asked the Secretary of State for War whether county associations had the right to refuse leave for a portion or the whole of the 15 days' training in camp which it is intended that yeomen should undergo provided that they were recommended for leave of absence by their commanding officers; and whether, in cases where it is impossible for business reasons for men to remain 15 days in camp, though they are willing and anxious to remain for eight or nine, it was intended that they should be compelled to buy their discharge?

County Associations are not concerned with the granting of leave from camp. This is a matter for commanding officers of units to deal with under the instructions they may receive from the local military authorities. Nothing is known of any cases having arisen of the nature alluded to in the last part of the question.

asked whether the official letter of resignation from the High Commissioner in the Mediterranean contained the reasons which led him to resign his appointment; whether he expressed the opinion that the public expense involved in this post was not justified by the duties and responsibilities assigned to it; whether His Majesty's Government intend to continue this appointment; and whether a copy of the High Commissioner's letter can be laid upon the Table of the House?

In a confidential letter to the War Office His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief and High Commissioner in the Mediterranean gave certain reasons for desiring to resign his appointment. These reasons did not appear to His Majesty's Government to be sufficient to justify the abolition of an important post, which had been created after careful consideration in 1907. The Duke of Connaught was, therefore, invited to reconsider the question of his resignation, but to the regret of the Government and the Army Council His Royal Highness in a second confidential letter adhered to his previous request, which has been acceded to with effect from August 1st. His Majesty's Government intend to continue the appointment, which forms a factor of increasing importance in their scheme of organisation for Imperial Defence. In creating the appointment care was taken that no increased expenditure would be caused thereby. The correspondence with His Royal Highness being of a confidential nature, I do not think that it would be in the interest of the public service to lay a copy of it on the Table of the House. Perhaps I may add that I think if I went into the reasons without first communicating with His Royal Highness it would be very unfair and might lead to an intolerable situation.

Is it not the case that one of the chief reasons of the resignation was that the public expense (nearly £10,000 a year) was not justified?

No, that was not the reason. The appointments at Malta and Gibraltar were more expensive than this one, and the old cost has not been exceeded.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons for the resignation of His Royal Highness? Does he propose to make a statement con- cerning the usefulness of the office which His Royal Highness held, so that the House may understand the reasons for establishing this particular office in the Mediterranean?

Later on it will be my duty to do so, but at the present moment I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any statement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the appointment is to be given?

At this moment I cannot, but I hope to be able to do so later on.

Will the successor to the appointment receive the same pay and allowances?

I trunk it would be better for me not to say anything on that question. I shall have to inform the House fully about it later on.

asked the Secretary of State for War, whether any uniform is to be provided for the veteran Territorials in time of peace; and, if not, what arrangements does he intend to make for their immediate supply in case of war?

The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. In reply to the second part of the question the matter is under consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for War, what progress has been made with the census of horses besides that made in the county of Devon; and by what date he expects it to be completed?

Arrangements have been made for taking the census in the other counties, if possible, before the end of the year. It is hoped that it may be completed by 1st January.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any other county has completed its census besides Devonshire?

Several counties had already, on their own initiative, taken a census a little before this time, under powers which existed for the purpose, and we had oldish censuses for certain counties. These, of course, will have to be brought up to date, and what we are endeavouring to do is to get all the censuses taken at the same time, so that we have all the material required.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House about what time he will be able to lay before it the result of the general census of the whole country?

That depends upon whether the county authorities are able to carry out what has been arranged. I think it will be before the end of the year—I do not mean the financial year, but the actual year. We hope so, at all events.

asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can state what progress has been made with the issue of the new cavalry sword?

I am not yet in a position to add anything to the information which I have already given to the House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman make any further explanation of this four years' delay?

The delay at the present time, as I have said, is in one part of the sword—getting the article produced conformably to the specification. The matter is going on rapidly at the present time.

asked why the Buddhist registrar has been removed from the hall of the Buddhist Theosophical Society in Colombo, although that society has had the benefit of his presence since the office was created in 1888, thus depriving the representative of the Buddhist community, which supports three colleges and over 250 schools, of the privilege of marriage in their own hall, although all Christian sects are granted this privilege?

My hon. Friend is mistaken in supposing that the Buddhist Theosophical Society represents the whole of the Buddhist community of Ceylon. The number of members of the society in Ceylon is only 132. It is not the only Buddhist society in the island, and the great mass of Buddhists belong to no society. The Government has required the removal of the registrar's office from the hall of this society because its presence there tended to identify the registrar too closely with this particular society.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is the practice of the Deutsche Stahl-werke Verbund to grant an export subsidy of 15 marks per ton on steel billets and bars; that this is frequently supplemented by a further subsidy of 1 mark 50 pfennig, paid by the Westfälische Kohlen Verbund; that the imports of such billets and bars into the United Kingdom in 1908 showed an increase of 71 per cent, over the figures of 1907; whether the Customs Duty on similar articles in Germany is 30 marks per ton; and whether he proposes to take any action to rectify the disadvantage thus occasioned to the British producer?

The total imports of steel ingots, blooms, billets, slabs, and sheet and tinplate bars into the United Kingdom in 1908 was greater by 71 per cent, than in 1907, in which latter year the imports were considerably smaller than in any year since 1903. As regards the remaining portion of the question, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a similar question put to me by the hon. Member for Yarmouth on 21st June last. I find, however, that the German Customs Duty on imported steel billets is not stated correctly, the existing duty being I mark 50 pfg. per 100 kilogrammes, or about 15s. per ton.

asked if the submarine C 11 was sunk by a merchant vessel, the s.s. "Eddystone," cutting the line of a squadron of warships in motion in defiance of the regulations of the Board of Trade; if there will be an inquiry held into the circumstances of such breach of regulations; and if the matter will be taken into consideration when the certificate of the "Eddystone" comes up for renewal?

Until this case has been investigated, it would be undesirable to express any opinion as to the causes or consequences of the accident. I am unable at the moment to say what form the investigation will take, but it will probably not be a Board of Trade inquiry.

In the event of there not being any further inquiry, will the Board of Trade hold an investigation of the matter, particularly with regard to the point raised by this question?

I think it is very unlikely, but I will consider it, supposing the Admiralty do not conduct their own investigations.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state if the Strangford Bar buoy has yet been removed to the new permanent position promised by the Irish Lights Commissioners?

I am informed by the Irish Lights Commissioners that a notice to mariners is being issued that the buoy will be moved to the new position this year, but that the alteration cannot take place until a sufficient time has elapsed after the publication of the notice.

What is the length of time generally in a case of this sort, and will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the buoy is in its proper position before the bad weather comes on?

I have not been able to ascertain what the usual period is. It is not a very common occurrence, but I have received a telegram from the Irish Lights Commissioners in the terms of which I have given the answer. I will, of course, take care to see that this change takes place before the bad weather comes on.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws in respect to the abolition of general workhouses and the appointment of qualified superintendents to specialised institutions, as set forth in paragraph 52, page 653, and having regard to recent disclosures in connection with the Ladywell Workhouse, London, he will consider the advisability of refusing to sanction any permanent appoint- ments of principal officers in that or any other institution similarly circumstanced, pending legislation on the lines laid down by the Report of the Commission.

It is necessary that, pending future legislation with regard to workhouses, the existing institutions should be properly carried on, and it would not, I think, be satisfactory that the principal posts in them should be held by temporary officers. I am afraid, therefore, that I could not adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.

Is he aware that if the suggestion mentioned in the question is carried into effect it would result in a saving of £200 or £300 a year at least to the ratepayers.

I am aware more closely than the hon. Member can be of the whole of the circumstances of Ladywell Workhouse, and my inspector is looking into the whole matter.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what further orders for gun mountings will be given to contractors; and what is the estimated expenditure during the next eight months in respect of such orders for the our first ships and the additional ships respectively?

Sufficient orders will be given to meet all our requirements. I am unable to add anything to the information given in the Estimates as to the first four ships or with regard to the last four to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in last week's Debate.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what arrangements in fulfilment of the pledges given by the Government in March last have been made with contractors to increase their plant for the rapid production of gun mountings; and when the increased plant will be available for production?

Arrangements have been made adequate to meet our known requirements, and the plant is expected to be ready when it will be wanted.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the number of appeals submitted to the Local Government Board by the pension officers, acting under the Old Age Pensions Act, in the various sub-districts in the county Sligo during the first six months' operation of the Act; and, if so, will he give the number of cases in which the decisions of local committees have been upheld?

The files relating to appeals are returned by the Local Government Board to the pension officers as soon as the cases have been decided. As the hon. Member has already been informed in reply to the question asked by him on 26th July, the Board have not classified appeals in their register by counties or districts, and they are not therefore in a position to give the required information. It might, of course, be possible for the pension officers to extract the information from the files, but they are already fully occupied, and the preparation of such returns would cause delay in dealing with fresh applications.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he proposes to hold a conference of all parties interested in the question of land purchase in Ireland, as was done in 1903, before he proceeds further with the Land Bill?

So far as I am aware, there is no intention of holding any such conference.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect to get the Bill through?

Yes; certainly.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state the numbers of local authorities which have put in force The Tuberculosis (Ireland) Act, 1908?

As has already been pointed out to the hon. Member in reply to the question asked by him on 9th July, Part 1 of the Act alone requires the formality of adoption. Three sanitary authorities have up to the present passed the necessary resolutions subject to the approval of the county council in each case. A number of the sanitary authorities have availed themselves of the various powers contained in Part III. of the Act.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to notices issued by the Irish Local Government Board relative to inquiries which have been held into applications for loans under the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Act, 1908; and whether, under this Act, if a local authority have previously borrowed to the full limit of their powers, they are, all other things considered, namely, plans, estimates, sites, etc., being satisfactory, allowed to borrow for the purpose of a building scheme under the Act of 1908 for the Housing of the Working Classes?

The answer is in the affirmative.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that in a letter addressed to the Very Reverend Canon Grimes, parish priest of Portadown, the Under-Secretary at Dublin Castle promised, on behalf of the Lords Justices, that ample police arrangements would be made for the preservation of the public peace in Portadown; whether he is aware that on the 11th July a procession of Orangemen, wearing regalia, marched under police protection through an almost exclusively Catholic portion of Portadown to and from a church in the neighbourhood, although the ordinary and direct road to and from the church is much shorter; whether he is aware that on the 13th July Orange drumming parties were allowed to parade through the Catholic district in a provoking manner, cursing the Pope and playing party tunes, under the protection of the police, and that a series of scuffles took place and several persons were injured, and afterwards a number of shots were fired by Orangemen going home through the district, and whether any prosecutions have taken place in connection with these out' rages; whether he is aware that in William-street, where the Catholic church is and where half the population is Catholic, the Orangemen were permitted to erect an arch across the street a few yards from the church and to keep it there until the 14th, to the annoyance of the people attending the church; whether drumming parties, contrary to all precedent, were permitted, under the eyes of the police, to march up and down the street, and to act in an offensive manner opposite the church; whether he is aware of the indignation which has been aroused by these occurrences, taken in conjunction with the treatment of the Catholic procession on 27th June, which was subjected to insult and compelled to detrain at the goods station although they were assured of full protection by Dublin Castle; and whether he will order a searching inquiry into the conduct of the police in this matter and give some guarantee that in future the Catholics of Portadown will enjoy the full measure of protection to which they are entitled by law?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I am informed by the police authorities that on 11th July a procession of Orangemen wearing regalia marched through Obin-street, a Catholic quarter of Portadown, to Drumcree Parish Church, following the practice of over 50 years; that on the 13th July Orange bands and drumming parties coming into Portadown from the northern portion of the county proceeded through, among other streets, Obin-street, which is the direct route, and the one which has always been followed. It appears that one band played a party tune, but the police did not hear anyone curse the Pope. On the return journey stones were thrown at the processionists, and a slight scuffle took place, which was at once suppressed by the police. In the evening one shot was fired on the outskirts of the town by the occupants of an isolated car. No one was injured, and, owing to the darkness, no person could be identified. No prosecutions have been commenced. The Orange arch referred to consisted of a rope spanning the street, to which was attached a miniature Union Jack and some bunting. It had no party emblems attached to it, and was further from the Roman Catholic church than in former years. It was put up at the end of the street occupied (with, it is believed, one exception) by Protestants. The police also inform me that it is not a fact that drumming parties paraded up and down William-street, and acted offensively opposite the church. The occurrences of the 27th June have been fully dealt with by my light hon. Friend in his reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on the 28th July. I am not aware of any reason why any inquiry should be held into the conduct of the police, who appear to have acted impartially and with considerable tact, and to have succeeded in preserving the peace in somewhat trying circumstances.

Was the extraordinary deafness of the police on this occasion diplomatic?

I am not aware. All they say is that they did not hear this expression.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Portadown is a most peaceful neighbourhood, and that the people live in peace and harmony all the year round?

That is the general rule I believe. Portadown is very peaceful, but there are two occasions, 12th July and 15th August, which are usually exceptions.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that the Union Jack is a party emblem?

I cannot see how the Union Jack can be considered a party emblem, though it may possibly be turned into a party emblem.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can state why Thomas Ryan, of Drimeyre, Mullagh, county Galway, was deprived of an old age pension?

The Local Government Board cannot find any record of the case of Thomas Ryan, of Drimeyre, Mullagh, but they presume that the question refers to Thomas Ryan, who appears in then-books as of Gortymadden, Ballinasloe. This man's claim to a pension was disallowed by the pension committee on the ground that he had not attained the age of 70 years. The claimant appealed, and the Local Government Board upheld the decision of the local committee as the Census of 1851 showed him to have been born in 1841, and to be therefore 68 years of age at the present time.

asked whether the decision of the local sub-committee granting a pension to Alice M'Donnell, of Currea, Ballintogher, near Collooney, county Sligo, was appealed against some four months ago; whether the matter has since been considered by the Local Government Board; and, if so, with what result?

The Local Government Board have not yet given their decision on the appeal lodged by the pension officer in this case pending the result of certain inquiries which they have requested him to make.

Is it not the fact that this case has been under the consideration of the Local Government Board for the last four months?

I am not aware of the time. The Local Government Board have a large number of these cases to deal with, and if they are to go carefully into each case they may take a very considerable time.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the sale of the estate of Mrs. Gowing, of Dartfield, Loughrea, were opened some four years ago; whether the nominal occupier of this grazing tract of untenanted land, containing about 1,000 Irish acres, is a gentleman who farms and resides at Walters Town, county Clare; whether the lands have been purchased by the Commissioners; and, seeing that the district is largely congested and having regard to the history of the Dartfield lands, will he communicate with the Commissioners and, in the interest of good government, try and induce them to deal with these lands immediately?

The lands have not been purchased by the Estates Commissioners, but proceedings have recently been instituted by the Governors of the Meath Hospital as owners for sale to the Commissioners, and the matter will be dealt with as soon as practicable.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why he expressed in writing his cordial approval of the actions of all the police officers engaged in the recent eviction at Cordal, county Kerry, and authorised the circulation of such writing amongst those concerned; and whether there is any precedent for such action?

The publication of the minute in question was unauthorised and irregular, and steps have been taken to prevent such an occurrence in future.

To call attention to the State of Education in India.

To call attention to the Unsettled Condition of India.

To call attention to the State of Coercion and Repression in India.

