to the Admiralty. The difficulty with the men is this, and it applies to the officers as well. The boys that we get are of the highest standard. They come in with very high qualifications and receive a very sound training, I imagine considerably sounder than officers got years ago, and they come to sea bursting with enthusiasm, thinking they are going to be immediately rated up to petty officers and, perhaps, chosen as sub-lieutenants and going on to higher ranks.
  In practice the number who can do that is very small indeed, yet their qualifications up to a point are all equal, so it seems to me that, if we are going to satisfy the lower deck, we must have some other system. The more we bring in this sort of short service men, who can do a large number of duties in the ships which do not require any particularly skilled training beyond an ordinary sense of the sea and common knowledge, the better is the chance of promotion to the higher ranks of those who enter as boys and are trained for our service. Then, as they go on, they may get a chance of being chosen for sub-lieutenants. The expression "promotion from the lower deck" is entirely misleading, because those young seamen who are chosen for the rank of sub-lieutenant have been in the Service a very short time and have had no real opportunity of showing what they can do as petty officers. They merely show a certain promise that in
  2246
  certain conditions they may become good officers.
  I am afraid that the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) was rather perturbed about these promotions from the lower deck, but it would not say ninth for our entry and our education through the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth if these seamen sub-lieutenants could reasonably compete. You may get an exceptional case, but, taking it generally, the seaman sub-lieutenant cannot hope to compete for promotion with the officer who has achieved his position either through the Royal Naval College at Dartmouth or is a direct entry public school cadet. Consequently as he gets on in life, he gets rather discouraged and sees no further promotion and settles down in that state of mind, which I dare say we can all appreciate, that he wants the best and softest job he can get until the day comes when he can get his pension. I suggest that the Admiralty should make sure of quite a different type of lower deck promotion. It is the warrant officer who has shown and proven his worth. It would mean promoting this type of man to lieutenant, probably in the early thirties. He would be lieutenant-commander when about 40, and could go on and retire with the rank of commander and full pension, well satisfied with his career in His Majesty's service.
  These men also could often really better perform some of the duties which are done now by lieutenant-commanders who are passed over in promotion, and who go on waiting for their time to come. The promoted warrant officer is in an entirely different position. He has achieved something, and it is up to him to fulfil his job as well as he can until the end of this service. We come then to the commander—for the big jump is from lieutenant-commander, and then from commander to captain. The number promoted from one rank to the other is pitiably small. There, again, once an officer is out of the zone it is simply a question of waiting for the year to come when he can retire on the highest maximum pension. The First Lord has laid, great stress on age. There I do not agree with him at all. When I was a midshipman I used to think that 40 was quite old, but when I arrived at the age of 40 I was not at all of that opinion. After

  2247
  all, what is age? Experts tell us that you cannot judge a lady by the years she has lived, but rather by her looks. I know perfectly well that you cannot judge a man by his age. I would not judge a man even by his agility. We want a man whose brain is strong, who can visualise a position and give strong orders and see that they are carried out. What have years got to do with that? It is the man himself.
  It was not the young man that you called in in the awkward situation in the Fleet about two years ago. We did not send for any young admiral but for one of the oldest seagoing admirals of the Fleet and a man who, if he had not had that opportunity, would probably never have been employed again. So I do hope the Admiralty will keep out this idea of age and come to some other arrangement which will ensure that the best officers are retained irrespective of age. The First Lord said that thanks were due, as they undoubtedly are, to the six senior admirals who have gone in order to start the flow of promotion right down to lieutenant-commander. That was very noble and patriotic of them. It was not quite satisfactory for the captain who was employed and who might have been employed a year or two longer, but who has had to come to the top of the list, without the slightest desire to do so, and has had to be promoted and retire the next day, but it was satisfactory for the commander who could get promotion to captain. Although that may have covered an emergency, I hope the First Lord will not look upon it as a regular or permanent method of keeping the circulation of promotion going. All that has to do with men and officers.
  May I say a word about the actual training of the Fleet at sea? I do wish more money could be spent on fuel and munitions, because training is everything. I, personally, had some considerable experience in small ships at sea, and I know full well what it means. Take the ordinary destroyer, and compare it with what destroyers used to be. At Cowes last year I saw a beautiful destroyer, shining with enamel, and perfect. I went down into the engine-room to pass the customary compliments to her engineer, remarking that the engines must have been made by Cartier.
  2248
  The vessel was very wonderful, but I do not feel altogether sure that that ship would be any more effective in a night attack in a rough sea against the enemy than the ships of 15 years ago with the very experienced type of officers to command them—not that I am saying anything against the present officers. On a ship the man is everything. I know full well that in the War if any commander-in-chief had to send out a destroyer for a certain job he would not say, "Has that ship a good gunnery or torpedo record?" He would look at the list of officers and say, "That is the chap; send him to me. I do not care what the ship is; it is the fellow I want. He is going to be in the right place and do the right thing." If you accept that, you can balance the ability, training and experience of the commanding officer against all the other assets of gunnery, torpedoes and everything else. Therefore, I ask the First Lord to give every opportunity to these ships to undergo the fullest system of training as near active service conditions as possible.
  That brings me to one other subject, training in sailing ships. I did not quite agree last year with the possibility of training all boys in sailing ships. I knew what that meant. It meant having small sailing ships going round the coast, attached to somebody, for in the Navy you always have to be attached to someone. Those ships would have gone out for sailing purposes and training with orders to be back on a certain date because of arrangements made for them ashore. I, myself, was in favour of rather a different form of training, and I still hope it may be brought about. I have in mind rather the training of men who have shown themselves good seamen and men who would become good petty officers. Out of these there may be selected a certain number to go to sea in sailing ships, not in the small ship, such as a brig or sloop but a well-found ship of some size, with a complement of 300 or 400 men who might make a long voyage round the Horn or to Australia or the Cape. I do not think that there is any man who knows anything about it who will disagree with me when I say that if that ship went off under no orders but those of her captain, the men would return in a few months much better men than when they went.

  2249
  The cost is not great, not so much as a modern destroyer, and the ship's life is five times as long. The actual consumption of stores is also very small. I hope engines would not be put in her at all. She might be tempted to start the engines going out but on the way back I can see the engines not functioning at all, and the company waiting three weeks outside Plymouth Sound in order to come in under full sail at the proper time. I hope the First Lord will stick to it. He has been talked off it, and I hope he will again show his great powers of persuasion and get this done. I hope it will be realised that you cannot have training without money. Money must be spent in fuel and ammunition, and I do feel that an extra £200,000 or £300,000 spent in that way would be far more to the advantage of the Fleet than large sums we are now spending on reconditioning capital ships. The "Repulse," for example, has just come in for 2 to 2½ years refit costing probably the best part of £750,000. Whatever we have in the way of numbers of ships, I feel sure that the Motion will commend itself to the House. It is merely to ensure that however small and insignificant our Fleet may be, it shall be the best manned, most efficient and best equipped fleet of its size in the world.
  9.36 p.m.
  Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea (Commander Marsden) have been members or not of any of the economy committees about which we have heard so much in recent days, but, apparently, neither of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen is satisfied with the proposals which have been put before the House to-day involving an increase in the Navy Estimates of over £3,000,000. Both of the hon. and gallant Gentlemen are asking for more, and I cannot refrain from making a few comments in view of that fact. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight used the phrase that he thought the Admiralty in these days was too much at the mercy of the technicians. Does he think that the Admiralty are their own masters in a matter of that description? Is it not rather that
  2250
  if the Admiralty did not pursue certain policies in regard to technical development they would be ousted by their competitors in other parts of the world? Is it not a fact that if technical developments were not initiated by the Admiralty they would be forced upon them by developments elsewhere, and are not the same processes going on in technical warfare as are going on in industry? Surely, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must know, when talking about the decline in personnel, that part of such decline is due to technical changes. In 1914 we had 39,000 stoker ratings in the Navy and now we have only 18,000 which is largely due, of course, to the change from coal to oil. Obviously, these technical changes bring about reductions in personnel. It is extraordinarily difficult to follow the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member in regard to increasing the personnel of the Royal Navy, when he must know from his own experience and from his knowledge of the Navy that the continual technical changes which have taken place analogous to changes in industry are calculated to reduce personnel, and not to increase it.
  I did not hear the opening sentences of the hon. and gallant Member's speech, but when I came into the House he was talking about the protection of trade routes. I cannot help thinking that although the trade routes will be there for a long time, the trade along those routes will be non-existent if His Majesty's Government continue to pursue their present policy much longer. The routes will be there, but there will be no trade to protect if present policies are pursued. Consequently, that may result in the naval economies which many of us on these benches desire. Everybody has been impressing upon us the great need for economy. Ministers have told us about it, and so have back benchers and Members who support His Majesty's Government. I am certain that all Chancellors of the Exchequers would desire to reduce taxation. It is only because of the geographical and the historical traditions of the Admiralty that probably they have this year been able to wring additional expenditure out of an unwilling Chancellor of the Exchequer. He must have been unwilling in view of the very great difficulties. I

  2251
  see that the First Lord shakes his head. I am very glad to know that in certain directions the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to spend some money. He is certainly not willing to spend money in the direction I want him to spend it. At any rate, I must take the word of the First Lord that he was not unwilling on this occasion. If you spend money like this at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have great difficulty in balancing his Budget, I think that before we go into the Lobby hon. and gallant Members who have made speeches in favour of a larger Navy and increased personnel which involves increased expenditure ought to be asking themselves certain questions. In four or five weeks from now they will be asking for reductions in the Income Tax, and I suggest that it is to-day they ought to be thinking about that matter.
  Commander MARSDEN: My hon. Friend must realise that having made my suggestion for spending money, I put in a suggestion that the money should be taken off the amount now being used for refitting the big ships and used to better advantage for training. It would not mean any extra expenditure on the total Estimate.
  Mr. BROWN: That may be the position with regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the Amendment, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Mover made no such qualification. I must accept the word of the hon. and gallant Member when he says that he does not want additional expenditure. He thinks that all he requires through the instrumentality of this Amendment could be obtained without additional expenditure. I take his word for it, but that does not alter the general argument. I am asking hon. Members who are in favour, of economy and who four or five weeks from now will be asking for reductions in Income Tax to think about the matter to-day. On that occasion there will be another group of hon. Members—perhaps I shall be among them—asking for a reduction in the Beer Duty, but it is to-day that we ought to be thinking about that matter and not in a month's time. If to-day hon. Members go into the Lobby and support proposals which will make it difficult for the Chan-
  2252
  cellor of the Exchequer to balance his Budget, let alone reduce taxation, how inconsistent will it be in four or five weeks' time to ask for reductions in taxation? Let hon. and gallant Members think about it now, and when a Division is taken go into the Lobby with us against the proposed additional increase in naval expenditure.
  9.44 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): I am sure that all Members of the House who are interested in naval affairs will join with me in thanking the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) for raising a subject which is of such paramount importance to the Navy in the interest both of the efficiency and welfare of the Fleet. I need hardly say that we on this bench fully endorse the terms of his Amendment. In his opening sentences he gave us an interesting comparison of the numbers of our personnel with the numbers of the personnel of other countries. I do not propose to follow him very far in that direction, but I would point out that the size of Vote A is determined by the size of our Fleet, and that again is controlled by various agreements which have been come to at Washington and in London, and also by the decision of the Board of Admiralty as to the number of ships which are to be kept in commission. A Debate on those lines would, therefore, be most interesting and, I venture to say, most profitable. But it raises the whole question of naval policy, which I think is far too wide for this Amendment.
  I would ask hon. Members not to pay too much attention to actual numbers. Every country has a different method of manning its ships different countries' ships of the same tonnage and armament might have an entirely different complement, and it must not be assumed from that fact that the ship with the smaller complement is any the less efficient. Efficiency is determined by the quality, not by the quantity, of the men in the ship. You might as well suggest that to level up the difference between Oxford and Cambridge you should put another man into the Oxford boat, but I do not think that you would find much gratitude for that suggestion. He would only get in the way, and he would find nowhere