The Vote is a civil one, but it touches the Departments of the Navy and the War Office, and it is impossible to segregate the scientific elements in the Vote. In the discussion of the Vote, therefore, a little latitude should be allowed so that we may travel over the general field. This is the more necessary because the subject is such a new one. The Committee will be interested to know what progress has been made in aeronautics as applied to war purposes, and the answer must be from the very nature of the subject—not very much. There has been certain progress, and it will be found to be more substantial than it appears at first sight. I do not believe that so far that department of the subject with which this House is primarily concerned—the service of defence—any very rapid progress is being made all over the world. Great strides are being made, in the preparation of machines, but it is not enough to make machines that will fly, whether dirigibles or aeroplanes. They must be machines which can be made available for the purposes of war, and the difficulties which surround us are still so great that progress can only be made after exact and careful study and by the adaptation of inventions as they are brought forward to the peculiar conditions which must be fulfilled if effectiveness in war is to be secured. I only remind the Committee that, in war there is very little use for anything unless it can be applied with some certainty, that it would do what we want it to do, and unless you have some exactness in results. Now that stage has not been reached, and that has an important bearing on what I am going to say. The Prime Minister and the First Lord of the Admiralty some time ago asked me to take in hand the general consideration of the principles which underly this Vote and the devising of the machinery which should be called into existence, and after some study I made up my mind that there could be no real progress unless we proceeded scientifically and in order; that is to say, unless we were perfectly clear about what we wanted and as to the structure of the machines which were to be used to fulfil the purposes in view and the production of them in a way which would be at least effective. But I know that that is a very slow process. It is very damping to some ardent spirits, and yet I am sure that in the long run it is the best way of going. Accordingly, the first thing we did was to ask the Committee of Imperial Defence to investigate the subject, and to discuss it with the technical sub-Committee, which could take evidence and go into matters. That the Committee did, and they proceeded rapidly. We had the Report in a comparatively short time. The Report was to the effect that the class of machines must be divided into three heads—rigid dirigibles, non-rigid dirigibles, and aeroplanes. These belong to different spheres. For Naval purposes the rigid dirigible is probably the only instrument of the kind that is of real value—at any rate, in the present state of knowledge. It may be quite different in twenty years, or even ten years' time, but I am talking of present conditions. For the Army the rigid dirigible has certain disadvantages. It is more difficult to turn, bring back, and bring to rest. It is more difficult in the Army than the Navy, and, therefore, in this matter we can only proceed tentatively, and it seems that the non-rigid dirigible is best for Army purposes. The aeroplane may become available for the Army, but at present there are certain defects. It will have to rise much higher before it can be safe for reconnoitring, and great strides will have to be made in the control of its flight. The remarkable events of the last few days—M. Blériot crossing the Channel, and other things that have been accomplished in the United States, and elsewhere—all point to this, that at some time hereafter the aeroplane will be an instrument which will be capable of effecting in all probability great results. But that is not so at the present moment, and even if the British Army had 200 aeroplanes of the best present construction we should not be one bit further on than we are at the present moment.

That being so, obviously there is a great deal of scientific investigation to do. We distribute that work by assigning to the Navy the investigation and, in a tentative way, the construction of the rigid dirigible. To the Army has been assigned the work of experimenting with non-dirigible machines of varying type, and also with aeroplanes. But the Committee of Defence reported that the non-dirigible was a long way further on, and much nearer being of use than the aeroplane at present, and, therefore, we set ourselves under the obligation to give our first attention to the non-rigid dirigible. But, in order to work these things out, it was necessary to get a great deal of knowledge. From what I have said it will be obvious that you cannot go fast in this matter. You must feel your way and make experiments. Another thing which is obvious is that what is being done in other parts of the world includes to a large extent in this class of work investigations which are available for everybody. Flying machines, whatever forms they take, are very simple machines, and you cannot keep secret very long any advance that has been made in their construction. Moreover, private inventors have been largely at work, and I doubt whether any machine which the Government possess would retain its secret for more than a very limited time. Therefore, I cannot say that I feel much concerned over what is a fact, that in this country we have not made the amount of initial progress that has been made in Germany, France and, perhaps, in the-United States. But I reflect that much the same thing was true of submarines. To-day, by our scientific procedure and by the work that has been done in the Admiralty, we stand, it is no exaggeration to say, at the head of the world as regards submarines. Then again, in motor cars also we were behind. I am no expert in motor cars, but I know enough to have a strong impression that if we are not up to the best Continental countries in every way, we are getting very near it in the construction of motor cars. Therefore, being more or less responsible for this matter, I felt myself able to advise my right hon. Friends that science should come first. I did not mean by that that we should not construct or experiment, but it did seem to be vital that the mass of scattered information that had been accumulated should be investigated in its scientific order.

For that purpose the Department constituted the Advisory Committee under Lord Rayleigh's presidency, on which the House knows it is not too much to say we bave got some of the finest scientific training in the world. That Committee has held various meetings since it was appointed, and, of course, continuous work will be going on under its direction in the National Physical Laboratory. Meetings have been held there, and also at Alder-shot and in the War Office, and in a moment I will tell the House some things on which the Committee has agreed. The Committee is not intended to construct. It is appointed to advise. It is not even charged with the duty of investigation, but its purpose is to scrutinise investigations which are submitted to it in the course of the work of the Departments concerned; and it has also had to conduct systematic experiments and has had to be furnished with the proper apparatus for that purpose. I hope in a few days that the first Report of the Committee and its work—of course, it is only in a tentative state—will be made public; but I may tell the Committee, meantime, the general character of what has been done. One very important thing was, we should make systematic arrangements under this Committee for getting the fullest knowledge of what was going on in aerostatics all over the world. The Reports, some of them very technical and in different languages, bad to be digested and collated, and observations had to be kept of what is going on in scientific periodicals and the publications of the Departments of State of the various Governments; all that is being done. The work of anybody dealing with this subject of aerostatics is becoming more and more scientific in character. I went over not long ago to my old University at Gottingen, and I found there a chair which has been founded by the German Government, of which the standard of technical knowledge was so high that no student was admitted to the lectures who was not capable of devoting his whole attention to aerostatics. That is a rather heavy demand, but one cannot keep abreast of these things unless one has a very high theoretic knowledge as well as practical experience. The two must work together; and the Committee that has such men as Lord Rayleigh and Dr. Glazebrook upon it, and such men on the practical side as Mrs. Lanchester and Mr. Mallock, and others, like Professor Petavel and Mr. Shaw, and also such high authorities on the Army and Navy side as Major-General Hadden and Admiral Bacon, is a Committee which is well furnished from the various points of view.

Accordingly this Committee has been at work, and the first thing they have done is to determine the general questions which should be studied. There have been memoranda by the experts on stability, screw propellers, wind structures, petrol motors, light alloys, and a very difficult thing which has arisen in connection with balloons, the accumulation of electro static charges on balloons. Everybody knows what a peril electricity is in the air. And the Committee have mapped out the general field of their work. There are certain very general questions in aerodynamics which are very technical, and with which I need not trouble the House, questions specially relating to aeroplanes, such as the mathematical investigation of stability, the effect of sudden action of gusts of wind, and half a dozen other things which are the subject of particular experiments. Then there are questions relating to these motors, which have to be of special construction for air work, and there are questions relating to airships and meteorology; because when you get up into the air you do not go up into a body which behaves uniformly, but into an infinite variety of gusts and disturbances which makes it necessary that you should be prepared for a great deal that you do not think about when you are in safety on the earth below. That is the class of work which the Committee is doing. They lave been furnished with a considerable scientific equipment already. There is a wind channel, and there is a whirling table; there are wind towers for experiments in the open; and there are other apparatus of a special character. Then the National Physical Laboratory already have a tank under construction for experimenting in ships' models, and that has been further adapted for this kind of work, and for which it will be very useful. The Committee has wisely entered into communication with the Aeronautical Society and the Aero League. The design of the Committee is to afford assistance to private inventors wherever this can be properly done, because we feel that progress will be not only a Government but a national matter. We hope that there will be close and friendly communications preserved throughout between the Government Advisory Committee and those bodies, to which it will render all the assistance in its power. One other matter I will mention. The private inventor is always a great anxiety. If he sends in his invention before he has taken out a patent he will be sure afterwards to say that you have helped yourselves to his idea. Moreover, it is not always clear that you have not done so, because it is impossible to learn a thing of this kind and then exclude it altogether from your brain. Consequently we are asking private inventors to cover their inventions by patent before they come to us, so that we may not incur undue odium. I told the Committee what the Advisory Committee is doing—the class of its work. Of course, it is in very close relation both with the Admiralty and the War Office. The Admiralty is concentrating, under Admiral Bacon—whose record in connection with submarines and deep diving and other highly successful enterprises I need not dwell on—on the building of a rigid dirigible of the very largest kind, at least the size of the Zeppelin. That is being built at Barrow-in-Furness by Messrs. Vickers. It is an engineer's business, and Messrs. Vickers, who are eminently qualified for this purpose, are working out construction in this matter together with the Admiralty. I hope the combination of experts and practical men may give us a practical result some time next spring. Anyhow, it will be a very large dirigible.

I pass to what the War Office is doing. The War Office, to begin with, is reorganising its factory at Aldershot. We are separating the instruction which is at present given to balloonists from construction, and we are at present preparing for construction of a very large shed to take in the very largest size of a dirigible. We have also ordered a gas-bag for balloons of considerable size, which I trust will serve some better purpose than that of merely advertising the existence of the balloon. Anyhow, that is coming from a firm abroad, who have had the special construction of these things, which we desire to possess, and we have a car and an engine which will be used for this particular dirigible. Then a very patriotic enterprise has been undertaken by two bodies, a Parliamentary Committee of this House and the "Morning Post." The "Morning Post" has collected a large sum, and proposes to present the War Office with a non-rigid dirigible. Then the Parliamentary Committee offered to put up a shed.

The "Daily Mail."

The "Daily Mail," working in conjunction with the Parliamentary Committee, have made the generous offer of a shed. The War Office has provided, with the assistance of the London County Council, a site at Wormwood Scrubbs, and the shed is in the course of rapid construction. When it is completed I understand it will be handed over under the auspices of the Parliamentary Committee for the accommodation of the dirigible. The "Morning Post" have also contracted for a dirigible, and the result will be that the two will come, and if they are satisfactory and come up to the test, which will be very carefully looked to, one, I understand, will be presented, and the other the War Office propose to purchase. That is how the matter stands just now, so that we ought to be in possession of three dirigibles of a new type before a long time is over.

How many men will they carry?

I cannot tell the hon. Member off-hand. As regards aeroplanes, we hope before long to be in possession of two for experimental purposes, and on these we will experiment de novo. We are at present carrying on the old order of experiments, but we have to develop this side of the matter still further. On that, as on the construction of non-rigid dirigibles, the Advisory Committee is making experiments for us at this moment. This is the work that is being done. We have a very efficient staff of engineers for the manipulation of these things when they are once in existence. There is a great deal of knowledge of them at Aldershot. Colonel Capper has spent a great deal of time abroad, and has investigated everything to which he could obtain access, and study has been continued at the War Office itself. To sum up the position, the Admiralty has in prospect one great rigid dirigible, the War Office has three, and besides those we have, of course, our balloons for war purposes. At the present time we have certain aeroplanes on which we have been working, and the prospect of two new aeroplanes, which are to be presented for experimental purposes, and may hereafter be acquired. That is the actual condition of things now.

The right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech said there were special difficulties which so far prevented the present flying machines from being effective and accurate as war machines. I suppose we ought to know of those difficulties, and if the right hon Gentleman would summarise them it would perhaps help the Committee to understand the situation.

I will answer the question of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Pike Pease) first. The Naval balloon will carry about twenty men; the Army semi-rigid dirigible will carry about 8 to 10 men. That is as far as we can say just now. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) said, the difficulty in the way of all flying machines is, first, that when they get up in the air it is even chances that you may find a bank of mist below you which prevents you from making observations. The amount of observation that can be done even with the best machine is very limited, that is if you go high especially. If you go low, as you would go with an aeroplane at present; the position of the unfortunate aeroplanist sitting on a seat like a bicycle seat, and with perhaps a battalion of marksmen below him, is a very disagreeable one. Consequently, it comes to this, that if you wish to be really effective you must fly high, and if you do you must be able to come back to the position from which you started. The starting off of these machines is by no means an easy business and the bringing to land is an almost equally difficult business, so that, taking one thing with another and considering the difficulties of starting and landing, in the present state and knowledge of construction, the use of these instruments for war is not very great. But still we should be very foolish indeed if we neglected this side. It is vital that we should push ahead and we believe that the steps we have taken are steps which will presently carry us a great deal further on. Last year we spent a very small sum upon these things. This year the Committee will see from the total that the figures are very much greater. The Admiralty are spending £35,000 for these purposes. It may be necessary to come for more money, and I am sure the House of Commons and the Committee will not grudge for the purpose which is of such importance. The War Office are spending altogether upon these things over £36,000, taking the Estimates in various shapes and forms except one sum.

How is it proposed to allocate this money?

I will tell hon. Members generally. There will be a considerable expenditure on these machines and that will be the largest sum. The shed which we are building will cost £6,000, and there will be £6,000 odd for stores. There is expenditure upon personnel, and there is the other expenditure I have spoken of. Taking this sum of £35,000 of the Admiralty and that of the War office, the country will be spending in the course of this year about £78,000 on aeronautics for the purpose of defence. If you compare that with expenditure of other countries we are not so badly off in spending what is being spent this year. Last year France spent, as far as I know, £47,000; Germany spent £133.000, but of that, £26,000 was spent on balloon battalions, making the amount £107.000.

That was only on machines. That does not include sheds and other things in Germany.