  2253
  to sit down. The same condition would apply in modern ships. You only put in enough men for the work that there is for them to do, and—what is in these days very important—for the accommodation which is available for them. I can assure hon. Members that full weight is given to the highest standards of training and of fighting ability when the complement of our ships is fixed.
  But I would rather deal to-night with a point of more pressing importance, and that is our actual requirements and our present difficulties. This is a very opportune moment to raise this particular discussion. For many years past cuts have been made in Vote A. It has been a very popular form of economy, and I cannot blame my predecessors, who have all been hard pressed, for having availed themselves of this measure. It is a very simple matter to put a ship into reserve, and so to be able to produce economies, and that reduction goes the whole way through the Votes, not only in the pay, but in the clothing, the victualling and the expenses of keeping a ship in commission. So it will be widely understood that that has been a popular way of making the reductions which have been enforced by economy. Now the full effect of that reduction has not been felt until this year. You can put a ship into reserve in a very short time, but it is obviously impossible to get rid of the men in the same time. That would be an arbitrary and unfair way of dealing with them: because their ship is put into reserve, to get rid of them at very short notice. You have perforce to keep them until the period of their engagement has expired.
  In recent years, therefore, we have been carrying more men than the fleet actually requires. We have had the use of them, and therefore have not until this year felt the problem to its full extent. This condition, as the First Lord told us in his speech, no longer exists. We are now down to the low limit; in fact this year there has got to be some small increase. The figures at the end of this financial year are going to be 89,350; by the end of the next financial year, for which these Estimates have been framed, it goes up by nearly 1,000. This, then, is the key year. We have reached the datum line, or the limit, which has been mathematically calculated according to the number of ships in com-
  2254
  mission and other requirements of His Majesty's Navy, with, in addition, a small margin which is in no sense a pool for emergencies but simply sufficient extra men to enable the machinery of drafting to work. Mathematically, we make no allowances for illness, leave, and other reasons of absence of that kind, but in practice, of course, we have to make allowances for that and for the time taken up in transport. For this reason we have to have a small margin simply to enable the machinery of drafting to work at all.
  I can assure the House that drafting is one of the most difficult problems which the Admiralty has to face. It is dependent on so many human factors and so many varying conditions. In working on our various drafting plans we keep two main objects in view. The first is to make as few changes in commissions as possible; that point has been fully stressed not only in this Debate but even more in the Debate last year, and I do not think that one can possibly exaggerate its importance. If you can only get these full two-year commissions without any large number of changes in the personnel, you give a chance to the men to settle down, to the officers thoroughly to know their men, and to the men thoroughly to know their jobs. Our second object, equally important, is to get a fair division of every man's time between foreign service, service in the Home Fleet, and shore service, that is, in establishments on land. It can be readily understood that this fair division is a question of the very greatest importance, particularly to the older seamen who have got wives and families on shore.
  In order to achieve these objects and to counteract the present shortage, we have adopted several administrative expedients. One has been that active service ratings in certain shore establishments have been replaced by pensioners. Another one has been that ships on a foreign station have come home and paid off before the new ships which are to relieve them have commissioned. Now it is quite obvious that these expedients. are not good in themselves. They are not expedients which we could recommend for general adoption, but we feel that they are, on the whole, better than the major evil of continued changes in the ships' companies during commissions,

  2255
  particularly in the Home Fleet. We are now engaged in working out a scheme of drafting which we hope, in combination with the increase in Vote A, will prove to be a real cure. Sailors, whether they be officers or men, must realise that a little over half their time must be spent on foreign service. When they are at home their time is divided equally between service in the Home Fleet and shore service, which covers barracks and training establishments. It is very clear that if you want, say, a two-years' undisturbed commission in the Home Fleet —which is the period at which we aim—then officers and men do approximately five years abroad and five years at home, the five years abroad almost always being broken by a spell up to six months at home. This is the principle upon which we propose to work in the future, and which we hope will meet with success.
  The whole problem of drafting would be comparatively simple if all men belonged to the same category. You would then only need rough-and-ready divisions into those men you want for your foreign service, those for service in the Home Fleet, and those for service with the shore establishments. But it is greatly complicated by the fact that there are no less than 100 groups of men, all of which have to have their own particular drafting margins. These particular groups or grades of men are really necessary because they are the only men who can carry out particular work in such a complicated machinery as a modern ship of war. The comparatively simple problem which drafting must have presented in years gone by now becomes a jigsaw puzzle of the most formidable dimensions.
  I cannot leave the subject of personnel without touching on the chances of promotion. This is obviously a matter affecting the interests and welfare of all ranks in the Navy. Numbers affect materially the chances of promotion. At the top of each rank there is a funnel through which only a limited number can reach the next stage. As far as officers are concerned we are working at it from both ends. We are clearing the top of the list accelerating promotion to captains by one year; and at the same time we are investigating the possibility of reducing the number of posts in a ship which
  2256
  need be filled by junior officers, thus limiting new entrants in proportion. Obviously, the fewer the number of new cadets in the Navy, provided that the senior appointments remain the same, the greater will be the chances of anyone in attaining them. This reduction in the duties of junior officers also fulfils another purpose. It gives a much needed experience to senior petty officers. If the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) had read the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning he would have found that several of his questions were answered last night. The number of promotions from the lower deck for the coming year have not yet been settled. In answer to a question yesterday I told the hon. Member that the reason only eight promotions for sub-lieutenants and four in the engineering branches were made, was that although a greater number had been selected these were the only persons qualified.
  One word about the new scheme of promotion from the lower deck. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Battersea North (Commander Marsden) that the promotion of warrant officers to lieutenants is still going on and has not been interfered with in any way by the new scheme. Those interested in this matter will know that the object of the new scheme is to equalise the chances of lower-deck promotions with those who come in as cadets. Previously they were selected at a, rather older age than cadets, and quite apart from any disadvantage they may have in having less educational facilities there was the added disadvantage of starting life as a sub-lieutenant several years older than their colleagues from the special entry class or the cadets. The Whole point of the scheme is to remedy that evil, and to select them soon after they have joined the ship, give them as much training in the ship as possible, and eventually send them for a preliminary course at Greenwich before they are assimilated into the sub-lieutenants' course at Greenwich; and then go through the remaining stages of the Navy pari passu with those who come in by special entry and the cadets.
  So far I have only dealt with the promotion of officers, but we are equally sympathetic with the desire of ratings for chances of promotion One of the disadvantages of the scheme propounded

  2257
  by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight to lengthen the service for men beyond the normal 22 years by another five years, would, obviously, be to retard promotion. The men would be much older before reaching responsible rank. It would also materially affect the number of reserves. I quite agree that we can give men in the ratings a better chance of promotion by taking in a larger number of short-service men, and that is one of the reasons why this year we have recruited just under 1,000 short-service men. The hon. and gallant Member for Battersea North went a step further and suggested that we should take in an additional 5,000 men, not only to help unemployment in the mercantile marine, but also to tide us over our present shortage of numbers. Although that is an extremely interesting and ingenious suggestion I am afraid it is one that we cannot accept because the number of short-service men is limited to the fixed proportion which is allowed in each ship for long-service and short-service men. Furthermore, it would be uneconomic to train short-service men for higher non-substantive rates and petty officers.
  Our desire is to equalise the flow into and out of the Reserve. One of the difficulties we have to face at the present time is that our establishments are full because a great number of men went into the Reserve this year and, therefore, if we wanted more we have not room to train any new recruits. If we were to go back to the ad hoc method suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Battersea, I am afraid that in five years time we should be faced with exactly the same difficulty. The Admiralty policy in regard to recruiting and discharges is to avoid peaks whenever possible. I have been asked whether we are satisfied with the numbers we have got. I can only repeat that we have not room this year to train any more. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) asked whether Vote A numbers would be increased next year. I hope my right hon. Friend will not think me impertinent if I give him the answer given on many occasions by one of the most illustrious leaders of his party, wait and see, until next year's Estimates are introduced.
  This is a test year. We are glad of the opportunity of telling the House some of our drafting difficulties, and to assure them that our future requirements will
  2258
  have to be based on the experience gained during the next 12 months. There is not much to be said with regard to training. The ground was fully covered by the Debate last year and by the speech of the First Lord to-day. But there are one or two points which I do not think have been sufficiently realised. One is that the fuel allowance which was cut last year has now been restored, and that the "Frobisher" taking cadets from Dartmouth and special entrants, has now nearly completed its first voyage.
  I think a word or two ought to be said on the subject of Dartmouth. Several speakers have expressed doubt whether we were getting full advantage from selecting recruits from Dartmouth, and whether we ought not to rely on the special entry, so that we would not have to pay for so many years of their education. Comparisons are odious, and I certainly do not intend to compare the present products of Dartmouth and the special entry. We are getting admirable results from both. I feel convinced that we are now getting the best value for our money. We have promised that at least 25 vacancies shall be given to the special entry for next year. Personally I think that is about the highest number that we will get from civil educational establishments and yet keep up the high standard that has so far been shown. I think the numbers that are now allotted to our own educational establishment are those best suited for the purpose. I must admit that when I first came to the Admiralty I felt some of the doubts that some of my hon. Friends have expressed this afternoon, but I feel quite convinced that the proportion which we are now allotting is the correct one, and that the only criticism which could fairly be levelled against Dartmouth, namely, that of expense, has been fairly met in the Estimates now presented.
  In conclusion I would take an opportunity which is very rarely given of paying a tribute to the Royal Marines, the engineering, accounting and medical branches, and to all classes of Reserves. They carry out their work with such quiet efficiency that they do not get the credit to which they are fully entitled. There are one or two points of interest that the House might like to hear about these various branches. The Royal Marines since the War have suffered from very

  2259
  slow promotion of the officers, on account of reductions which have been made. I am glad to say that that is now adjusting itself and that there are good prospects for young officers in the years to come. With regard to the engineering branch it is important to realise that there is a common entry for cadets in Engineering and Executive Branches and their early training is the same. They then go on to Keyham, where they have a technical education second to none. Both in the Service and out of it they have good prospects. They have particularly good prospects on retirement, owing to the technical education which they have been able to get during their time in the Navy. The conditioning of the "Frobisher" as a sea-going training ship has enabled us to send paymaster cadets to sea for training before their appointment to ships in the seagoing fleets, and that I am sure will be found most advantageous to all concerned. I regret that in the medical branch the shortage of officers still exists. I think the shortage is felt by all the Service departments. It is now the subject of an inquiry by an Inter-Departmental Committee, and we hope soon to find a correct solution of the difficulty.
  Now a few words about the Reserves. I am sure that the House will learn with pleasure that it has been decided that four captains of the Royal Naval Reserve and two captains of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are to hold the rank
  of commodore. The rank is to be given to active and retired officers, and is to be held for life. I hope it will be taken in the spirit in which it is given, as a tribute to the service which they have rendered. I am sure that the whole House will greatly appreciate the patriotism and the devotion to duty shown by the personnel of the Reserve, to whom the Royal Navy owes a deep debt of gratitude.
  The Amendment and the speeches this afternoon have been very comprehensive and have covered practically every branch and department and sphere of activity for which the Admiralty is responsible. I hope that in the speeches which have been made from this bench most of the questions that have been put to us have been answered, and that as a result the House is satisfied that every aspect of the problem affecting the personnel, both in its training and its welfare, is receiving and will continue to receive the closest continuous attention of the Lords of the Admiralty.
  Captain P. MACDONALD: I would thank the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty for his comprehensive reply to the points I raised, and, in view of its satisfactory nature, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 30.

  Division No. 85.]

  AYES.

  [10.12 p.m.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Albery, Irving James

  Carver, Major William H.

  Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univ.)

  Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Fermoy, Lord

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Clarke, Frank

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Applln, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Clayton, Dr. George C.

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Apsley, Lord

  Cobb, Sir Cyril

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Coiman, N. C. D.

  Ganzonl. sir John

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

  Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Gillett, Sir George Masterman

  Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.

  Cook, Thomas A.

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Copeland, Ida

  Gluckstein, Louis Halie

  Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)

  Craven-Ellis, William

  Goff, Sir Park

  Bernays, Robert

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Borodale, Viscount

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Boulton, W. W.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Greene, William P. C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

  Cross, R. H.

  Grimston, R. V.

  Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

  Crossley, A. C.

  Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Broekiebank, C. E. R.

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

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Brown, Ernest (Leith)

  Dickie, John P.

  Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

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

  Donner, P. W.

  Hanbury, Cecil

  Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

  Doran, Edward

  Harbord, Arthur

  Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

  Duggan, Hubert John

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

  Burnett, John George

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)

  Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

  Cadogan, Hon. Edward

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)

  Elmiey, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Slater, John

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Moreing, Adrian C.

  Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)

  Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Alton)

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Somervell, Donald Bradley

  Hornby, Frank

  Nail, Sir Joseph

  Somervllie, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Howard, Tom Forrest

  Normand, Wilfrid Guild

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

  Nunn, William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)

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

  Pearson, William G.

  Stones, James

  Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Percy, Lord Eustace

  Storey, Samuel

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Peters, Dr. Sidney John

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Petherick, M.