I cannot answer for that. This is the amount spent on experiments for military purposes, and I am taking the figure from a return of the other day. It may be that there is further expenditure outside that. Then there was a large private subscription in Germany of a sum of £265,00. How that has been, spent I do not know. Austria-Hungary spent £5,500, and we only spent £5,270. I have not got the figures for the United States, but that is the general position. The Government are so fortunate as to have the co-operation and stimulus of various bodies. There is the Parliamentary Committee over which the hon. and gallant Member presides. There is this very valuable work of the "Morning Post," collecting funds in patriotic-fashion, and presenting a dirigible to the nation. There is the action of the "Daily Mail" in presenting sheds, a very valuable action, arid there is the work of the Aeronautical Society and Aero League. It is very difficult for private persons to render as effective assistance in a matter of this kind as they do in other things. There never will be, as far as I can see, any very large private ownership of these machines. No doubt, country gentlemen will hereafter have these aeroplanes, and have pleasant aeroplane parties and weekends; but when you come to dirigibles, rigid and unrigid, I fancy very few people will possess dirigibles. At the same time, there is an enormous amount of construction going on all over the world, and the study of these societies is consequently very valuable as a means of acquiring information of what is going on. As to the construction of engines of great bulk, all the knowledge has come through other forms of motor, and through motors we have seen. I think the country is to be congratulated upon the amount of voluntary work that has been organised in connection with these things, and I have the hope that the combined work of the Government and of these Societies will, as soon as we have got the scientific question settled, and which lies at the root of the whole thing, enable us to make such progress that when the time arrives for these machines to be adopted for war that we will be no more behind the rest of the nations of the earth than we are to-day with submarines.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his interesting speech, said truly that this was a new subject to the House of Commons. I believe this is absolutely the first occasion upon which it has ever been debated in the history of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that Members of this House will forgive those of us who have not a very wide and deep experience on the subject. I am reminded of a remark which was made by the present Lord Chamberlain some years back when he announced to an electrified House that he was not an agricultural labourer, and I feel bound to admit on this occasion that I am not a practical aeronautist. I am of a very cautious disposition, and whilst the Parliamentary Aerial Defence Committee will be very glad to afford any facilities they can to any of their colleagues, particularly on the other side of the House, to make trips, I personally propose to watch those operations on terra firma. The note running through the right hon. Gentleman's speech was perhaps a little over optimistic with regard to the state of affairs in this country. It is true that he began by saying that not very much progress had as yet been made, and I am afraid if we analyse his subsequent account of what has been done that there is only too much truth in that statement of the position. We are very much obliged to him for having informed us so precisely of what the Government is doing. That will be of great interest at any rate to Members of the Parliamentary Committee, because they have had an uneasy feeling, and I think there has been also throughout the country for some time past, that we have been allowing foreign countries to outstrip us in this matter, and that we have allowed them to gain an initial advantage which in the event of war might be very serious. The right hon. Gentleman quoted previous experience with submarines, and said that experience in the past has shown that we shall probably be able to catch up. I hope we may, and I agree that the analogy of the submarine is a very important one. But, on the other hand. I do not think it does to go upon the principle that we can always afford to wait in the hope of catching up; because some day, in connection with some warlike invention, war might come before we caught up, and the enemy would have a tremendous initial advantage. In our case I think we are a little more behindhand than the right hon. Gentleman suggested, because we lack not only plant and the airships themselves, but also what is more important and difficult to obtain, namely, experience in handling these craft. I am aware that we have this advisory scientific committee. I do not wish in the least to indulge in any captious criticism upon it, but I cannot help thinking that more confidence would be felt in the working of that Committee if there were upon it, in addition to distinguished scientists, some really practical aeronauts. I do not believe there is a single practical aeronaut on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman, I know, is very much enamoured of, I will not say hypnotised by, the blessed word "Science"; but, whilst pure science is very well in its way, I think this is a case where it is of more value when diluted by a good deal of practical experience.

The Committee has power to consult.

I was only drawing attention to the fact that at present there is not on the Committee a single practical aeronaut, as far as I am aware. I doubt very much whether the brothers Wright, M. Blériot, or even Count Zeppelin are either familiar with or much troubled by the integral calculus or the differential calculus. It is important that all the scientific matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred should be studied, but, meanwhile, while these investigations are being carried on, men are actually flying about in other countries, and Frenchmen are landing like migratory birds upon our shores. Of course, we are very pleased to welcome them; but I cannot help thinking that it is time we got on with the matter in a practical way, and that, instead of devoting our energies so exclusively or so largely to the study of pure theory, we might go further than we have done in the way of purchasing accumulated experience that is being gained in other countries. The right hon. Gentleman spoke feelingly about private inventors and their offers, which are no doubt made frequently to sell their apparatus. I have suffered like the right hon. Gentleman, because I also am not immune from the private inventor. For some reason or other, because I am connected with the Parliamentary Committee, private inventors keep writing to me and offering their machines. I always refer them to the right hon. Gentleman, who, I hope, is doing what is necessary in regard to them. The fashion at the present moment is to be either over-sceptical or else over-sanguine with regard to the possibilities of aerial navigation, particularly in connection with national defence. But the whole thing seems to be coming to a head so suddenly, and the developments are consequently so incalculable, that I cannot help thinking that in the very near future it is going to be a practical condition in warfare with which we shall have to reckon. After all, if you look back you wall find that the way in which aerial navigation has come to a head is far more rapid than has been the case with almost any other form of locomotion. Certainly it has come to a head mere rapidly than motor-car locomotion, or than steamship, and certainly than submarines, which were in use even in the American Civil War, but have only come into practical use within the last few years. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out some of the difficulties of these air machines—the difficulty of starting, and so forth. Probably all owners of motor cars here, at any rate a year or two ago, found that those machines were occasionally very difficult to start. I do not think, therefore, we should be discouraged by the fact that these machines are not yet perfect. At any rate, we cannot afford to be left behind, but I am afraid that so far there is no doubt, even from the right hon. Gentleman's account, that we have been.

I want to approach this question only from the standpoint of national defence. Of course, it has many other aspects. There is the sporting aspect, which is very interesting; and there is the social aspect, which is very disturbing. We do not know what disturbance it will cause in our laws, customs, and convenience; but these matters will no doubt be adjusted. With regard to the really important question of defence, how do we stand? We have got at Aldershot a small experimental airship, which is really no more than a toy. It is an experimental craft, and I do not wish to criticise it beyond saving that it is of no value for war purposes. We have also an aeroplane which will not fly. That is the full extent of our national equipment in this matter of aerial navigation. When we ask why this is so, I believe it is due, in the first place, to the absence of funds, at any rate, up to the present, and certainly the absence of proper expenditure in the past. We cannot get these things without spending money upon experiments. The right hon. Gentleman told us just now that last year we spent only £5,270, whereas France spent £48,000, and Germany £10.3,000, apart from private efforts. I do not think that that is a very creditable showing for us. It has been made public at last that the Admiralty are really doing something important: they are building a large rigid dirigible. The right hon. Gentleman said that they were concentrating. I am very glad that they are concentrating their energies and forces upon this very important, matter; but it does not seem that the War Office are doing quite so much. Whilst the Admiralty are concentrating, the War Office, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are experimenting, and they have begun by ordering a gas bag. That is not a very large outlay, and it does not show a very forward spirit, as compared with the Admiralty. I think we should be more interested if we knew that the War Office was actually engaged in building one of these non-rigid dirigibles, which we are now told are more suited for Army purposes, in order that the nation might be provided with both types.

We are organising construction plant in a considerable way. Before the year is out we shall have construction plant; at present we only put things together.

It might be possible to do, as the Admiralty are doing, and have a non-rigid airship built by contract. In the meantime, until the right hon. Gentleman's Department is organised, we are losing valuable time. That is my point. While we are doing something, according to the right hon. Gentleman's account, we are doing nothing commensurate either with the importance of the subject, or with what is being done by foreign countries. The Prime Minister has assured us more than once in this House that ample funds will be forthcoming for the purpose of aerial navigation, and we should like to see some use of those funds at a somewhat earlier date than the right hon. Gentleman forecasts. He refers to what, in addition to public expenditure, has been done by private beneficence. The Parliamentary Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, feel very strongly that this question is one which ought to be dealt with by public funds rather than by private subscriptions. I do not wish in any way to criticise, indeed, I think everyone must applaud the public spirit and patriotism which has been shown by the "Morning Post" and the "Daily Mail" in raising funds. But, after all, the necessity has been forced upon them by the deficiencies of the Government. I think we are proceeding upon a wrong principle in attempting to provide the necessary money, not out of taxes, as we should in order to provide ourselves with ships or guns, but by making appeals to the public, who are already sufficiently pressed by demands of that sort.

It is the same in Germany.

That really is no argument, because in both Germany and France the Government are spending very large sums; anything raised from the public is in addition, and has enabled them perhaps to go in for the thing on a more luxurious scale. Therefore, speaking for the Parliamentary Committee, I think we are entitled to press upon the Government the necessity of spending whatever money is necessary upon this matter, rather than to expect the public to provide the money for them. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of the Zeppelin airship, and the money which has been raised by public subscription. I think he has forgotten that when the Zeppelin airship was wrecked last August the German Government provided £25,000 within 24 hours to replace the loss, and, on account of the public enthusiasm in connection with the event, before October £300,000 were raised. He said that he did not know how that money had been spent. I can tell him. That money has been spent in putting up a large factory at Fredrichs-haven, with a capacity of 8 to 10 Zeppelin airships a year. So that the business has actually advanced very much in the case of Germany. We know also that in both France and Germany there are actual effective squadrons of these airships in existence, whilst we have not even one single unit belonging to the British Government. I do not wish to suggest that these foreign airships are by any means perfect. They must necessarily be largely experimental; but the fact remains that they have already shown their capacity to travel long distances of 200 to 300 miles, and to return to their starting point. They have developed a speed up to 35 miles an hour, and have shown themselves capable of carrying from seven up to 25 men, or, besides the crew, they have a carrying capacity of something like 3,000 lbs. of explosive or incendiary material. These are very serious qualifications, which I think make these vessels, even in the present stage of development, serious engines of war which have to be reckoned with. I consider that we ought to have some that are at least as good, even though we may look upon them at present as experimental ships. The right hon. Gentleman said that we must proceed in this matter with certainty and exactitude. I think that is rather too severe a standard to set up. In all these engines of war, particularly in their earlier stages, it has never been the custom of countries to wait until they could get certainty and exactness in their operation. Take the case of the fire-ships at Port Arthur and Santiago de Cuba. They were a hazardous experiment. At the same time it was considered worth doing, and was of very great value. Therefore I do not think we in this country ought to wait until an absolutely perfect airship is produced, or we shall find ourselves very far behind. At this stage the Government, I think, ought to take advantage of the power which it has to buy the accumulated experience of others. Airships of different types are in the market. They have been evolved from a long series of experiments. They can be bought to-day if only the Government is willing to buy them. If the Government accumulates specimens and samples of the different and best foreign types for the purposes of experiment, I believe the money will be very well expended. I was, of course, extremely glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that if the Parliamentary Committee is successful in its desire to bring the Clément-Bayard non-rigid dirigible over here early next month, and if it will fulfil certain tests and conditions, the Government will be prepared to buy it. I only ask the right hon. Gentleman at this point not to be too exacting in the test and conditions that are to be applied. He cannot expect to get a perfect article. If this ship can demonstrate its capacity to sail from Paris to London, and execute aerial manœuvres during the said month, without demonstrating its incapacity, then I do think the Government ought to buy it, although it does not satisfy certain ideal conditions which the War Office is apt to lay down; because there is the most important point of all to my mind, and that is that it is necessary to get on at once with the training of our personnel. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that we have an efficient staff at Aldershot for manœuvring these airships. The staff that he has is an extremely small one, and is doing extremely little practice—certainly no practice at all with really efficient airships. Therefore I cannot see how he can claim that it is efficient. The inventions maybe more or less common property. This matter of training is at least not common property. I am informed by the experts that navigation in the air is quite as difficult as navigation on the sea. It takes years to make a seaman, and it takes a very long time to make an airman. One thing is not uncertain, and that is you cannot make an aeronaut without airship training. The right hon. Gentleman's statement was too optimistic on that point. In this matter I believe the French are further advanced than any other country. Their balloon division is better equipped, and their men are better trained than any other in the world. It has been clearly demonstrated that an inexperienced aeronaut in charge of an airship is worse than useless. Certainly the Americans found that out in the Spanish-American War. If the Committee will allow me I would like to tell them of a little personal experience that I had at that time near Santiago de Cuba. It was before the battle. An American column was marching through the jungle for purposes of observation. It had a captive balloon attached to a waggon, and this proceeded at the head of the column. It was impossible to see for the dense vegetation of the jungle. It was thought that this captive balloon would enable useful information to be obtained as to the position of the enemy. It soon became apparent that an extraordinary amount of fire was being concentrated upon the head of the column, which lost very heavily. A gallant but inexperienced officer was up in the balloon, and after a very long time he succeeded in getting down a telephone message, in which he said: "I can see the enemy upon the hill, and they are firing at the column." That was the only information which was received, because at that moment a providential shrapnell shell destroyed the balloon. The officer was fortunately able to descend without serious damage to himself. From lack of experience and wrong handling there is no doubt that immense and unnecessary losses were caused to the American troops. I only quote that as a practical observation that came under my notice personally as to the positive disadvantage that may result from airships in the hands of untrained men.

The same thing happened in Morocco with the French. They were located by the Moors in consequence of their balloon, and it appears from the official reports that they sent back the balloon to the base.

I am afraid that the management of the French must not have been very good in that case. If the right hon. Gentleman presses that to its logical conclusion that would be an argument for not going in for airships at all. I do not think he wishes to go so far as that. But there are other matters beside aerial navigation. There is the training in war operations, such as dropping explosives and so on. Whilst that sounds very easy I am told that, on the contrary, it is extraordinarily difficult, the fact being that the balloon has both a horizontal and vertical motion, which makes the operation extremely difficult. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we have men trained in that work? The French have carried out a series of very interesting experiments in connection with that. I doubt very much whether we have. It is highly necessary to have experimental airships in which to give the necessary training to our men. I do not wish to discuss the question of type. That obviously must be left to the expert advisers of the right hon. Gentleman. The whole object of my remarks is to try and press upon him and the Government to secure representatives of all types in order that they may experiment with them, and be able to come to a practical decision as to what is most suited both to the conditions of the Admiralty and the War Office.

And in this connection the first essential is obviously the provision of a shelter. It is no good the War Office purchasing balloons or building them unless there are an adequate supply of shelters. These shelters, according to the right hon. Gentleman's figures, cost very little—about £6,000 each. It seems to me that the first step on the part of the Government ought to be to erect a number of these shelters at different strategical points of the country, in order, when these vessels are procured, that it may be possible to experiment with them on a practical scale, and to take them wherever it may be desirable. That is an expenditure which, at any rate, the Government might get on with at the present time. As a matter of fact, they are only providing a shelter at Farnborough, while the "Daily Mail" are putting one up for them at Wormwood Scrubbs. I think it is time they got on with this first essential. Certain ideas have been expressed this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) and others as to the advantages or disadvantages of these machines for the purposes of war. I have made as many inquiries as I could on the subject, and it seems to me that one or two points are pretty clearly established. I will be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman will tell as whether he has any reason to differ from them. The first is that it is absurd to suppose that the airship is going to expose us to any greater danger in the shape of invasion, or that they can be used for the transport of troops to this country. That, I think, is an absurd idea. Then, of course, their use is limited by the fact that at present, at any rate, they are fair-weather craft. Their use is therefore limited and uncertain. On the other hand, I think it would be rash to say that within a very short time an improvement in construction, especially of greater engine power, might make them quite independent of normal weather conditions. In that case they will be a very serious matter to reckon with. The chief point which has been established, I think—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out—is that they have already an enormous value for the purpose of reconnoitring both by land and by sea. [Mr. HALDANE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman is in some doubt of that. Their radius of action is at present so great and their power of observation, owing to the enormous elevation at which they can observe, is also so extended, that I think a great many days in the year—possibly we cannot deal with fog and such like—they will completely cancel or do away with strategy in the sense of concealing the dispositions of armies, or making a surprise movement with a large body of troops possible. I they can do that it makes an enormouse change in warfare. Aeroplanes may come in useful. The right hon. Gentleman, rather, I thought, dismissed the aeroplanes too lightly in connection with reconnoitring because he said that they fly rather low. Yes, but their speed is enormously great. If the right hon. Gentleman has ever tried to drop a driven partridge with the wind behind him he will have found the difficulty in taking aim and also in hitting it. In any case, even if one of these aeroplanes, carrying a single man or two men, is hit, the loss will be very trifling both in life and money, and risks of that kind will certainly not deter men in time of war from taking them if any useful object can be gained. Then, I suppose, the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the moral effect of these airships may be very serious indeed—more so, probably, than their material effect. Their power of appearing over such places as the capital of a country, centres of mobilisation, bases of operation, and so forth, at the very commencement of hostilities—indeed, almost before war is declared—at a time when these places are considered to be secure against attack, and dropping explosives and bombs quite at random, must have a very demoralising effect upon military operations. This applies particularly to the possibilities of their use at night. The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about that. Surely at night airships must be to a very large extent immune themselves from any form of attack, and it is just at night that they are able to come closer to us, and do the greatest damage in those particulars to which I have just referred, in the way of creating demoralisation and so forth. The last point I wish to refer to—very little reference has been made to it—is the enormous value, even in their present stage, of these vessels in connection with a punitive expedition.

Taking the case of the average punitive expedition, whether in Western Africa or the north-west frontier of India, its object is generally to travel over a short distance in order to destroy or defend some stronghold. It is attended with difficulty as to lines of communication, and very often there is great loss of life from sickness, whereas it seems quite possible for one of those airships to travel to the scene of these occurences without loss of life within quite a few hours and with very little expenditure of money for the destruction of the offending village or stockade, which could be carried out under these circumstances with far greater effect upon savage people than these military expeditions, to which they are only too used, have. I think the limited value of airships at the present time has been pretty fully established. There is one thing I think very clearly established, and that is the danger which would result to us or to any other country if we allowed ourselves to be without an experimental equipment for the use of them any longer. I think that danger applies particularly to any Power which has to rely for its security mainly upon its naval supremacy, because if you assume the case of a foreign enemy which has a weaker fleet, but which has command of the air, it would be possible for him on the outbreak of hostilities to create an immense initial damage to any of our fleets which might be lying in our dockyards or harbours, or so forth. And in that way the disparity between the two fleets might be removed even before they came into contact upon the seas. I think that is a danger which we cannot altogether ignore. But, apart from that particular contingency, or indeed any other contingency which may be the subject of controversy, I do not think there can be any difference of opinion as to the earnest and vital necessity of our keeping abreast of foreign countries in this calculable factor in the warfares of the future. Therefore, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the information he gave us to-day, I venture to press upon the Government the necessity of making use of these ample funds which they say are available and employing them at the earliest possible moment in the purchase of experimental types.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) began by apologising for not being an expert in aeronautics, but I do not think any Member of this House need ever apologise for not being an expert, because, if we are to judge by the many Debates in this House, experts are at an entire discount amongst us. My only experience or knowledge of this subject must be less than the hon. Member for Fareham. Indeed, my only experience in aeronautics was to travel in a balloon, I think it was from West Ham, and to alight some considerable distance away in a turnip field, and I cannot honestly recommend the experience to the favour of the Members of the Committee. I should like to be allowed to join in thanking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the very frank and full statement he has made, and I may perhaps also be permitted to congratulate him and the Government on what they have done already, because, although what they have done may not seem to be much, in my opinion they are far in advance, and have shown themselves to be so, of the public opinion of this country. As far as I can gather, the people in this country, until the arrival the other day of M. Blériot, regarded dirigible balloons and aeroplanes with about as much interest as they do the flip-flap at the Imperial International Exhibition. I think it was generally felt, and believed in this country that very little has been accomplished, and that there is not much in the future before these different types of aerial craft. I was a little surprised to hear my right hon. Friend say that so far not much has been accomplished. It seems to me that from a practical point of view an immense amount has already been accomplished in aeronautics—

I said for war purposes.

Oh, for war purposes! But for other purposes an enormous amount has been accomplished. I think Count Zeppelin, if I am not mistaken, has travelled nearly a thousand miles in one of his dirigible balloons, and, as far as aeroplanes are concerned, the achievements of M. Blériot have been greatly surpassed by those of the brothers Wright. One of the brothers Wright has travelled, I think, over 75 miles, and, as we all saw in the newspapers the other day, a most satisfactory achievement was accomplished by one of the brothers, who carried a passenger with him. But I quite agreed to a very large extent with what was said by the hon. Member for Fareham in his criticism to the effect that the Government seems to be relying far too much on theory in dealing with this matter. It is most satisfactory that they have formed this highly scientific advisory Committee, but I entirely agree with the hon. Member opposite. I speak with great diffidence when I say that in all probability the scientific investigations will lack a great deal of their value unless accompanied by practical experiments on a very lavish scale. I, of course, have no views in regard to the use either of dirigibles or of aeroplanes from the military and naval standpoint. I should judge, if I may say so, that they must be in the future of enormous value in scouting. It is idle to prophesy, but that may turn out in the long run to be perhaps the only value they have from the military and naval point of view. I often thought what an enormous value some sort of dirigible balloon would have been to General Buller when he lay his three months in front of Ladysmith.

But it seems to me it is rather a pity that we are obliged to dwell so much upon the military and naval aspect of this question. I am inclined to think that in all probability they will be found to have much greater use from other points of view, and I trust that the scientific bodies that are considering this question will devote some part of their attention to that aspect of the matter. I read in the papers that they have already promoted a line of airships from one place to another both in Germany and in Switzerland, and there is only one bar to the complete success of this undertaking, and that is, I understand, the entire lack of passengers. I hope the Government will make lavish experiment, and that they will relax none of their efforts, because I feel it to be of the utmost importance that, if there is any practical use for military or naval purposes in dirigible balloons and aeroplanes, that we in this country and the people of this country should be fully informed as to those particulars. Only the other day a certain section of the people in this country—not, I think, a very large number of people—were greatly alarmed by the alleged appearance of dirigible balloons, in various parts of the country. I venture to think that if the people of this country knew that our Government were informed and fully prepared in every possible respect in regard to aerial navigation such a scare as that could not possibly take any hold in the country. I can scarcely agree with my right hon. Friend that we ought to lean so much either on private or semi-private munificence or foreign experience. I think it is only due to ourselves that we should take our share in this great branch of invention and discovery. I was glancing only this morning through one of the newspapers which is devoted to the question of flying, and I thought it a little humiliating that from one end to the other of the journal there was absolutely no reference or nothing more than a passing reference to any achievements accomplished either in this country or by people of our race. In fact the only British names that appeared from one end to another of that paper were those of American investigators.

I was very much struck with the same thing, but I noticed that in the case of all the foreign investigators they were private owners.

Yes, but I was pointing to the fact that so very few of these people mentioned in that paper were people of our race. The only ones, that bore even British names were Americans, and even more humiliating, was the fact that so uncongenial was the atmosphere of this country to these investigations that even those who were colourably British by name conducted their operations in foreign countries. In addition to the scientific studies that my right hon. Friend and the Members of the Government have given into the charge of this Advisory Committee it is quite clear that experiments of every kind are of the first necessity in this new realm. There is everything to discover, I should imagine, not only in regard to different types of machine, whether they are dirigible or aeroplanes, but there must be almost everything to discover as to the material of which these machines should be constructed. There is the very important question which is already engaging the attention of foreign investigators of the different types of engines. No engine has yet been used that could be described as by any means satisfactory and more important than all I should have thought is the training of the necessary navigators. We might have in this country, if my right hon. Friend acted on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Fareham, in a few months a great number of dirigibles and aeroplanes, but there are not in this country at the present moment any people who could manage them, and I quite agree—and this is an important point—with what the hon. Member for Fareham said, that it is obvious that training in this branch must involve many years of application and experience. I conclude by congratulating, if I may, my right hon. Friend in showing himself to-day, as he has on all other occasions, so much in advance of the public opinion in this country.

In regard to some matters, it may be said of the right hon. Gentleman that he is a most expert theorist, and the most logical theorist in the country. There is one direction in which he has shown an extraordinary practical knowledge, and in regard to which he has organised upon an extraordinary practical basis.—and that is the Army. With regard to aeronautics, the right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, has not lived up to his reputation as an expert theorist, and I am quite sure he has not convinced us that in this matter he is living up to the reputation of his name. We are not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman or the Government have done as much in regard to aeronautics as they might have done. Take one illustration which was referred to by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. A. Lee), namely, the Advisory Committee. There is not a single man upon that Committee who has had any practical knowledge of the subject, and there is not a handful of expert aeronauts in the kingdom. This is due to the fact that there has not been the same encouragement given to this matter as there was in the case of wireless telegraphy. This country led the world in the matter of wireless telegraphy, and gave encouragement to our own inventors and experts here. We were in close touch with Mr. Marconi, who was himself not only a great theorist, but also a highly practical man. The Government were not in the least behind with regard to wireless telegraphy, and, as compared with the inventions of other nations in this matter, we were not only on a level, but well ahead, of them. I was a member of the Wireless Telegraphy Committee appointed by this House, and I was astounded by the revelations made before us as to the amount of progress which had been made. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has convinced a single Member of this Committee that the Government has done much in the matter of aeronautics to preserve our prestige as a scientific nation. It should not be left to other countries to teach us in this matter, and undergo the initial expense of experiments in order that we may take advantage of their investigations. The Secretary of State for War said that all the inventions which have been made are patent to him who choose to look them up, but that is not an occupation which will give great gratification to the patriotic citizens or' this country. In the development of aeronautics Germany has spent £107,000 during the year against our £5,000. I believe France has spent £48,000, and the United States has spent a sum proportionate with that spent by France and Germany. We have gained a great advantage by their experiments, but is that a satisfactory state of things? I think the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has set down in the Estimates £78,000 shows that in the past our Government had not quite lived up to its opportunities, and has not done as much as the people of this country would encourage them to do. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down stated that this Government is ahead of public opinion in this matter, but I do not think that statement is at all warranted. If there is one thing in regard to which this Government has been pushed and pressed forward by public opinion it is aeronautics. The people of this country have not looked upon this as an August Bank Holiday entertainment, but the majority of the people have taken it seriously, and I do not think what my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has said upon this point is an accurate anticipation of the scientific and practical development of this question.

I said these machines might be used for transport in a limited sense, but they could not be used for transport of large bodies or of stores for the purpose of invading this country.

Ordinary commonsense tells us that such machines will probably never be used for the carrying of large bodies of troops and ammunition. I think, however, we should be very foolish if we did not take to heart the lessons of the past in regard to every invention. It is quite true that people never anticipate the vast advantages which frequently arise from inventions of this kind. Take, for example, the case of cycling; it began about 60 years ago at the early part of Queen Victoria's reign, and it was given up almost, but to-day it is an absolute and necessary part of transportation in this country. It is used by the Army and by all great commercial and industrial organisations. The same thing happened in regard to motoring and steamships, in regard to which progress has been very rapid. The hon. Member who has just spoken said that progress in aeronautics came very quickly to a head. I think experiments in aeronautics have gone on since a certain gentleman tried to fly and his wings melted, and there is no inventive principle which has ever been applied which has engaged the attention of inventors so much as aeronautics. I do not agree that this science has suddenly come to a head, and that is the only point upon which I differ from the hon. Member for Fareham. In this matter experiment is the whole secret of development. We have had practically no experiments, either privately or on the part of the Government, in this country, because they are extremely expensive. Mr. Edison or Mr. Marconi were able to experiment with very little money in regard to electrical inventions, but it is very difficult to experiment with aviation, because it is extremely expensive, and it is only rich men in Germany and France, or men like the Wright Brothers, and M. Blériot, who have been assisted by rich men, who can afford to conduct these experiments. If this science means a great deal for the national life of a country, if it is going to be used for war purposes, quite apart from the commercial application of the principle; if it is going to be used for commercial, social and transportation purposes, then I think it is the duty of this Government to spend money freely upon it, and, above all, to spend money not only in buildings and providing shelters, but in encouraging men to practice with machines which the Government ought to place at their disposal. The Government ought to have a little regiment of aeronauts devoting themselves professionally to this work, and this would give encouragement to private individuals to conduct experiments. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will redeem his character in regard to this question. If the Government will seriously take this matter up, if the right hon. Gentleman, knowing that he has public opinion behind him, realises that we have arrived at the stage where progress can be made by experiments, will do all he can under the guidance of the Government and under his own guidance, and set up a practical school for the application of this principle, backed up by his own scientific sympathy and the encouragement of the people of this country, I have no doubt when he makes his statement next year it will be far more satisfactory, so far as practical results are concerned, than the statement which he has been able to make to-day.

The hon. Member for Droitwich stated in the course of his remarks that he did not think the public were greatly interested in the development of this science.

I did not say the public were not interested in this question. What I said was that an intelligent public interest in it should be cultivated by the Government.

I believe the public is not only greatly interested in the development of this question, but they are watching its progress with great interest and with some amount of anxiety. I think the statement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman will be received with some disappointment by the public. I am sorry that I cannot share to a large extent the satisfaction shared by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the statement he has made. From a practical point of view what has been stated on behalf of the Government falls far short of the requirements of the case. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself felt the inadequacy of the position when he was refering to what had been done by the Army in the past. The statement made in regard to the Advisory Committee I think was eminently satisfactory. I understand that Committee is solely intended to deal with abstract questions, and will be engaged in theoretical and experimental matters of research. It will not be the duty of that Committee to initiate or to construct anything, but simply to advise when it is called upon to do so. I quite agree research is necessary and indispensable, and I think the action of the Government in appointing this Committee to undertake this work is deserving of the highest commendation. At the same time, this must necessarily be a very slow and tedious process. The right hon. Gentleman has said so himself.

There is one suggestion I should like to make with regard to the Advisory Committee which the right hon. Gentleman may, perhaps, find worthy of his consideration. At the present time there is no machinery by which the executive officers of the Army and Navy Departments can consult and assist each other upon aerial matters. I quite understand that each Department may refer to the Advisory Committee, and that the Advisory Committee, in advising the two Departments upon one subject, will, no doubt, be quite consistent, but there must be many matters of detail arising in connection with the ordinary practical work and construction of an airship that will never be referred to the Advisory Committee, and upon which the executive officers of the two Departments must therefore act independently. It would be a useful thing if some machinery were devised by which the Executive officers of the two Departments could consult and assist each other upon practical details in connection with a subject which is common to both Depart- ments. I am not sure that one Aerial Department would not be the proper and most efficient method of dealing with this matter. I cannot see why two Departments should be dealing with the same subject, when, by making a joint Department, the experience and knowledge of the Executive officers of two branches of the Service would be combined to the general advantage of both. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that point his consideration. I think, as one who has had a good deal to do with the organisation of Departments on a large scale, that it possesses some practical merit. I know, of course, that the type of airships to be adopted by the Army and the Navy may possibly differ, but it does not alter the fact that the scientific considerations governing the whole subject remain the same, whatever the particular type of airship adopted may be.

With regard to the general policy of the Government, as outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, my contention is that we had reached a stage long before this Advisory Committee was appointed when airships had become so practical and so efficient that they were a very important consideration indeed in any scheme of national defence. I think the duties of this Committee should have commenced at that time. They should have been in a position to examine the airships of to-day, practical and useful as I consider them to be. That, however, is not what this Committee proposes to do, for the very sufficient reason that we do not in this country possess one single practical airship of any kind, notwithstanding the fact that airships have been in being and in the air in foreign countries since 1900. We are, as a matter of fact, the only European Power which does not to-day possess an airship, and, as regards the Army Department, we are the only Power which is not engaged on a definite constructive programme. It happens also that there is not a single private firm in this country with any practical knowledge or experience of this subject. There is not one firm which can undertake and execute an order for a modern dirigible airship complying with the conditions laid down by the War Office. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is not the duty of this Committee to make itself responsible for the construction of airships, and that is where his statement falls short of the hopes of the Committee. He has given us no information as to the practical constructive proposals of the Government. There is a strong contrast in regard to the way in which the Navy and the Army have dealt with the matter. The naval authorities having made up their minds that airships were necessary and indispensable —perhaps very late in the day and many years after other nations had done so—dealt with the matter in a practical way. They made up their minds as to the type of airship most suitable for their requirements; they then proceeded to build, and next year we shall have an opportunity of judging of the success or failure of their efforts. The expenditure undertaken by the Admiralty, although estimated at £35,000, must reach a far larger sum, I should say £45,000 or £50,000, for one single airship, and I cannot understand why the Army Department will not vote even a fifth of this sum, which would be sufficient, for the construction of an airship suitable for Army requirements in its own Balloon Department.