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.

  Jennings, Roland

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Templeton, William P.

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

  Thompson, Luke

  Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

  Kerr, Hamilton W.

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Thorp, Linton Theodore

  Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

  Law, Sir Alfred

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

  Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Lackie, J. A.

  Reid, William Allan (Derby)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Lees-Jones, John

  Remer, John R.

  Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.

  Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

  Lindsay, Noel Ker

  Robinson, John Roland

  Wairender, Sir Victor A. G.

  Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeoar-

  Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

  Ross, Ronald D.

  Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

  Mabane, William

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

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

  Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Mallalieu, Edward Lanceiot

  Salt, Edward W.

  Wise, Alfred R.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Womersley, Walter James

  Marsdon, Commander Arthur

  Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)

  Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

  Martin, Thomas B.

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Svnoaks)

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Selley, Harry R.

  Merriman, Sir F. Boyd

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Mitchell, Harold 'P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

  Shaw, Helen S. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Lord Erskine and Commander Southby.

  NOES.

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Nathan, Major H. L.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Banfield, John William

  Groves, Thomas E.

  Price, Gabriel

  Batey, Joseph

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

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

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Buchanan, George

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Hirst, George Henry

  Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  Daggar, George

  Lunn, William

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Edwards, Charles

  Maxton, James

  Mr. John and Mr. C. Macdonald.

  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Supply accordingly considered in Commitee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  PERSONNEL.
  Resolved,
  "That 90,300 Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service, together with 865 for the Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships, at the Royal Marine Divisions, and at Royal Air Force Establishments, for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."
  WAGES, ETC., OF OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ROYAL NAVY AND ROYAL MARINES, AND CIVILIANS EMPLOYED ON FLEET SERVICES.
  Resolved,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £12,593,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, etc., of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services,
  2262
  which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."
  WORKS, BUILDINGS AND REPAIRS AT HOME AND ABROAD.
  Resolved,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £2,184,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Repairs at Home and Abroad, including the cost of Superintendence, Purchase of Sites, Grants, and other Charges connected therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."
  VICTUALLING AND CLOTHING FOR THE NAVY.
  Resolved,
  " That a sum, not exceeding £3,099,800, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Victualling and Clothing for the Navy, including the cost of Victualling Establishments at Home and Abroad which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934."
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]
  Resolved,
  " That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ended on the 31st day of March, 1932, the sum of £97 1s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolved,
  " That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1933, the sum of £187,180 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolved,
  " That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1934, the sum of £208,772,100 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GENERAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. BATEY: Surely this Bill is not going through without a protest. I am sorry to speak at such a late hour, but it means so much to some of us in the distressed areas that we are bound to make a protest before the Bill goes through. It will not help the distressed areas in the least. To-night the House has spent its time in granting an increase of £3,000,000 to the Navy, and it is shameful that the Minister should give us only £350,000 for the second grant period. A better case can be made out for a larger sum of money for the distressed areas than can be made out for a larger sum for the Navy. When we know that three county councils and 20
  2264
  county boroughs are to have divided among them only £145,000, it means that some of our distressed areas will really get nothing and they will be in a serious condition with the cost of Poor Law jumping up as it is. The estimate for public assistance expenditure in Durham has increased enormously during the last three years. In 1931 the expenditure for public assistance was £920,000. This year the estimate is £1,376,000. As we are to get only £145,000 to be divided among three county councils and 20 county boroughs, we are entitled to protest against the very small amount which the Minister is offering for distressed areas.
  The Minister surely cannot realise how the numbers of those in receipt of Poor Law relief are increasing. As a matter of fact, the increase per week for Poor Law relief in Durham is £1,499. That entitles us to far more generous treatment from the Government than we are receiving. When an hon. Member, not of our party, but of the party opposite, raised the question of the distressed areas the other day, I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Minister was considering some alteration in the second grant period, and that the period which we were deciding in this Bill would not operate for the four years. I understood that it might operate for two or three years, but not for as long as four years. Even a second grant period of two years will leave us for this year and next year in a very critical position. Before this Bill goes through the Minister should tell us what he means to do for the distressed areas to help them in their very serious position, just what he is thinking of doing, and when we may expect some financial help for the distressed areas in order to assist them to meet this increasing cost of Poor Law relief. Unless the Minister can do that I think we are entitled to object to the Third Reading of this Bill.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: This Bill is now leaving the House without having gained the strong approval of any Members. The Government can claim no credit for it. They are merely implementing an Act passed three Governments ago, by the Conservative Government in 1929. The right hon. Gentleman has been unfortunate in his legislation. He had to bring forward this Bill, he could not help

  2265
  it and I am not blaming him for that. He has done, as has been explained on more than one occasion, the minimum which the law allows. As the Parliamentary Secretary explained, this is a routine Bill, and it has to be passed very rapidly through all its stages in this House during a time of very severe economic depression when local authorities, obedient to the will of the National Government, have for 18 months economised because they believed that that was the right policy. Now it is quite clear that many Members of this House believe that that policy is a mistaken one, and many local authorities, having done their best to meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government, are to-day faced with a situation which is more difficult on the whole than that of the Imperial Government.
  Since the Bill was introduced great cities, cities which are not in the hands of Members of my own party, but under the control of what may be called "national majorities," Conservative or Liberal, have felt the increasing burden of responsibility placed upon them by the National Government to be so serious that even they have revolted. Whatever may be the truth about the formula under which the Minister has, in this Bill, acted like a robot, the fact is that when that formula was devised nobody could foresee the situation which would obtain in 1933. The situation is this, that because of a world-wide depression, because of an enormous volume of unemployment, because of the deliberate policy of the Government in having forced people off national funds on to local funds, our local authorities are faced with an increasing local burden which is beyond their power to bear. This Bill leaves the House without any gesture of help to local authorities who are helping to bear the national burden. A great city like Liverpool is virtually bankrupt. I was criticised by the Minister for using that term. I used it advisedly. I quoted the words of a member of his own party in the city of Liverpool. This great city, one of the greatest in the Empire, a city which has always been prepared to bear its responsibilities, has had to revolt. It has taken its part in economising under the policy of the Government, but, faced with a Poor Law bill of more than £1,500,000 for the coming year, a burden due not to Liverpool, but to broad economic forces,
  2266
  which did not originate in Liverpool and which cannot be cured in Liverpool, that city to-day is a stricken city. The term "distressed area" with which we have become accustomed in this House during the last ten years, was a term which used to apply to mining or shipbuilding areas, but to-day there are distressed areas that were unknown in this country at that time. Until after 1929, Liverpool would have been ashamed to describe itself as a distressed area. To-day it is distressed.
  The major criticism which can be brought against the Government is that when they had the opportunity, after local authorities had come to their assistance and carried out the policy of economy, of coming to the assistance of local authorities, by doing a little more than the minimum required under the Local Government Act, they did only the minimum. The local authorities, not merely those which had been distressed for 10 years but those which have become distressed during the past two years, might have been given some greater assistance under the 1929 Act. They are given the letter of the law. Only this week there have been appeals from the local authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has not responded. However hard the burden may be upon the taxpayer, during these days of increasing numbers of people on the Poor Law the burden of the rates is much heavier than the burden which falls upon the taxpayer.
  Though this Bill does what is equivalent to what was done in 1929, it does nothing to help the ratepayers, who today are sorely stricken, or the local authorities who are desirous of carrying out their responsibilities. It does nothing to assist those town councils and county councils which to-day are suffering from an enormous burden of unemployment. We have been told that, because of the automatic operation of another formula, certain moneys will go to distressed areas as defined by the formula of the Local Government Act. As much money as goes to those areas will be withdrawn from areas which to-day are becoming as distressed as the areas which have been helped. The operation of the unemployment formula does not help. The enormous mass of unemployment is so large to-day—it is much larger than was contemplated by the Chancellor of the

  2267
  Exchequer when he introduced the Local Government Bill—that the operation of the formula by taking money from one authority and giving it to another does not assist.
  Our case against the Bill is that, in these times with unemployment higher than ever it has been in the history of our country and with burdens falling on local authorities larger than have ever fallen on them before, the Government which might have come to their assistance have failed to do so. I am aware that nothing I can say will alter the decision of the House to-night. The Bill will get its Third Reading, but I desire to make our final protest against the niggardliness of the Government when, after all this cajolery, bullying, and, indeed, misleading of the local authorities, they might have come to their assistance, they have failed to do so. The Government will get their Bill, but the local authorities and all those who are concerned with local government know that His Majesty's Government are imposing on local authorities a burden which it is impossible for them to bear. I should have thought that the Government might have done something to assist them in their difficulty, but they have done no more than an Act passed four years ago prescribes. Their policy has put upon them burdens which are intolerable.
  The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Both of the speakers who have opposed the Third Reading of this Bill have given a very wide sweep to their arguments, and, in so doing, they have followed the same course of action which commended itself to them both on the Financial Resolution and on the Second Reading. If I do not follow them to-night, it is because, on both of those occasions, the House has had already a very full discussion on these points. I will content myself rather, in the first place, with pointing out to the House what is the actual purpose and effect of the Measure which is now proceeding to a Third Reading. I cannot really find better words in which to do it than those used by the right hon. Gentleman. the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) himself on the Second Reading of the Bill. Referring to the principal Clause, the Clause relating to the increase of new money, he said:
  2268
  "The £350,000 is almost exactly what the formula invented by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer required."
  As a matter of fact, it is £2,000 more. In other words, we are doing the sensible thing—we are carrying out the line of action which we laid down at that time, and which was laid down for the purpose of providing certainty and security for local authorities in their difficulties. We are fulfilling the guarantee which we gave. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to complete a perfectly satisfactory account of the situation by the following words:
  " It is difficult in these times to increase that minimum amount."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1933; col. 1083, Vol. 275.]
  It is, indeed, difficult. It is difficult in these times, when, as we know, the resources of the nation have so many calls upon them, to increase that amount beyond what is necessary and essential for the local authorities to carry out the services with which they are charged.
  There are two words which I would say in reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I say them just in order that it may not be supposed that by silence the authority responsible gives assent. He repeated the statement that a great city in this country was bankrupt. I know of no fact and no circumstance which would justify that statement, and I desire that, when any such statement is made in this House, it should be accompanied by as emphatic an official contradiction as can be given. The hon. Member who spoke first used words belittling the effect of the Measure which we are now passing in regard to its assistance to the distressed areas. There, again, the words used by the hon. Member do not give a full and fair account of the position. It is right that the House should be in possession of what that position is before it passes the Bill. Under it we are distributing not £350,000 but £15,000,000 in such a manner as to give a preference to distressed areas. The direct effect of the wording of the formula that we are now enforcing is that, whereas in the first grant period the unemployment factor attracted £1,250,000, in the second grant period it will attract a much larger sum for the benefit of the distressed areas. The additional sum of £350,000 which we are now

  2269
  voting in order to fulfil our guarantee to the local authorities and to keep the spirit and the letter of the pledge given to them will also be distributed in a manner which I have demonstrated on two previous occasions will give a preference to the distressed areas.
  Finally, objection was taken to the Bill as not revealing the Government's programme in regard to larger matters. Of course, it does not do so. It is not an innovating Bill. It is a Bill to carry on certain arrangements in the interests of the local authorities themselves. That we have succeeded in doing, and it is really a feather in the cap of the Government to have succeeded in these arrangements in spite of the great difficulties of the times. On two previous occasions we have had a very full oppor-
  2270
  tunity of discussing the Bill and I trust, now that there is substantial agreement that it is necessary, the House will now give it a Third Reading.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes before Eleven o'clock.