The right hon. Gentleman has to some extent thrown a scientific glamour over the subject, but it is a practical subject as well as a scientific one, and the position of the Army Department, so far as I have been able to gather from the statements made by the Government from time to time, is this: They commenced in 1906 to experiment in a practical way with the construction of a dirigible airship. It was launched in 1907, and it proved to be a failure. I do not blame anybody for that; the Government could not expect to jump at immediate success in regard to a subject on which other nations had experimented for so many years. It was not until 1907 that the first Army airship was constructed, whereas foreign countries had experimented since 1900. I do not know what was done by the Army Department n the intervening seven years; if anything was done it has never transpired, and, as a matter of fact, I do not think anything was attempted. That airship having failed, it was dismantled and reconstructed, and it appeared again in 1908. It failed again. The Army Department, however, must, in the course of its construction and trials, have acquired a vast amount of useful information and experience, and it strikes me as a curious thing that at that point the whole subject, so far as practical experiments were concerned, should have been dropped by the Army Department, because, with the exception of launching the model airship which has been referred to, nothing further was done. We have it from the right hon. Gentleman that no airship is in course of construction at Aldershot, that no airship is contemplated, and that no airship at the present time is on order from foreign countries; and that notwithstanding the very definite pledge given about three months back in this House by the Prime Minister, when, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leicester, he stated that certain dirigibles will be constructed by the War Office balloon factory at Aldershot, which is about to be reorganised. I have not been able to understand why that pledge has been set aside, as it apparently has been, by the Army Department, because the right hon. Gentleman himself, in reply to a question on 19th July, stated that the construction of an airship of any type has not yet been commenced by the Army Balloon Department, and again, in response to another question, he stated that until further reliable data are obtained the War Department does not propose to construct an airship.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us to-day that he sent the Superintendent of the Balloon Department in the early part of this year to the Continent, and that he investigated all that was to be seen in Germany and France. I am quite certain that in his Report the Superintendent did not state that more data is required before building or that foreign airships are not practical enough to warrant immediate action on the part of the Government, That is why I absolutely differ from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that nothing practical or sufficiently practical has been done to warrant a constructive programme on the part of the Government. The War Office itself has formulated the conditions necessary for a serviceable airship for Army purposes. I do not think I need apologise for giving some of the particulars laid down:—

"(1.) The balloon to carry a crew of six, together with wireless telegraph apparatus up to 3001b. in weight. and petrol and ballast together making up a total weight of not less than one-fourth of the full total lift.

"(2.) The balloon to have two similar engines of equal horse-power, all parts of which are interchangeable. Either engine independently or both together to he used at will in working propellers.

"(5.) The balloon to be portable, that is, to be capable of being taken to pieces easily when deflated, and packed on waggons for land transport.

"(7.) The balloon to be capable of anchoring in the open for 24 hours in moderate winds up to 20 miles an hour.

"(8.) The stability and steering capability of the balloon must be satisfactory.

"(9.) The balloon envelope not to lose by leakage more than one-hundreth part of its capacity for every day of 24 hours."

Then these most important stipulations, to which I respectfully draw attention, follow:—

"(10.) The balloon must be capable of rising to a height of 6,000ft, with its full crew and wireless apparatus, and must have ill hand then fuel sufficient for three hours' run at full speed.

"(11.) The balloon must complete a triangular course of 100 miles each side, that is, a total course of 300 miles, in not more than 14 hours, travelling fully equipped. For four hours of this journey the height above sea level not to be less than 3,000ft.

"(12.) The speed of the balloon on a measured course shall not be less than 32 statute miles per hour."

The significant part of this is: these particulars are issued in connection with a national airship fund supported by the right hon. Gentleman. He wishes to assist that fund and to take possession of the airship. It is not the right hon. Gentleman's wish to put any difficulty in the way of the organisers of that fund which will prevent them realising their ambition. Therefore, in issuing these conditions, the War Office considered them to be practical. As a matter of fact they are practical, and that is proved by their acceptance by a foreign firm, which certainly would not have undertaken an order of that kind subject to the conditions if they were not perfectly certain of carrying them out. The firm which has undertaken to build the balloon is a very experienced firm, which has already supplied six to the French Government, and I repeat, I am sure Messrs. Lebaudy Fréres would not have undertaken an order of this kind unless they were perfectly certain of being able to carry it out successfully. I know their balloons to be perfectly practical, and I cannot agree with the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman, who declared that nothing practical for war purposes has yet been accomplished. The fact that the French Government are building and acquiring a fleet of air vessels, with which very successful results have been achieved, is sufficient proof that the time has come when we may venture to follow their example. When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is not the intention of the Army Department to proceed with the construction of airships until further reliable data are obtained, I really hope that he is not meaning to wait until a national airship has been delivered in this country, because if that is the case it is impossible the ship should be delivered until the month of May next year, and it would really be a very unfortunate thing if the balloon department's action were to be postponed for so long a period. The relative position of this country with Germany and France is well known. France has at least seven of these vessels in commission, and Germany has more than seven, and there are a large number of vessels building. The possible output in Germany and France, and in private factories, cannot be less than 30 in a year. I think it is perfectly safe to assume that in a year or two the German fleet will number from 24 to 30 airships. In 1908, when we were dismantling the British airship for the second time, the French Government had announced that they had a vessel, called the "Republique," capable of carrying nine men at 32 miles an hour and lifting a dead weight of 3,000 tons, while at the same time the German Government had the "Zeppelin IV." which was able to carry 26 men at 35 miles an hour with a dead weight of 4,600 tons. Again, I must say I cannot agree when results such as these have been realised that the Government are justified in saying that no practical results have been achieved. I think that offers a very startling contrast to the action of this country as compared with other countries. It is due to the indifference shown on this question, and upon that point I have in my hands a statement published in the Press art; the time which was headed "The Official View." I will just give one or two extracts from it. It states:—

"In the highest military circles in Great Britain it is accepted that so far airships are a failure."

It was at this moment that the "Republique" and the "Zeppelin IV." were being launched. Then it goes on:—

"The military authorities have had experts employed in watching the flights of the various airships, and the impression is that for a long time to come there is nothing to be feared…. From time to time reports are received of the performances of various airships on the Continent, and in every ease details of the mechanism and construction have been available."

We launched a British dirigible at that time which was inferior in every respect to that in use in France and Germany. As a matter of fact, the only real failure since 1908 was in regard to a British vessel alone. The official view appears to me to be borne out by the Estimates of the year for the Army Department. The amount allocated for aeronautical work, including the ordinary balloon service of the Army, was £13,750—lower than in any year since 1902, notwithstanding the fact that through the whole of these years this great development has been taking place in these other countries. It has been said that we are backward on this question owing to the lack of ability of the officers of the balloon department. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe, as the right hon. Gentleman said in introducing the Estimates this year, that they were very capable officers. But we cannot expect them to make bricks without straw. As a matter of fact, the Department has been starved, so far as money is concerned, and £13,750 is an absolutely insufficient sum when you consider that the cost of a single airship amounts to £10,000. The German estimate for the same year was something over £100,000. I should like to ask what is the practical constructive policy of the Government I They did nothing until 1908. In 1907 they constructed a ship, which they tried again in 1908, and just when their experiment might be expected to realise results, owing to practical experience gained, it was suddenly dropped altogether. That appears to me to be going to the other extreme altogether. On 4th March the right hon. Gentleman assured us that rapid progress was being made, but four and a half months later it was stated that no ship was under construction, and it was not contemplated that any ship should be constructed until further reliable data was available. It is not a question of finance. We have been assured that ample funds have been placed at the disposal of the Army Department, and therefore I do not think that even the purchase of an airship or the acquirement by the nation of a national airship is a sufficient constructive programme. In my opinion, the Army balloon department should be placed in a position to organise and construct an airship, and sufficient money should be placed at its disposal for such a purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the National Airship Fund. A similar fund was started in Get many, and in a very short space of time it reached £260,000. I do not think the British public is less patriotic than the German public. There was a reason for the response in Germany, which does not exist in this country, because, rightly or wrongly, the opinion is held over there that the creation of an aerial fleet would do something to nullify the strength of our fleet. I know that is the opinion very generally entertained in Germany, and it is a very natural ambition. It is our business, however, to see that it is never realised. I believe that in this country such a fund would not meet with much success, because there is a very general feeling that the defence of the country should be undertaken by the Government, which under no circumstances should be relieved of the responsibility. Personally I am very much in sympathy with the efforts of private individuals to strengthen the hands of the Government. It has been said that the effort of the individual in this matter means that the efforts of the Government will relax. There appears to be some reason for this, because we have been assured that the money is available and that the Government are fully alive to the requirements of the case. I think some assurance is needed that the National Airship Fund will be accepted as an addition to the programme of the Government and not in substitution of any part of it, in the same way as they are dealing with the "Dreadnoughts" offered to us by the Colonial Governments. I mention this matter in order to afford an opportunity for an assurance to be given, which will be of great assistance to the National Airship Fund which has suffered from this view. I do think that the British Army Balloon Department should be placed in the position to construct an airship of British manufacture, material, and organisation. I do not think that that is an extravagant idea. The question of personnel has been touched upon. It is perhaps a more important branch than any other branch of this service. I believe I am right in stating that we have not more than about 50 men in the Department in this' country, whereas, as a matter of fact, in Germany they have 600 or 700 men trained in aeronautical work. I know of no other country so far behind in this matter as we are. I have not referred to the question of aeroplanes. I look upon that as a matter of the future. I have refrained from discussing the general utility of airships because I think their utility for present purposes is absolutely demonstrated by the conditions which the War Office has laid down, and which have been accepted by responsible firms for the construction of airships. It is quite apparent that it will be possible in war time, under certain conditions, for hostile balloons to find their way over London. I know a great deal has been written, in a somewhat sensational and alarming strain, on these matters, and I do not wish at all to associate myself with that, or to exaggerate the position at the present moment; but I agree that we cannot afford to shut our eyes any longer to the fact that aerial fleets are being created on a large and comprehensive scale by foreign countries possessing great possibilities, putting it no higher than that, both for offensive and defensive purposes, and I am satisfied that, whatever the demerits of airships may be, and there are, of course, drawbacks—that whatever they may be, the whole subject has advanced sufficiently far to warrant the Government in dealing with it in a definite, immediate, and effective manner. I do not think in this matter we are pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp, as has been said. The problem has been solved; flight has been accomplished, not by chance nor by luck, but by years of toil and expenditure and of patient study, and it only remains to improve and perfect the means at our disposal; and therefore I say that no nation can afford to be without the airship as a permanent weapon today in its armoury. Therefore, I do sincerely hope that the Government, in addition to the labours they have undertaken; from the scientific point of view, in addition to the proposals for the purchase of foreign dirigible airships, will organise our own factories here at home and train: men in this advancing science.

I am sorry I am unable to speak with the experience of a practical aeronaut, but, as a member of the Aeronautical Society for some ten years, I have been following with very great and close interest the development of flying machines, the mechanism of flight, and the gradual improvement that has been made in what I have always considered a most interesting and most difficult mechanical problem, namely, that of flight. I was particularly interested in what the Secretary for War said with reference to the grants which were being made on the subject, because early last year I put a question to find out what our expenditure was, and ventured to call attention to what, I thought, would be found in the future—the paramount importance of the command of the air. It was interesting to hear what the Secretary of State said with reference to dirigible and flying machines, and he did, it seemed tome, put too much stress upon the dirigible. Of course that is a matter which will be largely decided by this Committee which is being formed, which is certainly very strong on what is called the scientific side; but I think we must remember that science does not only consist of theory; it consists of experiment as well, and this seems to me a matter in which experiment is bound up with the progress of science. If we take the successful aeronauts of recent years, they were their own engineers and aeronauts; and if we look at the progress in the past, we shall in the same way see that the aeronaut and the manufacturer of the machine were working together; and I am convinced that if we are to make the progress we ought to make we ought to have actual experiments going hand in hand with study, until we have an actual machine in working order.

It is doubtful whether we can get sufficient data for our theoretical development unless we have experiment. Indeed, I was much surprised some time back, when there was in existence in Paris and on the Continent aeroplanes in operation and making considerable nights, that we at Aldershot were only making experiments on a very small scale, and with an aeroplane which certainly has not been a very great success. With a view even of getting men who are accustomed to the command of the air, it really did seem most desirable that we should have got one of these aeroplanes from Paris, because they were to be sold in the open market, and that we should have trained our men and taken a machine in being rather than have tried to invent a new one, which went over the ground which had been traversed before. There I do agree with the criticisms which have been passed on this Committee, that it is comparatively weak on the practical side, although I do not agree with the hon. Member for Derby, because I think he went a little too far, as one of the Members of the Committee is Mr. Lanchester, who is a great practical engineer, and brings great practical knowledge to bear on the subject. I myself am hardly inclined to agree with the view which has been expressed in regard to dirigibles—in favour of them rather than in favour of aeroplanes, because it seems to me that they involve considerable difficulties. First of all, there is the question of form and the difficulty of the engines, and then there is the fact that for military purposes they are of very great size, and this renders their an easy target for gunfire. Then again, the cost is very great, about £10,000 for one; and it must also be remembered that, with its great bulk, a dirigible for practical purposes can only make one flight. It may stay some time in the air, but I do not think any of them have stayed in the air for more than 20 hours, but when it once comes down it cannot go up again until it has been refilled from some centre where it can obtain gas. If the weather is stormy it cannot be anchored; it must remain in the air, and if any attempt is made to anchor it the strain will be so great that it will probably be torn to pieces. Although the aeroplane has not yet come into the realm of practical action for war purposes, the development of it is being marked with very great success, and I myself consider that the possibilities with regard to it are very great indeed. It has further developed a much greater speed than other machines, and speed is a very essential factor. We are told it cannot rise very high. I agree it does not rise very high, but that is a question of engine power, and with greater engine power it may be able to raise at a steeper gradient and to a greater height than it has reached at present.

For Army purposes, the carrying of weights, which has not received much attention from experimenters, and the question of automatic stability, are questions to which I hope this Committee will devote their special attention, because, for warlike purposes, they seem to be matters of very great importance. Assuming that a person is taken up for a few moments to make observations, it is of the utmost importance that there should be such automatic stability that the machine should go on for some little time and maintain its position. That is one of the great problems which is before us. As to the two classes of machines, if we were to pit the one against the other I think the Committee would agree that the aeroplane has some advantages, with its power of rising in the air independently of the state of the atmosphere, which the dirigible would not have, and the contest would resemble the old contest between the hawk and the heron. One hon. Member seems to think that these vessels would be particularly of use for scouting purposes, and another hon. Member went a step further and spoke of their being of great use in punitive expeditions against uncivilised natives, but I would point out to the House that if these airships had attained such a state of improvement that they were able to carry on at a considerable distance operations against an uncivilised tribe they would also have attained to such a condition that they could be similarly used against some civilised nation. That is one of the great military problems which will have to be faced, and I say frankly that I do not regard the airship in any of its forms as ancillary to the Army and Navy, but I think it will become a branch of the service, standing by itself, and in the long run will be more powerful than either of the other branches. The historian of the future may perhaps comment upon the fact that when we had that important Debate upon the constructional Vote for the Navy on that very day we found in our morning papers that the Channel had been traversed by a purely mechanical flying machine, and I am sure that the thought must have occurred to many hon. Members who were at Spithead, whether our Fleet, which we then viewed, could meet a fleet of airships hovering above them.