EDUCATION.
  TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).
  ESTABLISHMENTS OF TEACHERS.
  ESTABLISHMENTS OF TEACHERS.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  BACON AND HAMS (IMPORTS).
  BACON AND HAMS (IMPORTS).
  IRISH FREE STATE DAIRY PRODUCE (IMPORT).
  IRISH FREE STATE DAIRY PRODUCE (IMPORT).
  BUTTER MARKING ORDER (CONTRAVENTION).
  BUTTER MARKING ORDER (CONTRAVENTION).
HOUSING.
  TOWN PLANNING (CHINGFORD).
  TOWN PLANNING (CHINGFORD).
  SCHEMES (DIRECT LABOUR).
  SCHEMES (DIRECT LABOUR).
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).
  GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
  GERMANY (BRITISH SUBJECTS).
INDIA.
  SIRE PRISONERS.
  SIRE PRISONERS.
  DR. MOHAMAD ALAM (PASSPORT).
  DR. MOHAMAD ALAM (PASSPORT).
  OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
  OFFICERS TRAINING CORPS.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  PRISON SERVICE.
  ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLES, DURHAM (FARES).
  ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLES, DURHAM (FARES).
  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
  SEVERN BARRAGE SCHEME.
  UNEMPLOYMENT (NEATH AND PONTARDAWE).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (NEATH AND PONTARDAWE).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ADELPHI ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, this Bill, the Adelphi Estate Bill, is an enabling Bill which has received a good deal of attention in the Press, mostly of a hostile character because it is largely founded upon misapprehension. I should like to emphasise the fact that it is an enabling Bill only. The principal object of the Bill is to remove restrictions with regard to the height of buildings on what is known as the foreground; another object is to widen streets; and the last object is to construct two new roads at separate levels, one of which it is proposed should pass along what is now the Adelphi Terrace, and it is upon that particular point that the real opposition to this Bill arises. I am not sure whether I am technically correct, but I am practically correct in saying there is no Preamble opposition to this Bill, and that all the points raised are really Committee points. I should like further to add that the Promoters propose to hand over 800 square feet of their property to the public, and that this represents a very considerable sum, amounting,I believe, to something like £60,000, £70,000, or £80,000. There are other provisions in the Bill, but I do not propose to deal with them, because they are purely Committee points.
Now, my Lords, I think it is just as well that I should at once remove the misapprehension which is widely held with regard to the nature of this Bill. There are many people, possibly some amongst my audience, who are under the impression that this is a Bill to enable a man to pull down Adelphi Terrace. As a matter of fact no Act of Parliament is required for that purpose. The Adelphi Estate and the Adelphi Terrace are private property, and the owner can pull them down whenever he likes. He can set to work to-morrow if he can settle
1192
with his tenants. There is nothing to prevent it, and this point has been clearly established by the answer given in the House of Commons by the First Commissioner of Works on February 7.
It is necessary for me, in order to explain this somewhat complicated measure, to deal for a moment with the past. The Adelphi Estate was, as many people are aware, originally laid out by the Adam brothers, and the Adam brothers in 1771, in conjunction with other owners, amongst whom I imagine were the predecessors of my noble friend Lord Salisbury, promoted a Bill with the object of embanking the river. They succeeded in their attempt. The river was embanked, and what is known as the foreground was vested in these owners, and a provision was inserted that no building of a greater height than 20 feet was to be erected on this foreground. The river continued to abut on the Adelphi Estate property, or the property of the other owners, until the year 1862. In that year the Thames Embankment Act was passed, the Adelphi Estate and the other estates lost their river frontage, the Embankment Gardens were constructed, and the co-called foreground remained in the possession of the owners, but with the restriction which I have already referred to still in existence. In the years 1868 and 1871 Acts were passed enabling the other proprietors— that is to say, the predecessors of my noble friend Lord Salisbury— to obtain the repeal of this restriction, and the result eventually was that the building known as the Savoy Hotel and what is now called the ShellMex building were erected.
What the present proprietor of the Adelphi Estate is asking is to be allowed to do the same as his neighbours have been allowed to do, which does not seem to me to be on the whole an unreasonable request; but when he brings forward this request in the shape of a Bill he is told that in no circumstances can he be permitted to do anything of the kind because, on his property, there is a building of artistic value, and there are many people in this country, including certain societies, who strongly object to interference with it. In other words, this owner is to be penalised because he happens to have on his estate a building of artistic value. If you prevent a man from developing his property as he desires, and if, in short, you prevent him

1193
doing what he wants to do with his own, it seems to me that he clearly has a right to some form of compensation. Perhaps I am wrong, but at all events he possesses, or ought to possess, this right, that he should be allowed to put his case before an independent tribunal in the shape of a Parliamentary Committee. Yet the ordinary privilege that is granted, I may say without. exaggeration, to almost any criminal is going to he denied to him on the action of a noble Lord opposite if his proposal to reject the Bill is carried. It seems to me that it is hardly, an exaggeration to state that a procedure of this kind is as near adopting the principle of confiscation, or what you may choose to call land nationalisation, as anything you can think of.
After all, the position of this owner is very much the same as the position of any individual who happens to own a valuable work of art— a picture, or building, or even a piece of land which has artistic value. What happens in a case of that kind? In the case of a man who wishes to sell a valuable picture there is at once a tremendous outcry in the Press and elsewhere, and in artistic circles, and in the end, the Government having refused to find any money or the local authority not being in a position to find any money, an appeal is made for subscriptions, and those who have the preservation of these objects very much at heart subscribe, and perhaps get assistance somehow or other from other sources, and eventually the possession, whatever it is, remains in this country. It seems to me that this is a case in which, if you are not going to allow the man to make any stand for his own right, if you are not going to allow him to be heard at all, the opponents should do something to find the money themselves by applying to their friends for assistance. This may sound an impracticable proposal in view of the value of the property, but at all events it is more equitable than taking away a man's property and not allowing him to state his ease in the ordinary way.
London landlords are a very unpopular class. There is no getting away from that fact. To be a London landlord is, in the opinion of many people— a large section of the population — to be ipso facto a criminal, and against this
1194
particular landlord already various charges have been made. He is charged, in effect, with attempting to filch away from the public three of what I may call the essential elements. First of all, he is accused of attempting to steal the land of the people in the shape of wishing to build upon the so-called foreground. That is a charge which has been withdrawn, because obviously there was absolutely no foundation for it. Then he has been charged with depriving the public of water in the shape of their view of the Thames, and, as a last resort, the accusation has been made that he is attempting to rob the public of their air. Air is an impalpable form of property. I do not know whether it has ever been decided to whom the air absolutely belongs, but surely the provision of air for the public is the province of the local authority, and if there is any question of depriving the public of their air surely they would have intervened before now, whereas, as a matter of fact, they look upon the proposals of this Bill with a favourable eye.
The real offence of this man is that he is the owner of the Adelphi Terrace and it is in his power to pull it down should he choose to do so. I am sure that no reasonable person desires to pull down the Adelphi Terrace if it can be avoided, any more than anybody desires to see another Shell-Mex building erected in its place. I at once repudiate in advance the charge that will be made against me that I am a vandal for advocating this Bill. I repudiate that charge. I am a member of some of the societies which are opposing this Bill. I use the present tense, because I think it quite possible that after this discussion I may be expelled from them for the part which I have taken. But I confess that the impassioned pleas, and the sort of imperative demand made from various quarters that in no circumstances must the Adelphi Terrace be allowed to disappear, do not carry very much weight with me. I observe, for instance, amongst the arguments for preserving the Adelphi Terrace, that in, of all papers, the Church Times, it is urged that it should be preserved because Emma Lady Hamilton once lived there. Nothing would have surprised Emma Lady Hamilton more than to think that after her death she should be recognised as a kind of saint. Then in

1195
other quarters we are told that the Adelphi must not be allowed to disappear because it would hurt the feelings of American tourists. I am under the impression that if you took the ordinary, common variety of American tourist and tried to talk to him about the beauties of Adam he would think you were referring to the Garden of Eden, and it would never occur to him that the Thames Embankment had anything to do with it at all.
I often wonder whether the people who write these letters and the people who are so much agitated over the question have ever been to the Adelphi or whether they even know where it is. I wonder how many of the noble Lords I am now addressing know the Adelphi and how many of them have been there. There is a Motion on the Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Dickinson with regard to maintaining amenities. Well, I have been pointing out that the Adelphi Terrace is not a place where people resort for the purpose of enjoying the magnificent view, in the same way as, for instance, people make use of the Terrace at Berne and the Pincio at Rome. I have taken special pains to study this question and recently I have paid frequent visits to the Adelphi Terrace. On not one occasion have I met a single individual who was there in search of amenities. If a man did succeed in penetrating through the Terrace the amenities are very hard to discover.
The Adelphi, everybody will admit, is a fine specimen of eighteenth century architecture. It suffered severely in the Victorian period but it has suffered still more severely from recent developments to which I will allude presently. Let us take the case for the Terrace. If you make your way to the Terrace you find that it is a car park. It is a small place which is congested with motor cars, and it is with great difficulty that you can make your way to the parapet at all because there is a railing interposed to prevent you getting near it. If you do get to the parapet there is nothing whatever to see. I have here a photograph taken years ago, long before there was any intention of promoting this Bill. In that photograph there is absolutely nothing to be seen but the foliage of trees. That is perfectly correct. You
1196
can see nothing whatever. Even at the present moment, when there are no leaves on the trees, it is almost impossible to see the river at all. You cannot see the river from the Terrace, and you cannot see the Terrace from the river because there are no boats on the river, and you cannot see the Terrace from the Embankment on account of the trees I have mentioned.
What you can see is precisely what any sensible person would like to avoid seeing — that is, a disgusting space which is used as a car park, a flat, muddy space covered with rubbish, orange peel and paper, and dotted about with huts and buildings of a most ignoble and repellent character. In fact, the whole of this foreground, which as I say is only a car park, is so unattractive that a bank has been built in the Embankment Gardens and planted so as to prevent any view of it at all. That is what you see if you go to the Adelphi Terrace. I observe that my noble friend the Earl of Crawford, in a speech he made a day or two ago, said that the view from the Adelphi was just as much his property as the property of the owner. I am not quite sure whether my noble friend is right in his law— he can easily ascertain that from some of the legal authorities here— but what does strike me is that his right, if it is a right, is of extremely little value. These uncomplimentary remarks which I have made with regard to the Adelphi Terrace relate of course only to the exterior. I have no fault to find with the interior. Everybody knows that the interior contains admirable decorations. But there is no reason why these chimney pieces and even the ceilings should not be preserved and utilised in some other building. I am sure that in a matter of that kind every assistance would be given by the Promoters of this Bill.
I have said nothing about the other provisions of the Bill. The other provisions relate to such matters as compensation, the question of access to cellars, and some points raised by the Royal Society of Arts, who complain that if the road which runs by their building is raised or lowered a few inches it will necessitate acrobatic performances on the part of their members to get into their building at all. Those are purely matters for a Committee upon which it

1197
is unnecessary for me to speak, but I would like before I conclude to throw out a word of encouragement to those who are opposing this Bill, in the event of the Bill passing. What I would like to remind them is that, as I have said before, this is purely an enabling Bill. The Promoters do not bind themselves to do anything at once, and if they do nothing in ten years their powers will lapse. For my part I think it quite possible that nothing will be done at all. In fact, being a pessimist, I think it is more than likely that no result will happen.
It would not be honest of me if I did not confess to the House before I sit down that I have no particular enthusiasm for this Bill. I do not in the least desire to see another Shell-Mex building spring up on the Embankment. I was unacquainted with the Promoters until a week or two ago and I really do not know why I was approached on the subject, unless it was because they could not find anyone else to undertake what appeared to be a disagreeable task. I notice that people when they have anything unpleasant to do are rather fond of coming and asking me to act for them. As I say, I feel no particular enthusiasm for this Bill and I do not really very much care whether it comes into effect or not, but what I do feel very strongly is this— and that is why I consented to take up this case— that men in the position of these men have a clear right to be heard by a Committee, and heard by a Committee without any hampering restrictions such as are proposed to be imposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson. It is contrary to the ordinary practice. I submit that these trustees of the property are entitled to the same treatment as anyone else in a similar position and I trust the majority of the House will take the same view of the question as I do. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord Newton.)
VISCOUNT ESHER VISCOUNT ESHER had given Notice of an Amendment, That the Bill be read 2athis day six months. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the noble Lord in moving the Second Reading has made one of those humorous and interesting speeches with which he is accustomed to plead for lost causes in your Lordships' House, but
1198
in doing so I do not think he has completely explained what it is that the Bill proposes to do. That is not surprising because it is a very difficult Bill to understand unless you have a map of the site. Your Lordships will remember that the Adelphi consists of a great central block. On one side of the block is Adam Street and on the other side is Robert Street. Behind is John Street. Under the Bill that central block will be pulled down and Adam Street, Robert Street and John Street, instead of being the charming eighteenth-century streets they are, will have low eighteenth-century buildings on one side and high modern buildings on the other side; the elevation of all three streets will be, from the artistic point of view, ruined.
In addition, under the Bill the Promoters are enabled to raise John Street three feet or lower it three feet, and I dare say your Lordships have seen a letter from the Chairman of the Society of Arts in which he says how the effect of either the raising or lowering of John Street would be to ruin the façade of the Royal Society of Arts, which is one of the finest examples of Adam buildings in this City. That is the effect on the streets. In front of the Adelphi is the famous Terrace and when the block behind is pulled down the Promoters propose to build in place a still larger block which will come out right over the present Terrace and over the foreground in front, so that what is now the present Terrace will be a tunnel running underneath the building which they propose to erect. I need hardly tell you that when you once begin to play about with a piece of town planning of this sort it is certain the rest will go— that is to say, the Royal Society of Arts and the other buildings, which now look as if they are escaping, must eventually disappear if you begin to play about with the site.
We have not been told what sort of a building is going up. We know it is to be a very high one on modern Shell-Mex lines. In the case of Carlton House Terrace Sir Reginald Blomfield had vanity enough to show us the monstrosity he was proposing to place there by putting a sketch in a newspaper. Here we have not yet seen any sketch of what building the Promoters are proposing and therefore, in a sense, your Lordships in passing this Bill will vote for a pig in a poke. Nor are we told what this building