I think in such a case a fleet of airships would stand a very good chance, but there probably would be nothing of the kind, because if these ships could go through the air and utilise high explosives in the way it is suggested they would not direct their methods against fleets or armies, but go straight for the capital of the enemy and endeavour to strike at the heart of the State. That seems to me to be one of the dangers which we have to guard against, and various attempts have been made to deal with it by high-angled firing guns, but I doubt whether such guns would be of any use, and whether the problem would be solved in that way. This is particularly the case at night, when the airship would be out of sight, and out of sight would be out of range, so that nothing could be done, and the city would be exposed to the danger of anything which the airship could do. Therefore, if we are to protect ourselves against a possible danger, I think we may safely say this, that the only weapon which can be safely brought to bear against airships with a certainty of success is other airships of a superior and more formidable character. That is one of the problems which I believe we have to face in the future, and it is because of the gravity of the task that I have listened with very great interest and pleasure, to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman has unfolded to us this afternoon, and I venture to hope that in this Committee there will be brought in a little more of the actual experimental element of those who are accustomed to the use of the machines, because I believe that that will be a very great step towards their improvement.

I for one would like to join in thanking the right hon. Gentleman for all that he has done in this respect, and for that organisation which he has formed and which, I believe, will be the basis of an ever-growing organisation in the future, which will increasingly provide for the national defence of the country.

I certainly think the £5,000 spent last year, in comparison with the £40,000 odd spent in France and the £100,000 odd spent in Germany, reflects not much credit on our Government. In the face of all that has been done abroad, I do not think we have much to boast of. Economy may have its virtues, but it may go too far. I welcome the statement that £78,000 is to be spent this year. That is certainly something. I wish it was double, because aviation has come to stay, and all the encouragement which can be given to aeronautics ought to be given. The committee which we are asked to vote this £6,000 odd for is entirely, so far as I can make out, a scientific one. I should most thoroughly welcome another committee of practical men. There are plenty of practical men in this country, and plenty more who would come to this country if it was made worth their while, and, although the differential calculus and all these scientific things may be very good and very necessary, a pound of practice is worth a ton of theory, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that in the future. Progress in this matter should be made without delay. France has six of these large dirigible balloons, and Germany has more. What have we? We have nothing. It is most necessary that the Government should wake up and bring this subject full speed ahead.

I should like to say a few words to defend my right hon. Friend from the more or less friendly criticisms which have been directed against him because the War Office is not doing quite so much as some hon. Members would like. I think the War Office is doing quite as much as it ought to do, perhaps even a little too much. I have been surprised at the way in which Members on both sides have assumed that if this country is to maintain a commanding position by aeroplanes and airships it can only be done by means of the War Office. I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend and for his versatile talents, but I do not think the efficiency of this country in the matter of airships or aeroplanes can be secured by trusting entirely to him or to any Department, or to any Government. It is not a reflection on him, but on all Government Departments and all Governments. After all, is it a fact that in France and Germany progress is due to the action of the Government? It is obviously not. It has been done almost entirely by private persons until quite recently they voted a little money, but even now the bulk of the work is being done in France and Germany by private persons. If private persons have failed to do it in this country the Government have also failed, because no Government can be better than the people it governs—it is generally worse. What we have to do is to wait until our own people have the in telligence, and the energy, and the patriotism to develop this new method of locomotion or of warfare, whenever it is to be, in the future, and I personally believe it is going to be a very big thing indeed. We cannot do it by waiting for the Government, and if the Government is to do anything at all, instead of expending money in experiments which were denounced by the hon. Member for Hastings as failures, and which were failures—

Very useful failures.

I grant that, because we have reached nothing. Meanwhile, the foreigner has been experimenting at his own expense and produced successes.

This Government did it in wireless telegraphy.

No, there also it was done by private persons. I challenge the hon. Baronet to point to a single invention that the Government has ever made. Did the Government invent telephones? When the telephone was first invented the Post Office sent over an agent to America to investigate it, and he came back with the report that it was a harmless toy. That is the attitude that Governments usually take in regard to inventions. In this particular case we have a more intelligent Government, and it has appreciated the importance of it. But it cannot invent. The Government has no organ with which to invent. Possibly if the country retains the right hon. Gentleman's services permanently at the War Office we might feel more confident, but, broadly speaking, it is absolutely impossible for the Government to invent, or even to experiment successfully, because a Government must be always subject to Treasury control.

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent anything that has been said. What I said was that the Government had assisted very materially the progress of wireless telegraphy by assisting Mr. Mar- coni and acting in close relations with him and the Navy in particular, and assisting him to make this experiment which put us at the head of all other nations.

My hon. Friend is to a certain extent right. The Government latterly has entered into a working arrangement with Mr. Marconi, but at first Mr. Marconi got a great deal of opposition from the Post Office. Is it really suggested that the present Postmaster-General invented wireless telegraphy? It was Mr. Marconi who invented it, and when he made a big success of it at his own expense the Government stepped in and utilised it. That is the rôle for Governments to adopt. If my right hon. Friend finds that English manufacturers and men of science are behind Frenchmen and Germans in this wonderful new invention, it is his duty to buy the best aeroplanes and the best airships he can get abroad and use them. We shall be far more strengthening our national position by buying the best that foreign inventiveness can give than by making wasteful experiments at our own expense. I hope, if there is to be any buying at all, the right hon. Gentleman will proceed on these lines, and if he does I have sufficient faith in my own countrymen to be certain that in a very few years they will come out top again, as they have done in every other invention before. Generally we lead the way in invention, and when we are not sufficiently intelligent to do that we wait a few years and then catch up the others. I hope there will be a strict limitation on the amount of money which is spent in experimental work by the War Office or the Admiralty, and that we shall take advantage of all that has been done by foreigners, and challenge our own men of science and our own manufacturers to go one better.

It has been impossible to listen to the discussion this afternoon without coming to the conclusion that it has been a very serious discussion, and that this Committee has fully recognised the awful possibilities of destruction which a very slight advance in the manufacture of airships might suddenly confront us with. I should wish the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House and the country that he really seriously considers that the airship is a matter of serious significance in warfare, at any rate in the matter of scouting, even if not in the matter of carrying dangerous explosives and doing actual destructive harm. I cannot agree entirely with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox), because it seems to me that if we regard this as a matter about which the right hon. Gentleman opposite ought to take the House to a certain extent into his confidence, so far as that is wise, one of the things that is important is that this House in its discussions should educate the country in the matter of its seriousness. The same applies to the Government of the day. If it is plain that the Government regard these engines as dangerous engines in future warfare, one of the best things the Government can do is to experiment to a certain extent, and that will be the best way of stirring up our own people to make similar experiments. When it is actually seen that the War Office and the Admiralty and the Government consider this matter as one with which they ought to hurry, and ought not to lag behind, that, to my mind, is a far more effective way of getting the country behind you in this matter, which would enable the House to vote supplies, than the old game, which has so far not failed in this country, but which has failed in other countries, and that is to wait a little longer in the hope that when our hour of danger comes we may just have been lucky enough to catch up with that particular form of warlike operation in which you have been lagging behind, for the reason that the House would not vote the money because the experiments of our authorities and the education of the public by discussion have not advanced sufficiently to justify the House in doing so, or to justify the Minister in asking the House to do so. I think the right hon. Gentleman would not accuse us in any way of doing more this afternoon than expressing the opinion that what has happened here will justify him in going rather faster with the actual work of construction, and in saying that he has this House with him in what he has done, and, if anything, this House is agreed that he ought to do more.

To my mind, the matter of the personnel as everywhere is one of the most important matters of all. We are told that we are going to have some of these airships, possibly in the spring, possibly later. When we have them it seems to me that a considerable further length of time must elapse before there are sufficient men to work them, and a sufficient margin of men to take the place of those men if any accident should happen to them or if they leave the service. That puts us a little later still. Are we to understand that a year perhaps is to pass before we really have anything like an effective personnel who are able to work the two or three airships in the possession of the Government? That is a serious matter about which we are justified in pressing for an answer. I think we have recognised on these benches that this may be one of the matters on which it is not always wise to ask the questions which occur to one first, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have not pressed hard this afternoon, but that what we have pressed is in favour of his doing more and doing it quicker and of not hesitating to ask for supplies if he considers it really necessary.

I would not have intervened but for the speech of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who wished to have some practical men on the Committee of Investigation. I hope the time has come when we have heard the last of the so-called practical man whenever a scientific problem is to be investigated. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Haldane.) has pointed out, in his able speech, that among the people who have been appointed to investigate this problem is Mr. Lanchester, who is recognised as one of the greatest experts on motor engines, which is perhaps the most difficult matter in connection with the whole aeroplane problem.

indicated dissent.

I say that with considerable authority, and I think the Noble Lord will find that that is so if he goes into aeronautic circles. The difficulty in regard to the motor is one of the reasons why aerial navigation has made such slow progress. That slow progress is due to the unscientific manner in which the problem has been handled, and if we want to make real progress we can learn a great deal from the investigation of the question of suitable motors, instead of by making a bamboo frame and fitting to it a motor which may or may not be suited to the requirements of flight. One of the most difficult questions also is that in connection with wind resistance, which has been studied too little, and it is only by acquiring accurate knowledge on that subject that we shall be enabled to understand the fundamental principles of the problem, and be thereby enabled to turn what is at present an interesting toy into a useful instrument. I do not think anyone can say that either a dirigible or non-dirigible is really serviceable at present for the purposes of war or commerce. That they may become so seems likely. Take the Zeppelin dirigible. I do not think it is looked upon by the German military authorities at present as of very much use. He must have an extraordinary length of inflated bag, and he must also have a very large space to come down in. His dirigible can carry very few people except the crew. The idea that there could easily be dropped from such machines explosive materials with any chance of hitting any particular object has been entirely disproved by all the experiments that have been made in that direction. No doubt an explosive dropped from an aerial machine would hit somewhere, but that would not be a very useful or scientific method of bombardment. It is a curious fact that the hitting from a moving object in the sky any object on the ground is very much more difficult than an untrained person would suppose. I do not think that a fleet of airships moving over a fleet of ships on the water would ever hit them at all except by a very lucky accident. I think a dirigible would be more easily brought down by the use of some kind of shrapnel than that a dirigible would be at all likely to damage a warship. I do not think that nations in the future are going to conduct their battles by scattering explosives over houses. That is very unlikely to take place. It would be the very reversal of the rules of war which have now existed for a long time. Nobody expects an enemy to bombard a seaside place like Brighton. With civilised nations warfare is not conducted by simply destroying property and killing civilians, or by dropping dynamite about London, Paris, or Berlin. Such a proceeding would have no effect at all on the ending of the war. No nation would make peace because the enemy was killing civilians. So long as the naval and military forces were not attacked they would be perfectly ready to go on. It is entirely contrary to all practise to scatter explosives in the way suggested, and that such a brutal and futile proceeding would be resorted to is one which we need not contemplate.

The question we have to contemplate is how the problem, as it affects this country, is different from that affecting Continental nations. It seems to me that a dirigible is more suitable on land than at sea. It will be remembered that in the case of the Franco-German war the balloons which were employed enabled the French to communicate with their lines in the South of France. In that case a dirigible would have made those communications infinitely more certain than was possible by means of balloons, which could only drift with the wind. Therefore, if we were in a beleaguered position, such as occurred at Colenso, dirigibles would be immensely useful. As a sea Power we are not likely to wish to communicate with Continental nations in this way, and I do not think that a dirigible is likely to be of much service in travelling over a large amount of ocean and returning. No dirigible has yet crossed the German Ocean and come back. Anybody who has studied the problem will see that there is a limit to the use of the dirigible. It cannot be expanded to an indefinite size. The greater the size the larger the engine power becomes, and therefore a larger quantity of petrol has to be carried, and at best the number of persons you would be able to carry would be few.

What you have to study more is the aeroplane, and I do hope that the Committee which has been appointed will be supplied with more considerable funds than they have been in the past. I think it would be a good thing if they were in a position to purchase the best types of aeroplanes which already exist. There is no reason why, in this mutter, we should begin at the beginning. We should rather endeavour to improve upon what has already been accomplished. It you want to buy a steam engine you do not begin with the type invented by James Watt. You buy the best type of engine that has been introduced. If we bought three or four of the best aeroplanes we could go on in the direction of making further improvements. I think also the Committee ought to turn their attention to the instructing of men how to handle these machines. We have in this country at present very few people who can handle an aeroplane even if it were put into their hands. Mr. Wilbur Wright has given instruction to the Americans in the handling of aeroplanes, and I think we should not be too proud to ask him to come here to do the same for us, rather than wait until we have invented an aeroplane for ourselves. I do not think it is quite realised how much has already been done in the construction of dirigibles. There is one three years old which belongs to a private gentleman in Cardiff, and I think for about £200 you can get one which will carry a man and his family about. [Laughter.] Some hon. Members receive that statement with doubt, but I think it is quite conceivable that such a machine might be constructed. There are a considerable number of private individuals who are spending their own money and working on this problem now, although they are, wisely, not saying too much about it. I think we ought not to allow the impression to go forward that nothing is being done by private enterprise in the country, and that the Government has practically to push its own way still. The Government can do a great deal to encourage the investigation of the subject through the central Committee, and in that way both time and money might be saved. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Harold Cox) that it is the function of the Government to sit still and do nothing at all. I think in this question my right hon. Friend (Mr. Haldane) is on the right lines. I hope that the Government will not show any niggardliness in the matter of funds, but that the Committee will really be put in a position to carry out the work which it is so important should be carried out.

I wish to make one or two observations on the strategical value of airships, though I do not profess to be an expert. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) said that it was established that explosives could not be dropped from great heights with serious effects. That is quite true, but it does not follow that the difficulties are perfectly insurmountable. There is no necessity for the hostile airship to be at a great height when the explosive is dropped. The hon. Member said again that it was almost impossible for high firing guns to strike hostile airships. That again is quite true. The idea has been practically abandoned of piercing an aeroplane with a bullet. That is not how modern science is attempting to devise methods to destroy them. It is by making such a great explosion in the air within 200 or 300 yards of the machine as would shatter it. I felt very strongly in regard to what the hon. Member said when he refused to contemplate the possibility of airships of any description dropping explosives for purposes of war. He said they could not hit a fleet of ships, and he refused to contemplate the possibility of the bombardment of towns.

Unfortified towns.

I do not share that optimism at all. A German airship carried one ton of explosives. These explosives are carried for a definite hostile purpose. The hon. Member says that in modern warfare towns would not be attacked in that way. The enemy might attack Portsmouth by dropping explosives from airships, and they might destroy thousands of lives and smash up the whole town. If the hon. Member is right in saying that no civilised country would ever do such a thing, is it too much to ask the Government to make inquiries of the great Powers of Europe with the view to adding to the Geneva Convention a clause providing that high power explosives will not be used by aeroplanes for the purpose of war? If the Powers are agreed that they do not wish to smash up civil property, perhaps they will not object to agree to that. Very often for adequate reasons undefended towns might be attacked for the purpose of destroying stores or something of that kind. It is, at all events, worth while that the Government should take that aspect of the problem into consideration. Some hon. Members seem to think that airships are not going to realise the hopes that are entertained. The realisation of what five years ago was a dream has come to us with dramatic suddenness, and I should be surprised if five years hence did not see great progress made in this direction. A few years ago there was a tentative understanding that balloons should not be used for the purpose of dropping explosives. That understanding might be made concrete if other nations will agree at some national convention to that course.