1199
is going to be used for. We do not know whether it is going to be an hotel or offices. Clearly it is up to those who propose to destroy the Adephi to tell us whether they are going to erect an hotel or offices and whether in either case hotel or offices are needed in that part of London— whether all the hotels and offices there already are so full that it is essential to build others.
The arguments which are used, and are likely to be used, for the Bill are, I think, only two. One is the argument which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, used, that a man has a perfect right to do what he likes with his own property— that we have no right to put restrictions of any kind; and there is implied in this the knowledge which everybody has that the owners of the property have a perfect right to pull down the Adelphi at any time they may want to. The threat is used that they will in any case pull it down. If that is the case we cannot help it, but if we agree to this Bill we become an accomplice to the crime. I am prepared to argue from these Benches at any time that you have a right to put restriction upon property. If I happened to be by chance the owner of Stonehenge and proposed to turn it into an ice-cream parlour for American tourists, the State would have a perfect right to say that I ought not to do so. The policy of the registration of public monuments is not in the least a new one. The very Act we are discussing this afternoon, the Act of 1771, was a restriction on private property and was passed long before Karl Marx was born and before the French Revolution; it shows that the idea of restriction in this way is not socialistic and has always been part of the policy of the State. What I do not quite understand is why the noble Lord should feel that that is an argument in the case of this particular Bill, because it is not the public that is trying to get something out of the owners, but the owners who are trying to get something out of the public. We are not trying to prevent the owners from doing anything with the property which they now own, but only trying to prevent them from seizing property which has belonged to the public since 1771.
The Preamble of the Bill gives us the premiss on which it is built and I should like to read a paragraph on
1200
page 3 which gives, I think, the case for the owners:
"And whereas it would conduce to the better and more advantageous use and development of the Estate and the promotion of public welfare convenience and amenity if building were permitted upon the Adelphi foreground free from the restriction contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1771 and no public need now exists for the retention of those restrictions and it is therefore expedient that those restrictions so far as they relate to the Adelphi foreground should be repealed."
It seems to me that the operative word in that paragraph is "whereas." have always been given to understand that that word is the lynch pin of the law and that if you removed it from the English vocabulary the whole of the British legal system would collapse. This paragraph contains nothing but assertions which are unproven and, in our opinion, unprovable, but by placing the word "whereas" there the paragraph is given dignity, importance and verisimilitude. We who oppose the Bill hope to prove that there is no truth in the paragraph I have quoted.
Turning first to æsthetics, I am quite prepared to admit that the facade of the Adelphi was ruined in 1872 to an extent, but not irreparably, because it could be put back into its original condition; but the Adelphi Terrace contains houses with very fine interiors, finely decorated ceilings, and mantel-pieces which will not look at all the same when put into a, museum. The whole lay-out of the Adelphi is a charming and delightful piece of eighteenth century town planning— the only one that we have left— and in addition to the beauty of the place there is the historical interest on which the noble Lord threw such contempt. The Adam brothers lived in the district themselves, and a whole succession of people, from Garrick to Bernard Shaw, have lived in the Adelphi. The view has always been famous, and we are not likely to be satisfied with the two little holes at the end of Robert Street and Adam Street, which the Bill proposes to give us, instead of the wide expanse which we now enjoy.
If your Lordships have read the letter in the newspapers from the Curator of the Soane Museum, you will see that he says it has been his experience that foreigners coming to this country make a point of visiting the Adelphi, because of the interest in it, and it seems a pity

1201
that when there are so many parts of London which can be pulled down, the Adelphi should be selected. I have not seen any agitation to destroy Pont Street. If there were, the various societies which we represent in this House would not take any part in opposition. It is always the lovely things in London which are attacked, while those parts of London which could be done away with, with the greatest pleasure to everybody, remain solid. There is not only the aesthetic point of view. There are many other points of view. I do not believe the traffic question has been considered. We have not heard from the noble Lord how many extra people are going to be put into these buildings, or how many extra vans and lorries are going to come into the district after the building has been erected. I can see, very shortly after it is built, a controversy between my noble friend Viscount Buckmaster and the Earl of Plymouth, on this question, in which once again we shall have to destroy the Ministry of Transport. It is clear that there is only one exit from this district into the Strand, and although the Bill widens Adam street at the river end it leaves the Strand end unaltered, so that traffic must come through that narrow exit to the Strand. I do not think that that matter has been considered by the local authorities, because they cannot tell how many people are going to be put into the building.
Another argument which can be used against the Bill is the argument of town planning. Here we are presenting to a private syndicate a vast amount of air space and light, and we have not any indication of whether experts in town planning have ever considered this question at all. It is clear to everybody who has read the letter of the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects in the newspapers, that a private syndicate of this sort has no right to erect a high building in a public place of this kind. It is the whole essence of zoning that you should have low buildings in front and get higher as you go back. This is absolutely piece-meal development and it is a curious fact that the Promoters of the Bill brought it forward in March, while the Town Planning Act comes into operation on April 1. This is obviously a case for a town-planning scheme. Let me read to your Lordships an extract
1202
from a letter in the Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects:
"While the Act could not be used to enable the whole of London to be replanned and zoned, it will enable the public authorities to prepare schemes for extensive areas where development is likely to take place."
This seems to me exactly one of the areas intended to be dealt with under the Town Planning Act.
I should like to point out that the Adelphi is quite close to Charing Cross, and that as it is inevitable that Charing Cross bridge must be rebuilt in the next twenty years, it is desirable that nothing should be allowed to be built on this site which could conflict with any re-planning of the whole district of Charing Cross. If I, personally, had to deal with this site it is quite obvious, and I think it would be to anybody who took an interest in town planning, that the proper thing to do here is to get voluntary societies to replace the facade of Adelphi Terrace as it was before it was altered in 1872, and for the local authorities to buy up the foreground. They would be able to do that very cheaply, so long as the Act of 1771 remained in force. They would then be able to sweep away the car park, to which the noble Lord objected, and take the Embankment Gardens right up to the Adelphi facade. You would be able to see the whole facade as Adam originally designed it, with the arches below and the Terrace above. You would get, quite close to Somerset House, another building almost as fine.
We are told that the local authorities are in favour of this Bill. Personally, I have found that local authorities are not entirely to be trusted in these matters. Your Lordships will remember that the Government themselves were not to be trusted when it came to dealing with Carlton House Terrace, and only a little before that the London County Council showed that they were not to be trusted with regard to Waterloo Bridge. I suspect that the local authorities approve because of the increase of rates, but such would come from any operation of this sort. Take the Squares of London. If they were built upon it would obviously increase the rates which would be collected and only a little way down the Strand you have an example in the Temple Gardens. If the owners could build upon those Gardens they would gain enormously financially, and

1203
obviously the local authorities would also gain.
I think myself that it is very fortunate that this Act of 1771 enables your Lordships this afternoon to prevent this thing being done and to preserve this open space. What in effect you are going to do by preserving the foreground of the Adelphi is to prevent the building line from being advanced. Technically speaking, of course, that is not true, because you could always build on that foreground up to twenty feet; but in effect the Act of 1771 has prevented building taking place on the foreground, and if you remove the restriction you do, in effect, advance the building line. In 1931 the Government had a great scheme for building in Whitehall, and they endeavoured to advance the building line towards the Embankment. Their Bill was beaten in Committee in the House of Commons, and they had to withdraw it because the House of Commons would not allow them to advance the building line. The Government, I understand, are going to bring in that Bill again, and they have agreed this time not to advance the building line in Whitehall towards the Embankment. If the Government are not allowed to advance the building line, why should private citizens be allowed to do so?
In this case it seems to me that all the people who are really disinterested are on one side, and the commercial interests are the only ones on the other. All these societies which really take an interest in London— the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association, the London Society, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Society of Arts, the Commons and Footpaths Preservation Society, the Carlton House Terrace Committee— are unanimously in favour of this Bill not being passed, and the only people who are in favour of it are the commercial interests. The noble Lord, I think, rather seemed to insinuate that these societies have no right to interfere in these things and that people ought to be allowed to do what they like with their own, and no voluntary societies like these should interfere. That is all very well, but I think we are perfectly justified. The noble Lord comes down here in the guise of Esau to sell the birthright of the nation for a mess of
1204
pottage, and I think we have a perfect right to try to prevent it. There are some people who seem to think we ought to allow this Bill to go to the Committee stage and not decide the issue on the Second Reading. I am all for compromise. I believe that compromise is the foundation of the British system of government, and as a rule I think it is a very admirable thing to try to arrange a compromise; but there are some things which cannot be compromised, and I think this thing is one of them. You are either going to pull down the Adelphi Terrace or you are not. You are either going to allow private owners to advance the building line over an area of public property or you are not. I think the issue is such a clear one that compromise is not possible, and that the question should be decided on the Second Reading. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").—(Viscount Esher.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I venture to hope that you will permit this Bill to go to a Committee. Of course, I know that your Lordships in the past have upon occasion rejected Private Bills upon Second Reading, and I will not disguise from your Lordships the fact that I have on one occasion at least supported such a proposal, though it was not, I may add, when I was occupying the post which your Lordships have done me the honour to entrust to me. During the last ten years or so the most noteworthy cases (in fact, I think they are the only cases) in which you have rejected a Bill on Second Reading are The Whitgift Hospital (Croydon) Bill and the Stoke-on-Trent Bill— that, of course, was rejected twice. These two Bills were simpler, I think, and presented more clear-cut issues than the one which is now before your Lordships, and therefore they lent themselves more readily to discussion upon Second Reading and for decision at this stage. But this Bill is of a considerably more complicated character. The noble Viscount who moved the rejection told your Lordships that it was very difficult to understand the Bill without a plan or a map or a model or something of that kind, and I quite agree. It is very difficult indeed, When I read the Bill first I found it almost impossible to understand it, and

1205
I had to have it explained to me with a map and a plan before I could really comprehend it.
And so I venture to hope that your Lordships will think fit to allow the Bill to go upstairs— without, of course, any prejudice as to what your Lordships may do at a subsequent stage— so that it may be thoroughly well considered and thrashed out by a Committee. Because I think that the noble Viscount admitted that there were several aspects of the Bill, including one to which he alluded— namely, the question of traffic— which he thought had not received proper consideration. From what I see in the Press and hear in conversation I do not think it is exactly understood by everybody what the Bill proposes to do and what the owners of the property can do without any Bill at all. The noble Viscount said that if your Lordships vote for this Bill now you will be voting for a pig in a poke. Surely your Lordships will not be voting for a pig in a poke if you allow it to go to a Committee. There will be a Report by the Committee, which may disapprove of the Bill, and then you can throw the Bill art on Third Reading. That is, of course, a course that is open to your Lordships and will really give your Lordships every opportunity of deciding upon the issue.
There is one point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The Act of 1771, which permits the owners of the Adelphi to build over the open space which abuts upon the Embankment Gardens, only allows them to do, so up to a height of 20 feet, and no higher. I do not know whether any of the Petitions against the Bill will necessarily oppose the removal of the restriction in the Act of 1771. If they do not, I should think it my duty, unless it was brought before the Committee by a special Resolution of your Lordships' House, to direct the attention of the Committee to that point and to ask them to examine it carefully, because it is one, I think, of no inconsiderable importance. That is a course which is usually followed when a particular point is not petitioned against in a Bill. The proposal of my noble friend Lord Dickinson makes it an instruction to the Committee to amend the Bill so as to provide that existing restrictions on the Adelphi foreground shall not be removed, that is to say, to maintain the provisions of the Act of
1206
1771 in this particular. It may be— it very likely is— that your Lordships think that this is a desirable provision to maintain, but I venture to suggest that it really would be fair to the Promoters of the Bill to allow the matter to receive the careful consideration of the Committee without giving a prior instruction to the Committee from your Lordships' House.
There may be reasons which I do not know— I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the noble Viscount — why a modification of the Act of 1771 might be made, and this, I think should at least be allowed to come before the Committee for consideration. But there is a difficulty in this which I ought to mention to your Lordships. There may not be a Petition against this proposal to raise the height of the buildings and, if there were not, the Committee which is considering it might have a difficulty in getting the case for keeping the restriction of the Act of 1771 put before the Committee. I need hardly say that if this were to occur I would do all I could to secure that the matter be properly put before the Committee and that the other side should be heard in Committee in every way. I think it is the general rule, if your Lordships consider that these Private Bills should go to a Committee where they can be thoroughly well considered, with the assistance of Counsel and witnesses, that it is desirable also that Committees of your Lordships' House should be able to exercise their judgment quite free from any prior instruction. I think that is the usual practice. But of course their Report will come before your Lordships' House and your Lordships will be able to deal with it in any way you see fit, and will be able to take the action recommended by the noble Viscount equally well on Third Reading as you can on Second Reading. Therefore I venture to hope that your Lordships will allow this Bill to go to Committee.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is an act of considerable temerity to question any Bill which is commended to your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, whose independence of mind, charming candour and humour of speech we all constantly admire. I fully admit the very great responsibility that anyone