The Debate has been an interesting one and also a practical one. It has been conducted with a spirit and a desire on all sides of the House to get at the truth in legard to these things rather than to score points, and I think it has been a practical Debate, especially in spirit. I think the general criticism has taken the form of doubting whether the Government are doing enough. At the beginning I spoke of the enormous difficulties of this question. I quite agree that the work that has been done abroad has been far greater than has been done at home. One cannot but admire the splendid progress that has been made by men like Count Zeppelin and some of the great French inventors in this matter. But after all they have worked in large measure apart from their Governments. The Governments have come in afterwards, and we are not very much further forward than we were at the beginning of the question of how far these things can be made available for war. That they will be made available for war in time I do not doubt. The point I am making is whether the success in flying these machines under the artificial conditions—for they are artificial—which obtain does not leave us a long way from the attainment of the goal of the practical application of these things to war. Therefore I am not afraid of the rapidity of progress of which some hon. Members have spoke. There is abundance of time if we use it, and the great point which I wish to make is that we cannot give too much attention to the scientific side of this problem. I am not suggesting for a moment that we ought to neglect the practical side, but I agree entirely that one is apt to hear too much of the practical side in these Debates. I cannot quite agree with the horn, and gallant Member opposite (Major Anstruther-Gray), whose speech may be summed up in "spend plenty of money and damn the differential calculus." On the other hand, I quite agree that science is no use except as a basis to make practical progress, and if we are concentrating on science at this moment it is with a view to springing forward when we can, when we get solid ground under our feet. The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. A. Du Cros) also spoke of the difference between the Army and the Navy, and said that the Navy has got a practical thing and is concentrating upon it, while the Army is working all over the place. I do not think that is so. The Navy has been given the problem of the rigid dirigible. That is a comparatively simple matter compared with the things with which the Army has got to deal, namely, the non-rigid dirigible and the aeroplane. The Navy may require science too, but they have not constantly to go to the Committee to the extent that we have to do. We have to work out a more complicated set of problems, because the non-rigid dirigible, while essential for an army which cannot use the great cumbrous construction of the rigid dirigible, presents problems which the rigid does not present. I am not quite sure that we are so far behind as is assumed. We have not yet set up our construction department, which will be done very shortly. We have got to get the right people and the large shelter that we wish and certain other things. But we have not let the grass grow under our feet on that account. We have the engine which we think is the best engine, or, at least, one very suitable for our purpose; and we have the cars and all we want is the envelope or bag, which is coming from a particular firm in France. This envelope we think will be most likely to suit us. That will be with us in a very short time, and then we shall have a non-rigid dirigible to work with. Then there is another coming from the National Fund of the "Morning Post," and there is a third which, if the conditions are satisfactory, we propose to purchase. That is one of the two that are coming over. If that is carried out it will leave us with three non-rigid dirigibles to work with. Before the end of the year I think we shall have enough to work with.

At the end of this year?

I hope so. I do not know how long. The order is placed. Perhaps I am over-sanguine—but shortly.

Eight months from now?

Shortly.

And the Clement?

And the Clement next month. Then there only remains the other, which will take only eight or ten months. I do not think we shall be very far behind the Admiralty, who, I hope, will have one actual going machine by the end of the financial year. That is the situation. It is perfectly true you could buy a great many machines of different types, and you could experiment with them, and you might probably find three out of four would be failures, and I do not believe you would be as far on as you are with the careful study and work with the various types with which we are trying to deal. At any rate, that is the plan on which we are proceeding, and I think there is a good deal to be said for it. Then there was another criticism made by the hon. Member for Hastings, who said, "Your Committee ought to be more practical, and you ought to have your executive officers." Admiral Bacon and General Hadden, who are not only the heads of the Executive Department, but highly trained experts, are both members of the Committee.

I referred to the officers actually responsible for the construction of these air vessels who might be in consultation with the officer of the Navy who was responsible for the construction of the naval airship.

We have not yet found a head of the construction department of the Army balloon factory. We have been looking about for him very carefully within the last few weeks, and we hope to get the very best man that can be found to put at the head of that work. He will be a practical man, a civilian and an engineer; but I think that the hon. Member must be referring to the head of the balloon school, who has the fullest opportunity of being in consultation with the Committee.

Has he any opportunity of consulting the officers responsible for the construction of the naval airship at Barrow-in-Furness? I think he has no facilities in that connection.

I cannot see what the distinguished soldier who is at the head of the balloon school of construction has to do with the work of the Admiralty, in constructing the rigid dirigible, The Admiralty will be only too glad to see him if he has anything to say to them, and he will be only too glad to give the Admiralty any information he can; but I do not see any material connection between the two different pieces of work at the present moment. Certainly there is no difficulty in bringing the two together hi occasion renders it desirable. I doubt whether there is any man of more inventive skill in the country than the distinguished engineer who sits on that Committee—

Is it the intention of the Committee to request gentlemen of proved experience, like M. Blériot, M. Latham and Mr. Wilbur Wright, to appear before them and give evidence and an accurate statement as to their experience which would assist the Committee in solving the problem?

Yes; the Committee has full power to do that, and also to form special sub-Committees, but I cannot make it too clear that the work of the Committee is rather to investigate things submitted to them and to report upon them than it is to initiate. Certainly it is not the work of the Committee either to construct or to experiment on a large scale. Suppose the Committee had all the aeroplanes to which the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) referred, where would they fly them? The experimental work ought to be done at the various places where experimental work can be done—Farnborough, Salisbury Plain, and Wormwood Scrubbs—and the members of the Committee, or such of them as require to be, will be there when they are wanted for the purpose of making observations. There has been a good deal of discussion on the uses to which these machines can be put. That is extremely vague at the present time. We have investigated these things carefully before the Committee of Imperial Defence, and we had the best expert assistance we could get, and the result is with us—and, I suspect, with all the experts of the Continent—that we do not know how far these things may be applied. Certainly in France in particular there has been a great deal of practice in dropping explosives, but what the result of that may be I do not know. On the other hand, there is only one practical use so far clearly demonstrated, and that is for the purpose of scouting; and even that is attended with very considerable difficulty. An hon. Member opposite (Major Anstruther-Gray) said that these machines might be of very great use for punitive expeditions. What an effect it would have on the Mad Mullah if we had an airship with dynamite. I am not sure that that is not one of the most hopeful military directions in which to proceed. I think the substance of the Debate has come to this: the Committee would have been glad if the British Government had got on faster and further. So should I. We are behind, and we are only just beginning to pick up. I think that at any rate we have laid the foundation on which the progress ought to be pretty sure. It is impossible to be over-confident. The Committee, for instance, settled its own estimates, and sent them into the Treasury, and they were adopted without a farthing being deducted. At any rate, I have had no difficulty with the Treasury, nor, I believe, have the Admiralty, in the matter of national defence. I say again, that it is not by wasting money progress is made, but by finding out what is wanted, and taking the best means to obtain it. As that process goes on we shall see more clearly where we are, and then we will be able to experiment on a larger scale, and, it may be, to purchase on a larger scale. As soon as we have experimented and purchased, I hope we shall be able to construct, and I trust the Admiralty will have such success with their first airship that they will get a clear hoe on which to follow out construction.

There is the question of the provision of shelters about which the Parliamentary Committee feel especially strongly. Some steps should be taken to provide shelters suitable for these experimental airships. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will inform us what is being done?

We have got a very considerable shelter at Aldershot, and we are building another much larger one. As airships are provided, we shall have to develop the shelters. For instance, a large shelter will have to be provided at Salisbury Plain. I quite perceive that. We are quite alive to the necessity of keeping apace with the work in the matter of shelters, for it is obvious that without shelters we could make no progress with the machines.

Do the Government propose to take any steps with regard to rules being established between this nation and other nations in regard to the use of airships? It seems to me that the question of rules does affect to some very con siderable extent the character of the dirigible balloons or aeroplanes which are used. I asked a question of the Prime Minister the other day—

I think I have already allowed this Debate a wide range, and I cannot allow it to become too wide.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it may not be advisable to consult some other Departments of the Government as regards this matter. It seems to me that we have been looking at it exclusively from the military point of view. But there is another possibility about these airships—they may do away with our Customs House offices, and it is possible that we may see Customs officers flying about in the air. That is a possibility which ought to be considered. It is not merely a matter of war, but of business, and I think there are very great possibilities in the future.

Obviously, there are a great many considerations which arise on this matter, but this Vote was put down in order that the Government might explain what they are doing about experimenting, and how they are dealing with the question themselves. The question of Customs officers, and the question raised by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Pike Pease) are all subsidiary matters, which have to do with airships, but not with this Vote.

The major part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was directed to the question of dirigible balloons, and he has dealt much less fully with the provision of aeroplanes. I feel satisfied in thy own mind that it is in the provision of aeroplanes that we stand to gain. I want to ask the, right hon. Gentleman whether he can hold out any hope that the Government or the Committee of Research are going to invest in some of the improved aeroplanes. While we are conducting scientific investigations, men on the Continent are flying, and what I want to ask is whether the Government can hold out any hope that they will buy some of the improved aeroplanes in order that they may apply their theories to them with a view to seeing whether those theories are borne out by experience. On the Continent aeroplanes are flying for an hour and two hours, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will be very well advised if he would purchase some of the machines which do fly, and also secure the services of some of those who have brought them to their present state of perfection. While the subject is being scientically investigated, the right hon. Gentleman might secure some of these successful aeroplanes and so be able to carry out the training of a large number of men who would be required to work in the development of these machines. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some satisfactory assurance on that point. The hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) referred to the aeroplane as a useful toy at present. I think we are all of us apt to forget what enormously rapid strides the aeroplane has made. It is only 18 months since the first aeroplane was only able to lift itself off the ground. I think the advance that has been male is remarkable and gigantic. Within 13 months it has got from merely lifting a machine off the ground a few feet to flying for two hours and to carrying two passengers for a very considerable distance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us he is considering the aeroplane side of the question as well as the dirigible balloon. I am sure if he does that he will be well advised.

The Committee who are making special investigation into the question have relegated aeroplanes for the practical purposes of war to a much inferior position to that at present occupied by the dirigible airships, whether rigid or unrigid. The War Office and the Committee who have charge of the aeroplane question are not losing sight of the matter; on the contrary, as I have said before, through the instrumentality of two gentlemen, very distinguished in the aeroplane world, we are to be put in possession of two machines in a very short time. They will be lent to us for experimental purposes, and we propose to work them. If we find that progress is made with them we shall acquire them, or others. We are not overlooking the matter. But the aeroplane will have to fly much higher and with much greater security before it can be used for war purposes. It is in a very different position in that respect from the dirigible balloon.

moved the reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade by £100.

On one occasion only.

This is taking the days of working. There was that number of men out of the number of men employed. Then goods engine drivers and firemen total 54.44 per cent, and goods guards and brakesmen 21.86 per cent. Those are cases where overtime is paid for at the rate of time and a quarter, and yet it does not effect the reduction of hours even to the ordinary normal standard day. This is a Report made by the railway companies to the Board of Trade. The men have nothing whatever to do with it. Indeed, some few years ago I called in question even the accuracy of these Reports, and found that they understated instead of overstated. Now, let us take an illustration of what is reported for the United Kingdom as to these running grades. Passenger guards and brakesmen for the month of March show a total of 15.54 per cent, worked over 32 hours. Passenger engine drivers total 22.38 per cent.; goods guards and brakesmen, 23.15 per cent., and then you come to the goods engine drivers and firemen, which is generally the worst class, and you have 30.50 per cent. I would say that the Board of Trade really should, in the administration of this Act, deem hours to be excessive over 10, instead of over 12. If I was to consult my own feelings I should say eight hours. I want the hon. Gentleman to remember that nearly the whole of the men I am referring to have a 10 hours' standing day, and it almost seems to pass comprehension how the Board of Trade can allow two hours in every day's work to be worked before they deem the hours are excessive. I am certain that the railway companies themselves, as a rule, would not fix a 10 hours' limit if they thought it was reasonable to get 12 as a standard for a day's work. What we are asking to-day for all the men I have mentioned is, I think, a fairly reasonable claim, considering the work the men have to do with regard to manipulating the whole of the mechanical inventions that can possibly be put upon our trains. We do not complain of that, but then there is the increase in mental strain in consequence of the large amount of traffic, the high speed, and the speeding-up that has taken place during the last few years. I know that so far as complaints are concerned under the Act, for which I paid due credit to the Board of Trade for having done a great deal in its early history, it is quite true they have dwindled down to 14 cases of complaints during the last year, but the fact also remains that that is very largely due to the ineffective way in which the Board of Trade have dealt with those cases. I do not find that there are many, if any, cases at all during recent years where the Board of Trade has deemed hours to be excessive unless they were over 12. I speak from experience, mixing with men up and down the country, and I say that they are losing faith in the effectiveness of this particular Act which was passed for the specific reason of keeping hours down within reasonable limits. It is quite true the Act takes the responsibility for its administration from the Board of Trade itself, and that it places the responsibility and onus of complaint upon the men or a representative on their behalf, and that it leaves to the. Board of Trade discretionary power to say whether the hours are excessive or whether they are not. What we want also, and I think what we ought to have from the Board of Trade, is to reduce the figure. If it was reasonable in 1894 to deem that all hours over 12 were excessive for this class of men, then by the same method of reasoning 10 hours is excessive now.

I should like briefly to support what has fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. W. Hudson) on the subject of railway hours. I have always felt this Act has been insufficiently worked, and I might almost say, without; disrespect to the Board of Trade, inadequately interpreted in its intentions by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has largely, we know, relied upon personal representations of railway servants with regard to their excessive hours, which, it seems to me, is not the correct interpretation of the intention of the Act. The intention of the Act, with which some of us had a good deal to do at the time it was passed, was undoubtedly to give the Board of Trade a perfectly free hand to ascertain whether the hours were excessive, and to interfere with those hours without any direct complaint by the men themselves, which might expose them to disabilities in the course of their service. I think that the case made out by my hon. Friend is a very strong case. I do not know whether my hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant), who now so excellently represents the Board of Trade, is aware of the circumstances under which this question originally arose. Those of us who worked this question many years ago will remember that the present Lord St. Aldwyn, who was one of the ablest representatives the Board of Trade ever had, dealt with this question in an exceedingly broad-minded spirit. He at once agreed, on the question being laid before him, to have returns called for from the railway company on the 10-hour basis as well as the 12-hour basis. In doing so he recognised the principle which my hon. Friend is now contending for, namely, that a 10-hour limit was the natural and proper limit for the running departments, and that a 10-hour limit was a, fair measure of a man's physical ability in dealing with the different duties of manipulating and running traffic. That was shown in several reports brought before this House. Those returns were simply startling and stupendous. The hon. Member for Newcastle is perfectly right in saying that the figures, taking 12 hours as the limit beyond which excessive labour is presumed, present startling returns, but if we had 10 hours as a fair day's work, the proportion of railway servants called upon continually to discharge their duties for periods in excess of 10 hours would startle the House, and the feeling of security of the passengers, and would excite real sympathy with the men who are compelled to work for those enormous hours. The figures of the returns for October, 1908, and March, 1909, are extremely disappointing to everyone who has worked at this question, as some of us have, for many years past; they do not reflect credit on the Department in whose hands this matter rests, and who could rectify these figures if they chose to apply the whole power of the office in pressure on the railway companies. The figures are discreditable to the Board of Trade and to many of the railway companies.