1207
takes when he tries to prevent the legitimate desire of the owners of a great Estate to develop it and increase its value. Moreover, I fully admit the force of the plea addressed to us with very great authority by the noble Earl who has just spoken— and he speaks with special authority— but I am constrained to support the noble Viscount who moved the rejection of this Bill, and I hope some of your Lordships at least will follow the example. As at present advised I think the issue is one so clear and simple that it would be well to have a decision upon it straight away. Certainly if a certain number of your Lordships follow the noble Viscount who put his case so forcibly before us, even if they are defeated, it will be an indication to the Committee that is to be appointed of the very strong feeling that many members of this House entertain upon this proposal.
I dislike seeming to interfere with the desires of the owners of this Estate to develop it for what must seem to them, and may seem to others, sentimental reasons; but, after all, that is the argument which has been used in the past for sacrificing things of historical interest and beauty which we would fain retain, and which have now been lost for ever. These things, my Lords, are imponderable. They are things of the spirit. Their value cannot be measured in pounds, shillings, and pence. In the life of the individual and in the life of a great city or village they are in the strictest sense of the word incalculable. It seems to me that in the case of a great City like London only some over-riding public advantage or necessity can justify the setting aside of their claim to be protected and preserved. The question is whether in this case there are claims on the part of history and beauty which entitle us to set aside the legitimate claims of the owners of this Estate.
Let us look at the main features of this Bill. First of all, there is the question of the Adelphi Terrace itself, the street and the buildings. You have been reminded of the history of this block of buildings built by Robert Adam, one of the two brothers whose genius and skill have done so much to enrich the buildings of this country. The Adelphi, with John Street. Adam Street, and Robert Street, which are all involved in this
1208
Bill, constitute, as we have been reminded, the crowning achievement of these famous brothers in design upon a large scale. It is true, as has been admitted, that the actual Adelphi Terrace has been since 1872 stuccoed and partly defaced, but still I would submit that in its quiet grace, its delicate balance of surface and ornament, it is "a thing of beauty" which is entitled to be kept as a "joy for ever."
You have been reminded of its historical associations— No. 5, for instance, where Garrick lived, and which was a place of constant meeting with Dr. Johnson and Boswell; Gibbon is also closely associated with it. I will not go beyond the eighteenth century and make any reference to the association of the Adelphi and Lady Hamilton. I am bound to say that if I could think of the shade of that engaging lady still moving about the Adelphi I should welcome it on, I need scarcely say, strictly historical grounds. But so far as the building itself is concerned, it has been truly called "the last beautiful eighteenth century building in London." Approach it, my Lords, from the noise and bustle of the Strand, and you at once breathe the spirit of an age more secure and tranquil than our own. View it from the other side of the river or from Westminster Bridge, and you will notice a contrast with the great Shell-Mex building— in itself, I admit, a fine building— but the contrast between it and the modesty, the reserve, the quiet dignity of Adelphi Terrace makes a very real appeal. I would venture to say: "Destroy it not, for there is a blessing in it."
I allude here to the Motion which has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Dickinson. I am bound to say I cannot but agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that I think it is rather strange to give an instruction to a Committee at the outset to knock the bottom of the Bill out, and I think it would be much better to deal with the matter in the simple and straightforward way suggested by the noble Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill. But beyond that, Lord Dickinson's Amendment deals only with the thoroughfare of the Adelphi and not with the buildings themselves. I notice it is said— it has been said here this afternoon— that the rejection of the Bill would not necessarily prevent the demolition of the Adelphi and of the

1209
block of buildings of which it is a part, that the owners have a perfect right to do so without any restraint by any Act of Parliament. I know that the preservation cannot be secured, but inasmuch as the main prospect of the Bill is to secure the erection of large and high buildings which require a new roadway behind them, if we prevent the erection of these large buildings by declining to remove the restrictions in the Act of 1771, I doubt whether it would be worth while to demolish the existing buildings. If we cannot make their preservation secure, at least we car make it more probable, and that brings me to what is the main point in the opposition to the Bill.
It affects the use of what is called the Adelphi foreground; that is to say, the ground between the Adelphi Terrace and the river, formerly part of the bank of the river itself. The Act of 1771, as we have been reminded, forbids any new buildings being erected upon that foreground higher than twenty feet above the high water mark. Clause 4 of this Bill repeals these restrictions, and gives the trustees power to use and build upon this foreground as they may think fit. Beyond question that means the power to erect on the foreground a large building, I suppose of the type with which we are familiar in the Shell-Mex building next door. What is the value of this foreground? The answer is, that it gives a unique view of the river. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, was most amusingly sceptical about the value of that view. My conscience is at least clear. I have seen it. I have often seen it. I rejoice in it. Even now, with the defects of the Charing Cross Bridge which may be removed and of the temporary structure on the Waterloo Bridge, it does give a very unique view of the river, and who shall estimate the value of that view?
The City of London is justly proud of its great river. The view from Westminster to the Tower is, I suppose, beyond question one of the finest views in any city in Europe. How long will it be preserved? Already it is menaced. The great buildings at Mill-bank, fine as they are in themselves, dwarf and indeed crush the proportions of that picturesque group of buildings in which we meet. There abides that standing affront to the dignity and beauty of
1210
London which we call the Charing Cross Bridge. There are sinister rumours of the possibility of buildings being erected further down the river, no doubt for excellent reasons from the point of view of the owners, which would obstruct the view of St. Paul's from the river and, I think, it is beyond doubt that the view of St. Paul's, rising above the houses on the riverbank, stands throughout the Empire as the symbol of everything that London means. But even now, with all respect to the noble Lord, it is a noble view, and what may it not be in the future? Suppose Charing Cross Bridge removed and something more worthy of London substituted for it. Suppose buildings on the other side of the river worthy to be neighbours of the London County Council Hall. Suppose Waterloo Bridge restored to something like its old beauty. Suppose the view of St. Paul's preserved as it rises with the great river bending round. Then, indeed, it will be one of the very finest prospects in the world, and the only place from which the public has an unrestricted view of that noble prospect from a higher level is this Adelphi Terrace.
It may not be used much at present. Taste is improving in these matters. We have to think of the value of that possession in the days that are to come. We are told, I know, that there will be two narrow points from which it will be possible to see it, at the end of Adam Street and at the end of Robert Street, under the reconstruction proposed by this Bill. But what are these narrow restricted corners to compare with the open, unrestricted space which now commands the whole of that prospect? Here, perhaps, I might refer to the words used last Tuesday by the President of the Royal Academy:
"One could see from the plans of Wren, Adam, Chambers, Wilkins, Nash and others that the requirements of foreground space in preserving the views and vistas of the city were continually kept in view, but now we seem to allow any one to upset these plans and to build anyhow and anywhere."
I hope that will not be done now. If the restrictions imposed in the Act of 1771 go, then that view, unique in London for all who choose to avail themselves of it, will go also and go for ever and can never be restored. That is the main issue which has to be determined.

1211
Lastly, may I stress the special responsibility of Parliament in this matter? In the past the annoyance caused by the removal of these things of history and of beauty from the face of London has been due to the fact that there was no power which could intervene between private interest and the public advantage, but here, as your Lordships have been reminded, an Act of Parliament is necessary. There is, therefore, laid upon Parliament in this matter a special and direct responsibility either to permit or to prevent what is proposed in this Bill. Parliament is the supreme trustee of the public interest, and I cannot but hope that in this particular matter Parliament will intervene to fulfil that trust. If so, it will be of value not merely in preserving these buildings, or rendering it more probable that they will be preserved, but Parliament will be asserting a great principle, true in itself but constantly menaced, that these things, which are at stake in this Bill and in the decision of your Lordships' House, are not sentimental trifles but things that concern the very life of the City and of the country. It therefore rests with your Lordships to decide whether you will destroy or preserve for future citizens of London a valuable, and, indeed, in the strict sense of the word, a priceless part of their inheritance.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, after the very eloquent speech of the most rev. Primate I am afraid you will find my words rather cold. I wish to approach this matter from two points of view— the point of view of the preservation of the building itself and the point of view of the local authorities. As regards the building, about which so much has been said, and with so much of which I agree, I wish to remind your Lordships that the owner can pull it down if he wishes, and the only way to preserve that building in its present form, as toe noble Viscount, Lord Esher, suggested, is that it should be purchased by some of the learned societies interested in the matter. As my noble friend Lord Newton told you, it was stated in reply to a question in another place that there is no power under the Ancient Monuments Acts to preserve the building. I would also point out that this is an enabling Bill. It gives the owner ten years in which to carry out his plans.
1212
The local authorities— I speak on behalf of the Westminster City Council— have very carefully considered this matter. As regards the traffic, sooner or later the lower road will have to be widened. The road now goes from the Savoy Hotel past the Shell-Mex building, and then you go along the lower ground in front of the Adelphi buildings, which, is unpaved, which has on one side of it those horrible low buildings and the car park, and you end in a cul-de-sa By the pro. position that is made these streets will all be widened to a width of forty feet, and by taking a very small corner of the Embankment Gardens you will get an approach to York Buildings which is the most westerly street and the gradient of which is not very steep, and you will get a round-about thoroughfare which will be of great service not only when the new Charing Cross Bridge is built but also to facilitate traffic at the present time. The owner is giving up about 8,000 square feet and that will be a great advantage to the locality.
I may say that, if the present building is preserved with the arches, you could not load and unload in the public street in the way you can in the private road which now exists. I should like some of your Lordships to go and see what there is below the Adelphi Terrace. At the present moment it is an absolute disgrace to London. There is a horrible car park which is private property. There are a lot of very old derelict buildings, and the whole roadway is paved with ancient cobbles and is not particularly clean. By this scheme you will get rid of that and you will get widened streets for the benefit of traffic. Now I come to the question of the view, because it was on that that the most rev. Primate based his most eloquent appeal. The length of Adelphi Terrace is about 300 feet. According to the plan which I have seen, Robert Street and Adam Street will be widened to forty feet. Therefore you will get a width of forty feet at each end of the present Terrace and there will be preserved for the public a width of eighty feet from which to see the view.
Then there is another way of seeing the view. Suppose the contemplated building is erected and you get a flat roof on the top of that building, access might be provided for the public to go and see the view from there. That would give a much better viewpoint than

1213
exists at present. I went myself to the Terrace the other day and I found that. there is really very little that one can see. Even in the winter time the trees obstruct the view almost entirely. No doubt many of your Lordships have been to visit friends in the Adelphi and from a first floor window, no doubt, the view is much better. But if you do look across the river what do you see? You see on the right of you Hungerford Bridge, which is not a very pretty erection. Then you see the Lion Brewery, with a great lion on it. Its tail has not been twisted even by the Soviet Government yet. Then you get the Shot Tower and the wharf for London wastepaper; then you come to Dewar's Tower and another wharf, and finally there is the aspect of Waterloo Bridge which, propped up as it is at present, is not very lovely. I cannot see very much beauty in the view from the Terrace, but there are possibilities, as I say, o the view not being taken from the public.
The local authorities will gain because of the 8,000 square feet of land which is to be given to the public and which is estimated to be worth something like £40,000 or perhaps more. Sooner or later in connection with the Charing Cross scheme these roads will have to be widened. If the Bill passes it will be of great advantage to traffic into and out of the Strand and Villiers Street. The Westminster City Council are very jealous, not only of the utilities but of the amenities of the central part of London over Which they have jurisdiction. We protested the other day against any higher erection in Carlton House Terrace, which is now only seven storeys high, and we hope it will be limited to that because it does not spoil the existing facade. We are strongly of opinion at the Westminster City Council that something should be done to prevent inartistic buildings going up in London. On behalf of the Westminster City Council, I approached the Promoters of this Bill and told them that we are very averse from any bargain with them unless they agree to submit the design of their new buildings to some impartial body. I feel quite certain that they will be willing to submit to a clause being inserted in the Bill when it goes before the Committee providing that the design should be submitted to some impartial body—
1214
perhaps not to the Fine Art Commission, but to the new Committee which is to be set up to deal with buildings on Crown land. I understand that the Government are going to set up a Committee of that kind and it would be composed, I presume, of people of expert knowledge who will decide questions affecting future buildings in London on Crown land. It seems to me that if the promoters are willing to do that it would remove a great deal of the objection to the scheme.
The noble Viscount who moved the rejection of the Bill spoke of town planning and said that very high buildings should not be in front but should be at the rear. May I point out that that is not going to help the society in which he is interested because the high portion would be right opposite the society's premises? A good deal has been said about the question of John Street being raised or lowered three feet. I am told that that is only put into the Bill to give a little play in regard to raising or lowering the street. The local authorities in London are not quite so stupid as to see their ratepayers inconvenienced by having access to their buildings made impossible or by having a roadway with a hump in it. That provision is only put in the Bill to allow of certain deviations. Then with regard to the London County Council gardens, with the exception of a very small portion of land which must be used to make the curve of the roadway to York Buildings, the amount of land to be taken is only about the size of the Chamber in which your Lordships are now meeting. As I have already said, both the London County Council and the Westminster authorities are in favour of this Bill because of the traffic facilities which it would give, and because they are getting a very large grant of road space from the owners of this property. On the other hand, we know perfectly well that if this Bill is riot passed it will cost a great deal of money to carry out these improvements.
Lastly, it must be remembered that if the Bill does not go through the owner can pull down this property if he pleases. There are still ten years for the matter to be decided and at the end of ten years, if the owner has done nothing with the property the time lapses and the restrictions still remain. I earnestly hope your Lordships will allow this Bill to go before

1215
the Committee so that the whole thing may be thoroughly examined. The offer of the owners to submit their plans to this Committee which is about to be set up by the Minister of Agriculture can be thoroughly considered and then your Lordships will have an opportunity when the Bill comes back to see if you are satisfied.
LORD OLIVIER: My Lords, I feel considerable diffidence in opposing a suggestion of the Chairman of Committees that this Bill should be allowed to go to a Committee upstairs, but on general grounds of principle which are raised by the Bill I feel bound to support the Motion for rejection. I place my objection to the Bill on broad grounds. In the eighteenth century public authorities and London landlords had become inspired with some sort of feeling for decent town architecture and noble planning and the result was seen in many buildings in London and notably in the Adam Street proposition, the Terrace and the restrictions upon the foreshore. They said very reasonably at that time: "If we concede certain portions of the bed of the Thames and the air above it— to which the noble Lord, Lord Newton referred— to these Promoters they shall not be allowed to build higher that twenty feet except for the purposes Adelphi Terrace and the Adelphi buildings." That was a reasonable and well inspired decision taken by those who knew what they were doing and what they intended to do for the appearance of London.
The noble Lord said that he very much doubted whether many of your Lordships were familiar with Adelphi Terrace.I have been closely familiar with Adelphi Terrace for more than fifty years and 1, and most men of my acquaintance, have always been impressed by that little oasis as an immense relief to the general vulgarisation of the City that was going on. I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of the Salisbury Estate. When it parted with its foreshore rights it appeared to have obtained some compensation in the liberty to concessionaires to put up higher buildings, and nobody who knows the Savoy Hotel or the defunct Cecil Hotel can pretend that they were an improvement to the general aspect of the Thames. There still remains this little oasis of Adelphi Ter-
1216
race which almost all visitors to London admire and say is one of the dignified and beautiful features of London architecture. That was definitely reserved by the town planning authorities of that day.
In the last ten or fifteen years there has been a revival of a strong feeling in favour of maintaining decent principles of architecture and of town planning. Not only in London, but all over the country, we are having county and town committees formed to try to preserve the decent principles of town planning and noble architecture to which effect was given by builders and architects in the eighteenth century. Surely your Lordships are all in sympathy with this national movement for restricting the defacement and disfigurement of our towns, and surely it would be a most unfortunate thing at the present time to say that because a private owner wishes to develop his estate we will throw away what the wisdom of our forefathers achieved by these restrictions for the beauty of the Metropolis. I think we should not go back on the good work done by our forefathers.
I must say I think this Bill is a most audacious and impudent one with its proposal not only to take away that restriction on which the foreshore is granted, hut also a little bit more of the Embankment Gardens. I say we should resent a Bill in this form and throw it out, saying: "If you wish to bring in a Bill bring in one with some consideration for modern principles; the idea that owners or even the Crown should he allowed to deface architecture has been superseded; we have the Town Planning Bill next month; take back your Bill and bring in another with the objectionable features of this one removed. Then you can argue your case as to whether you shall take down Adelphi Terrace or not." I leave that question to be dealt with by more competent authorities, but on general grounds of principle— on the ground that this is an audacious and impudent Bill, brought in to overthrow principles which I hope are established in our national good sense, I feel we should throw this Bill out, not trusting to modifications which might be made upstairs— modifications which can be made in another Bill brought in with these fundamentally objectionable

1217
features omitted. I certainly strongly support the Motion of the noble Viscount for the rejection of the Bill.
LORD DICKINSON LORD DICKINSON had given Notice that if the Bill were read a second time he would move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, to amend the Bill so as to provide that existing restrictions on the Adelphi foreground shall not be removed, and that the public thoroughfare known as Adelphi Terrace shall be preserved with its outlook across the river unimpaired, together with the air space and other amenities which the public now enjoy thereon.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have ventured to put down on the Paper an instruction, which I believe is entirely in accordance with precedent, to the Committee to which this Bill will be referred if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, to preserve all the public rights and amenities which are at present enjoyed. That raises a rather new question as to what are public rights and amenities, but I was anxious that the Committee should have this instruction so that the Bill shall not deprive the public of any of its rights at the present moment. of course I do not know what line this House will adopt regarding the Motion which is at present before us, but I am entirely in support of my noble friend Lord Esher in opposing the Bill. I cannot help thinking that your Lordships would be wiser to throw out this Bill and let the matter have further consideration from those various bodies whose attention has only just been called to this particular problem.
Two noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Jessel, both explained that they supported the Bill because it was only an enabling Bill, but it is for that reason that I venture to oppose it. This may or may not be carried out in ten years, but it will undoubtedly have the very important result that it will give to the owners of the property between the Estate and the Embankment Gardens a value which they certainly have not got at: the present moment. They come to this House for the purpose of obtaining that enhanced value which will be given to the land if we withdraw the restrictions. That is a very serious matter. I believe, and it has been already suggested by another member of this House,
1218
that the best thing that can be done would be to retain the line of Adelphi Terrace and throw this mud flat, as described by Lord Newton, into the Embankment Gardens. The whole line of buildings from that point on to Charing Cross will be affected if by this Bill we allow the Adelphi Estate to bring its building line forward. Of course, it is impossible on this occasion, without plans or map before us, to explain exactly what will take place, but lately I have very often been to this place— I have no doubt others of your Lordships have been there, too— and I am convinced that if we allow this Bill to pass there will grow up immediately a high building on the same line as the Shell-Mex.
Now the Shell-Mex, I believe anybody will admit, is an atrocity. I will not say it is an ugly building, but it dwarfs everything in the neighbourhood, including the Adelphi. I do not see why we should repeat that mistake with another which will effect the whole of the frontage between the Adelphi and Charing Cross. As has been said by one noble Lord, it may seriously affect the question of. Charing Cross Bridge. When the Adelphi Terrace was laid out, as you may see if you study the old prints, the idea of the Promoters was to keep a high terrace, on the level of the Strand, right along from Wateloo Bridge on one side to Charing Cross on the other side. The whole idea was magnificent. It was not carried out altogether, but what was carried out was that when the Promoters of the Act of 1771 came before Parliament for the purpose of an Embankment and using it as wharves, Parliament allowed them to embank on the understanding that nothing but twenty feet walls should be built there. The foreshore is part of the River Thames. It may be that the property in that particular ground is with the owners of the Adelphi Estate, but it has always been an open public air space. It is part of the River Thames, and I believe that that was part of the reason why restrictions were put of in 1771, and it is because we attach so much importance to these air spaces in London that we have taken the only course we could take, of raising the question on the Second Reading.
It has been suggested that this Bill should be sent to a Committee in the

1219
ordinary course. I know it is very difficult to resist such a proposition in this House, or in the House of Commons, be-cause it seems to be the only fair thing, but I do not see how any fair and proper inquiry could take place before a Committee of this House. Lord Onslow has pointed out that in the ordinary course there will be no opposition. There cannot be any inquiry because, I understand. the London County Council and the West, minster City Council— both of whom I think have neglected their duty in this matter— will not be there. There will be no one to raise the points we have raised, and no society can get a locus. There is no petition, so far as I know. and the matter will go by default, by reason of no evidence or argument being given against the plan of the Promoters. I quite appreciate the offer which was made by Lord Onslow, and I am prepared to say that if that really can be made effective, and we can have tin views of various societies fairly put before a Committee of this House, it would make a great difference in my asking the. House to agree to or reject my instruction. But it does not in the least prevent me from thinking, and urging this House, that we should reject this Bill.
I do not want to repeat the arguments in favour of that course, especially those of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He put the case exactly as I would like to put it, and far better than I could. We have been going through a process of uglifying London. For years we have found ourselves faced with the development of private property on lines not approved by the public. There is the case of Devonshire House, and numerous other cases could be cited where the local authorities have failed to look after the amenities of London. We feel that this will be another example of the same process, and that we shall find, if this Bill is passed, that there will grow up another most objectionable row of very high buildings along a part of the Thames which we ought to keep as open as we can.
I do not know that I can say anything more, except one thing. My noble friend Lord Jessel has stated that the London County Council and the Westminster City Council have approved this Bill. I do not know that they have exactly approved the Bill, but I believe that they have resolved to do nothing. The reason for
1220
that is, as I understand from my noble friend, that they have been pacified by the gift of a road which on the plan looks an extremely useful road. It is not. It is a perfectly useless road. It is not on the level of the terrace, but away down below, and it will result in no public advantage. They have got the Promoters to make a road which they ought to make at their own cost, and they withdraw their opposition to the Bill. The very fact that they have withdrawn their opposition puts us in this position, that when we send the Bill to a Committee, unless special arrangements are made our case will not be heard, and there will be no opportunity of forming an unbiased opinion on the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask this House to throw out the Bill on Second Reading, and allow us and the local authorities to give it further consideration.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, may I answer the question of the noble Lord with regard to locus? If you refer this Bill to a Committee, and there is any particular body who wish to be heard, you can direct the Committee to hear that body. In that way I think the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord could he got over.
LORD DICKINSON: Of course, there is another difficulty in the way of the societies, and that is the difficulty of funds. To appear before a Committee is, as your Lordships know, a very costly matter, and not altogether a thing which we could jump at.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, in rising to speak on behalf of the Bill I want to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, for the extraordinarily able way in which he convinced me, and I have no doubt a great many other people, in every word he said, that this Bill must go to a Committee of this House. From start to finish everything he said pointed to the fact that it was necessary that it should go to a Committee of this House. He said, as many others of your Lordships have said, that this is a Bill which is rather difficult to understand unless you know the place. I do not know how many of your Lordships do know this place in relation to this Bill. Speaking entirely personally, I always desire, if I can, to know something about what I am talking about before I begin to talk. I therefore took the trouble

1221
yesterday to go over the whole of this site with the owner of the site and his agent, and the plans were explained to me. I have come to a very definite conclusion as a result, but I am perfectly certain that it is very difficult for anybody to come to a conclusion unless he has taken the trouble to do that. Your Lordships cannot be asked to go there en bloc, but if the Bill goes to a Select Committee, the members of that Committee will know what it is they are talking about.
May I give one example of that? Since I saw this Bill and was asked to take any interest in it at all one thing has struck me. It was a point to which the noble Viscount called attention but about which he did not seem to have made sufficient inquiries. What would be the effect of this alteration with regard to possible future plans for a Charing Cross Bridge, especially the approaches to a Charing Cross Bridge? That occurred to me at once. I therefore thought that the best thing to do was to enquire, and I got my noble freed Lord Ashfield to go into the whole question for me. He has convinced me that this Bill would not in any way affect any possible scheme that has been put forward for a bridge at Charing Cross. That may be perfectly all right, but there may be an answer to it. I do not suggest that nay noble friend Lord Ashfield is necessarily right, although I lave no doubt he has taken a very great deal of trouble; but that is eminently a point upon 'Which evidence should be heard by the Select Committee. The next point is this. There are certain portions of the Embankment Gardens that ought to be taken away from the public gardens in order to go into this scheme, and there are certain portions of land that ought to be given back. That, again, is a very important matter to be gone into in order to see whether any harm would be done to the public. I came to the conclusion yesterday that it would obviously be good for the public interest, and not bad, because it would be making a curved road into a straight road.
The noble Lord who has just sat down suggested that it might be better that what was called the mud flat should go into the Embankment Gardens. He did not suggest who was going to pay for it, because that is private ground and belongs to the owner of this estate. Does
1222
he propose that the Government should pay for it? If not, who should pay for it? It is easy enough to say this may be taken into the Embankment Gardens, and I notice that the noble Viscount opposite talked about the division of people into two classes, one being the commercial class. I do not know what the noble Viscount means by the commercial class. He is asking to keep something which is not his because he likes seeing it, to the detriment of the owner. He is not paying anything for it, but the owner is not to get the proper value of it because he lacks the asthetic sense. Is the noble Viscount a commercial person or not? It strikes me as one of the most commercial propositions I have ever heard put forward.
Several noble Lords have said something which everybody seems to forget as soon as it is said. The owners of Adelphi 'Terrace can pull it down tomorrow if they wish to do so, and nobody can stop them, and they can put up another building which may be, and very likely will be, even more commercially profitable to thorn than the present Adelphi Terrace, and you cannot stop it. When I heard the most rev. Primate say that it is for your Lordships to say whether you will prevent this being destroyed, that is not the fact. I may be attributing to him something that he did not say, but what I thought he said was that you must either destroy or preserve, or, if yon cannot do that, at least you can punish the man for wanting to destroy because you can make it less profitable for him to do it. I do not think it is our duty to make a thing less profitable to a man who has a perfect right to do what he likes with something that is his, unless there is a real reason for doing so.
Not only did I walk over the place yesterday, but I. also had a good look at the view. I dare say the most rev. Primate was right. Perhaps the noble Viscount was right, too— it is a matter of taste. But I quite agree that from the Adelphi Terrace you really get the best view of the æsthetic lines of Charing Cross Railway Bridge. I know no point from which you can see to better advantage those wonderful and graceful lines. But do we particularly want to? A suggestion has been made that you might get just as good a view if there was a flat roof

1223
where the public could go. At the Croydon aerodrome a few years ago an hotel was built, and it was thought that the public might like to get a view of the air liners coming in and a general view of the flying. That flat roof was made. A special staircase was made outside the hotel for the public to go up. It is crowded every day. You can have a place like that where the public would really like to go, and from which they would see far more than they would from the Terrace of the shipping going up and down the Thames. But, quite candidly, I do not believe there are very many people who care very much about this particular view.
Then we are told that there is also a view of the Adelphi Terrace. When did this suddenly become so obvious to everybody? The Terrace has been allowed to

CONTENTS.

Saukey, V. (L. Chancellor)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Ellenborough L.

Chaplin, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wellington, D.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Goschen, V.

Harris, L.

Bath, M.

Hailsham, V.

Hillingdon, L.

Salisbury, M.

Mersey, V.

Irwin, L.

Lamington, L.

Shaftesbury, E. (L. Steward.)

Aberdare, L.

Loch, L.

Airlie, E.

Alvingham, L.

Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

Ancaster, E.

Annaly, L.

Monteagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Beatty, E.

Annesley, L. (V.Valentia.)

Newton, L. [Teller]

Breadalbane and Holland, E.

Ashfield, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Bradbury, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Iveagh, E.

Brancepeth,L.(V. Boyne.)

Ormathwaite, L.

Lucan, E.

Camrose, L.

Ormonde, L. (.M. Ormonde..)

Malmesbury, E.

Carson, L.

Phillimore, L.

Midleton, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan william.)

Rankeillour, L.

Morton, E.

Riddell, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clinton, L.

Strachie, L.

Munster, E.

Clwyd, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Onslow, E.

Darling, L.

Plymouth, E.

Desborough, L.

Templemore, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Wharton, I,.

Strafford, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection
be overgrown in front with trees till you can hardly see it in the winter, and not at all in the summer. Yet nobody complains. Why has this suddenly become the one thing that must be preserved for London? And preserved for London without any idea of who is going to pay he unfortunate owners who are not allowed to develop the land. I think I am right in saying that there is an overwhelming case here, not for passing this scheme, but for allowing it to go to a Committee of your Lordships' House, which would hear all the points for and against anti then report to this House whether the Bill should go through or not.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:——Contents, (64; Not-Contents, 27.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, I understand from my noble friend Lord Onslow that facilities can be given to the associations concerned in this question to put their case before the Select Committee, and that steps will be taken as

1225
far as possible to achieve that result. On that understanding I will not move my instruction.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: By direction of the House, the Committee can hear certain persons.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move the Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill. The object is to enable the Bill to be read a second time. It has had to stand over to await the Attorney-General's report.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 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 Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly.
Bill committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF LEOMINSTER ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Leominster be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the Borough of Leominster, and laid before this House on the 1st instant, be approved.— (The Earl of Lucan.)

SUNDAY ENTERMAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (MERTON AND MORDEN URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move a similar Motion in regard to the urban district, of Merton and Morden.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending
1226
Section 1 of that Act to the urban district of Merton and Morden, and laid before this House on the 1st instant, be approved.— (The Earl of Lucan.)

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (COUNTY BOROUGH OF PORTSMOUTH).
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move a similar Motion also in regard to the County Borough of Portsmouth.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Act, for extending Section 1 of that Act to the County Borough of Portsmouth, and laid before this House on the 2nd instant., be approved.— (The Earl of Lucan.)

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, this Bill has been circulated to your Lordships. It is purely a Consolidation Bill, and it will be referred to the Committee upstairs. Therefore, I do not propose to move its Second Reading any more than these formal words.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening so often, especially on questions of grammar, but the noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, last year, when I put several grammatical Amendments on the Paper, asked me to withdraw them. I did so on the understanding that the Department would thoroughly go into them and adopt them. The noble Viscount, Lord Snowden, promised that should be done. I have read with great pleasure this Bill putting the word "Court" into the singular, although I do not agree that "County Council" should be put in the plural as it consistently is in this Bill, especially after what my noble friend Lord Lucan said a few days ago that all corporate bodies were to be treated as being in the singular in future

1227
Bills. When we come to the Schedule, "Court" goes skidding all over the place. In the Third Schedule, page 88, line 36, it is in the plural, as it also is on page 89, lines 8, 11, 39, and 43. Then we come to page 90, lines 19 and 31, where it goes back to the singular. Next we go to page 91, and on lines 15, 41, and 43, it slips back into the plural. Then in the Fifth Schedule, page 97, lines 11, 12, and 14, it happily goes back into its right place in the singular. I hope the noble Earl will see that this Bill is amended properly in Standing Committee.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend. The Department I represent were convinced that they had thoroughly satisfied the noble Viscount in their treatment of nouns of multitude in this case. I was asked to assure him that they quite understood that he withdrew his Amendments last year on condition that in the Consolidation Bill the matter should be put right, and the office which I represent thought that they had made the matter right by putting "Court" in the singular and local authorities in the plural. I am sure that they will be most disappointed to find that they have not yet satisfied my noble friend, but I hope that they will be able to do so when the Bill is considered in the Consolidation Committee upstairs.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

INDIAN PAY (TEMPORARY ABATEMENTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (LORD IRWIN): My Lords, I do not know that at this stage of your Lordships' business you will desire me to make a long speech on this Bill which, indeed, is not unfamiliar to your Lordships, because it follows very closely the lines of a Bill that was before your Lordships' House last year. It will be within the recollection of the House that last year it was found necessary, owing to the exigencies of Indian finance, to impose a cut of 10 per cent. upon the pay of members of the Services serving in India. and it was consequently necessary to come to Parliament for statutory power
1228
to make that cut, as the members of these Services were in the enjoyment of statutory protection. On that occasion an undertaking was given by the Secretary of State for India— that it was his intention, if finances permitted, to restore the cut at the earliest opportunity, and the Bill only had currency for the period of twelve months. The position to which the Secretary of State then looked forward has not been reached in the fashion that he hoped, and he, after consultation with the Government of India, has come to the conclusion that it is not possible to do more than restore half the cut this year, thereby continuing a cut at the rate of 5 per cent. for another twelve months. That is the purpose of the Bill that I now have to move should be read a second time.
There is one other matter in regard to which I think I should place your Lordships in full possession of the facts, which is, that the restoration of 5 per cent. of the cut and the continuance of the other 5 per cent. of the cut is accompanied by a revision of the Income Tax concession with which the full 10 per cent. cut last year was accompanied. Last year those who were subject to the 10 per cent. cut were in some degree assisted by an Income Tax concession which has now been withdrawn, but the withdrawal of that Income Tax concession, which is part of the general financial arrangement that the Secretary of State considers necessary, has been so arranged as to fall most lightly upon the lower and lowest grades of pay, and the net result of the combination of the measures— namely, the continuance of the 5 per cent. cut and the withdrawal of the Income Tax concession— is that the lowest grades of pay will get, I think, something between 4 per cent. and 4.5 per cent. of remission, and the remainder, the higher grades of pay, will get proportionately less. But all cases will be secured against any technical combination of those two things operating in their disfavour.
I need hardly say that it would have been more congenial to me, as it would have been to my right honourable friend in another place, to have been spared the necessity of moving a Bill continuing in any degree a cut upon the members of these Services in India. Your Lordships will be well aware that, for various reasons, the position of the Services in

1229
India is not comparable precisely with the position of the Services in England, in regard, for instance, to such matters as the higher expense necessarily involved upon domestic budgets by service in India, all of which would, I think, have constituted good reasons for straining financial prudence to restore the whole cut in spite of the fact that it had not been possible to make a similar restoration here. I can assure your Lordships that the matter has been viewed with the utmost desire to do that and with the utmost sympathy, but the proposals of this Bill represent the limit to which my right honourable friend has thought it possible to go on this occasion, although he hopes that if the Indian financial position continues to improve it would be possible to make complete restoration next year. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Irwin.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is in a position to give a promise that the matter will be reviewed next year in the case of the remaining 5 per cent?
LORD IRWIN: I am, indeed, because the noble Lord will appreciate that this Bill only has a duration of one year. It is a valuable example perhaps of the practical protection that these Services enjoy at the hands of Parliament, that, no inroad can be made upon their salaries without the direct assent of Parliament. Accordingly, if, as I should hope would not prove to be the case, it were found next year to be again necessary to make a reduction of pay the Government of the day would be obliged to come to Parliament for Parliamentary approval. I hope, however, that that will not be necessary.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have ordered that the Committee appointed by them to join with the Com-
1230
mittee of this House to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session, do meet the Lords' Committee in Committee Room A on Wednesday next, at eleven o'clock, as proposed by their Lordships.

BOOTLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Petition for additional provision; of Corporation of Bootle; together with proposed amendments and clause annexed thereto: Read, and refer red to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I should like to mention that I have received information from my noble friends Lord Mount Temple and Lord Phillimore, that they do not propose to move the two Motions relating to Russia which stand in their names on the Order Paper for next Tuesday. They are leaving the Motions on the Paper, but with no day fixed for discussion, for reasons which I think your Lordships will readily appreciate in existing circumstances. That leaves the Motion of my noble friend Lord Askwith with regard to certain rules under the Patents and Designs Act, 1907, as the only business on the Paper for Tuesday, and. I am informed that my noble friend is quite willing to have that matter discussed on Thursday when there is only one Bill down for Second Reading. By that arrangement it becomes unnecessary for your Lordships to meet on Tuesday. The business on the Paper for Wednesday is the Benefices (Purchase of Rights of Patronage) Measure which will be moved by the most rev. Primate and a Motion with regard to unemployment among the agricultural community standing in the name of my noble friend the Earl of Liverpool. I therefore move that the House should adjourn, except for judicial business, until Wednesday.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn, except for judicial business, until Wednesday next.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before seven o'clock.