Why?

I will tell the hon. Baronet why. If he refers to the returns of excessive hours of work on railways during the last two or three years he will find one notable circumstance, namely, that the London and Northwestern Railway has greatly distinguished itself by eliminating the enormous proportion of excessive hours formerly worked. I ask, as I asked four or five years ago, why, having before them that object lesson of the perfect practicability of one great railway company in the country almost eliminating hours of labour in excess of 12, the Board of Trade, with the powers at their disposal, still permit, month after month and year after year, a large proportion of the other railway companies to go on imposing these excessive hours of duty upon their servants? I have not attempted to analyse the number of cases of over 12 hours; I do not think they sufficiently illustrate my point; but I will give one or two figures which I have taken out during the last few minutes showing a number of instances, which seem to be absolutely scandalous, of men being compelled to work for 15 hours. On the Great Eastern Railway, in October, there were 223 instances of goods drivers and firemen being on duty for 15 hours, and in March there were 196 such cases. On the North London Railway there were, in March, 248 such cases of passenger engine drivers and firemen, and 104 in October. In the last return there were on the Brighton Railway 110 cases of passenger engine drivers and firemen, and 100 on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. Without wearying the Committee with further statistics, I think these facts are serious, and deserve the full consideration of the Board of Trade. In reference to coupling accidents, in the United States very strong compulsory legislation was passed in 1893. I know that their rolling stock is of a different character from ours; but my point is that the requirement of automatic couplings throughout the railway system resulted in a reduction of fatalities from 2,727 in 1893, to 1,693 in 1897; and I believe that that diminution has been maintained. Exactly the same kind of thing happened in connection with the Board of Trade. Lord St. Aldwyn passed a very important Bill, with regard to automatic brakes and the interlocking of signals and points, and that Act had an enormous effect. Anyone who takes the trouble to examine the statistics of fatalities on railways will know that that Act produced a great diminution in the number of accidents. Recent returns on the couplings question and the memorandum of Colonel Yorke are familiar to all who have followed this question. Colonel Yorke, on the ground of the disturbance to trade, the character of the rolling stock, and the enormous change it would make, rather deprecates any hasty action. There may be a great deal of force commercially in that contention, especially in the present condition of the railway companies; but I want to impress upon the Board of Trade that wherever the bold policy of going to the root of the matter has been adopted, very extensive results have speedily followed in the reduction of railway fatalities, both in this country and in the United States. It is high time that we had a further effort to diminish the number of fatalities in connection with coupling operations. There were 28 deaths in 1900, 23 in 1903, and 16 in 1908. There has been a diminution in the number of deaths, but the number of cases of injury in coupling operations has increased from 565 to 675. So that it cannot be said that there is any real improvement in the condition of affairs. A bold policy is practically recommended by Mr. Askwith, of the Board of Trade, who dwells on the fact that some of the railway companies have instituted a regulation forbidding men to use a pole to couple trucks when they are slightly in motion unless the buffers are actually in contact; and he rightly remarks that the institution of that rule has greatly diminished the number of fatal cases and of serious injury. Therefore, if the Board of Trade rests on the contention of Colonel Yorke that it would be too serious a matter for the finances of the railway companies and private truck owners to alter the general conditions at one stroke, I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider whether it might not be wise for the Department, at any rate to insist that all railway companies should secure a certain amount of safety by adopting such a rule as that to which I have referred, under which men are not allowed to couple or uncouple with a pole trucks in motion, or unless the buffers are actually in contact. Many years ago I drew attention to the fact that the Board of Trade did not hold inquiries into minor accidents to railway servants in their daily work. The number of such cases in which the Board of Trade made inquiry into the causes of the accidents was ex- tremely small. That has been greatly mitigated by the appointment of practical inspectors of excellent railwaymen, who' understand the difficulties of the work. But although the attention drawn to the matter resulted in an immense increase in the number of these inquiries, there are still inquiries held in only one case out of three. In the case of a big railway accident an inspector of the Board of Trade is immediately sent down to inquire into its causes, but in two cases out of three where railwaymen are killed or seriously injured no such inquiry at all is made. I say that that state of things ought to come to an end. As in the case of miners, or of factory men, who are killed, or seriously injured, so in this dangerous trade the Board of Trade, being responsible for the technical working of the railway system, and for the protection of these men, should, as a matter of course, hold an inquiry in every case. It seems to me that it is in these practical matters that the Board of Trade can most fully vindicate their position. I do not want them to act in a way which would be oppressive to the railway companies at the present time. But the suggestion I have made with regard to coupling operations is one which would cost the railway companies absolutely nothing, and there are many other ways in which, without inflicting any capital expenditure upon the railways, the safer working of the railways, and the shortening of the hours, which are grossly excessive, might be secured by action on the part of the Board of Trade.

If I had been aware that a discussion on this matter was going to come up I would have taken some steps to go into the statistics which the hon. Baronet opposite has given to the Committee. I listened with great attention to his speech, and so far as I can gather from his figures he says that the injuries to railway servants in coupling accidents in England—I suppose he means the United Kingdom—last year were 600 odd, and that out of those there were only 25 deaths. On the other hand, in America, he said, though they have adopted automatic couplings with very great success, the injuries were something like 1,600.

I said that there were a greater number of railway servants.

I do not know what the proportion may be.

About double.

Then England is still more favourable, without automatic couplings, than is America. Of course, the conditions of railway traffic in America and England are very different. I would point out to the hon. Baronet that, leaving out any questions of humanity, with which he does not credit railway directors, that the latter have to pay, or rather the shareholders through the directors have to pay, very large sums of money in compensation for accidents. That sum is increasing year by year. Therefore, merely from pecuniary motives, the railway directors would be most anxious to do all they can to avoid, certainly the deaths and any injuries, for they also are compensated. It is quite a mistake to suppose that railway companies are not taking, and do not desire to take, precautions for avoiding these accidents, which, of course, we all regret. I would point out that if the hon. Baronet had been in the habit, for seven or eight years, of coupling in a certain yard that he would probably get a little callous to the danger. He has done it so of ten successfully that he does not always take the precautions which he ought to take. Very often these accidents occur owing to the men being so accustomed to carry out their duties without any harm to themselves that they get a little bit callous about the manner in which they carry out their work, and so fatal results follow. As to the question of automatic couplings, one of the reasons the companies have not adopted these is that no automatic couplings have hitherto been introduced which are an improvement upon the existing couplings. There are a great many things to remember in putting automatic couplings upon carriages. You must be quite certain that they would not break during the journey. It is not merely a question of coupling wagons, but a matter of seeing that the train shall be as strong and safe as at the present moment. At any rate, however badly railway companies are managed at the present moment the deaths and injuries in this direction are not so great as they are in America. Then the hon. Baronet, as I understood him, apparently wishes the Board of Trade to interfere in questions of excessive hours without any complaint having been made by the men. He went on to say that in his opinion the men did not make complaint because they were afraid that they would be dismissed, or degraded, or fined if it was found out that they had made complaints. That is contrary to the fact. No railway company ever takes any action to dismiss a man or refuse him promotion because he has made a complaint to the Board of Trade on account of his working excessive hours. The companies have no wish to prevent an Act of Parliament or the directions of the Board of Trade which have been sanctioned by Parliament to be given effect to. Even if they wished to do so the men apparently are powerful enough to raise such an outcry that no railway company would be able to stand against it. The railway companies have no desire to conceal the lengthy hours which their men work. The hon. Member below the Gangway did not, I think, give absolutely credence to the statement on that head made on behalf of the railway company.

I said I had called it in question in years past.

So far as I know there is no attempt to conceal the excessive and lengthy hours worked by the men. True returns are made to the Board of Trade. But it must not be forgotten that it is not always easy to work a railway to time. Goods guards work long hours, I believe, sometimes. That may be due to a block on the railway. No Board of Trade or legislation can prevent that. It requires more lines. If the lines were quadrupled that might have some effect, but that means money. And when a railway company comes here to get powers to raise money to do work its Bills are always stopped because some particular section of the House desires some particular advantage for itself, and will not allow the Bill to go through until that particular advantage is given. I cannot acquit hon. Members below the Gangway from participation in that. So long as hon. Members do that they cannot expect railway companies to rush to this House and widen their lines, and so carry on their traffic with less blocks and less delay. The question of the long hours is no doubt one which is an extremely difficult question to manage. The general tendency nowadays on the part of railway companies is to keep their hours within reasonable limits. The hon. Baronet referred to the case of the London and North-Western Railway Company and the North London Railway Company. I suppose he is aware that the London and Northwestern control the North London?

The case I referred to was the excessive hours actually worked on the North London. The figures of the London and North-Western were very favourable.

The hon. Baronet also referred to the Great Eastern Company, and gave figures, as I understood him, showing that in March there were 220 cases of men working over 15 hours, and in October 120 cases of men working excessive hours. Well, of course, that sounds a very large number of cases. I do not know how many men the Great Eastern employ. They must be a very large number. If you divide the number of men employed by 100 you will not, I think, find that many men out of the total have worked 15 hours for, at any rate, more than one day in the month. There is no question that these long hours are not worked regularly, but occasionally. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not think the Board of Trade can be blamed for not taking sufficient action. My own idea is that they take rather too much in regard to railway companies. I think if the hon. Baronet and other Members of the House were directors of a railway company, and had to consider how many requirements were made by the Board of Trade, how many questions were asked, and how the Board are continually asking the railway companies for all sorts of details about everything over which they have any kind of control, they would not accuse directors of neglecting their duty. I am not at all sure that the Board of Trade might not save themselves a great deal of unnecessary trouble if they trusted a little bit more to the railway companies. I can assure the hon. Baronet that the railway companies are not in any way neglectful of their duty, and they are not so bad as they are sometimes made out to be.

The hon. Baronet who has just addressed the House is, I think, satisfied that this is not an attack upon the humanity of railway directors, nor is it an attempt to ignore—at least, it is not on my part—the good work which has been done—but done very much too late. Like the hon. Baronet, I was not aware that this Vote was coming on or I would have armed myself with some statistics. He rightly said that he thought that accidents in America were much worse than they were in this country. I remember when his Bill was passed by the late Lord—then Mr.—Ritchie I said a few words on that occasion and I described the American railways as slaughter-houses. I said that as compared with our own they were very much more dangerous. In fact, up to a few years ago—and I am one of the admirers of the Great Republic —one had to say that there was practically no regard paid to human lives at all on the railways. If you do not get into an American train pretty quickly you are left, and you are told to get the next one. The whole spirit of the place appeals to me to a considerable extent as a passenger. But when it comes to the; men, then I am bound to say, in my softer moods, I am not prepared to side with the hon. Baronet with respect to the ineffectiveness of the couplings. I can assure him if he will get the statistics before the introduction of automatic couplings of the accidents due to the couplings and uncouplings it is really almost like a romance. Even in the pioneer days of the automatic couplings the impression made upon the statistics of fatalities and non-fatal accidents was very great. I know that by some strange freak, which does happen, some 12 years after there was a year or two in which the effect, so to speak, had gone back, and there was a period when the increased safety was not maintained. But there is no doubt, and I think no American railway man would deny it, that the effect of the automatic couplings on American railways has been a great boon to the men, and has saved them enormous numbers of lives, and also, what is often almost as bad, if not worse, saved men from mutilations and maimings which made them wish themselves dead. Therefore, I must say that personally I am not satisfied with the Board of Trade's attitude to this great question—that of improved safety through automatic couplings. I cannot help paying my tribute to the hon. Baronet for the consistency with which he has attempted to improve the conditions of railway men. I know that the Board of Trade are bound by these things, but I think it is very unfortunate that Colonel Yorke, who is a very competent inspector on the Board of Trade, seems to be too much impressed and encumbered by the financial aspect of these matters. I think the gallant Colonel could very well leave it to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) to look after and attend to the financial interest of the railway companies. That interest is always looked after for the railways in this House. The hon. Baronet the Member for the City tried to show, and to some extent he succeeded, that it is to the monetary interest of the railway companies to conduct their lines safely both as regards their own men and as regards their passengers. That is quite true, and it is, I believe, the great operative motive which has generally had a great deal to do in bringing down the casualty rate. I am still heretic enough to connect self-interest with a great many good things in this world. The whole history of the improvement of railway companies is due to the constant pressure of public opinion and of the Department and of this House generally upon the railway companies. They did not like the block system; they resisted it as long as they could; and as for the continuous brakes, I do not know if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City was in the House at the time, but I am sure if he was he would have been among the prophets of evil who would have predicted all kinds of terrible calamities which would follow if the continuous brake system was adopted. What is the fact? Whoever looks back upon these old Returns on continuous brakes will see the mighty struggle that was going on, but now you cannot find a passenger train without continuous brakes, and no railway director would be so foolish as to oppose this reform to-day, and I think I shall yet hear the hon. Baronet the Member for the City get up in his place and express his great delight when the first step is taken to adopt automatic coupling. Something was said by the hon. Baronet about inquiries into every accident which occurred on the railway lines. I want to be perfectly fair to the lines, and I think there are accidents that occur where the cause is so obvious that the moment a practical railway man at the Board of Trade saw the Report and the evidence at the inquest, he would at once see that there was no means of going further. A tribute was paid to the practical character of the sub-inspectors of the Board of Trade. I share in that tribute entirely and without wishing to go into any detail I may say I was disappointed that when an addition was made to the men, those who were appointed were not practical men. They were not of the status of the inspectors, and they had not the practical knowledge of the sub-inspectors. I do not know that they require any additional inspectors, but I say to the hon. Gentleman who represents the Board of Trade here that at any time it is decided to strengthen the practical inspectors' staff I would ask him to make sure that men are appointed who have had experience of working on the line, who know the need and the conditions of work, who have been in charge of goods or have been on the engines or on the permanent way, and not gentlemen who come out of the manager's office, who are neither fish, flesh, nor good red herring. Let the inspectors appointed be practical men, and not the other class to which I refer.

I would like to point out that the hon. Member for Newcastle, in quoting this Return, was quite justified, I think, in calling the attention of the Board of Trade to the many excessive hours which, existed, and here, again, I am bound to say that these Returns show a very great improvement from what they were 15 or 20 years ago. In these old Returns the columns showing work for 15 and 16 hours a day were very often very crowded—I really think it is a burning shame that railway men should be subjected to such hours. If there is one class of men that deserve the best attention, it is the men who work our traffic on the railways. I would like to call attention to the great difference in these figures. Just take the Great Eastern—there you will find that of the passenger engine drivers and firemen no less than 50 per cent, were on duty for more than 12 hours in the month of March. When you come to the same grade on the Great Northern, you find that less than 23 per cent, were on duty more than 12 hours in the same month. If the Great Northern can do that, why should the Great Eastern have 50 per cent, of their men working more than 12 hours, and when we turn to the Great Central—and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade knows something about the Great Central—when you turn to the Great Central I am glad to say that there is not one person in any of those grades that were on duty more than 12 hours in that particular month. Surely the Board of Trade have in this discrepancy some reason as to why they should make further inquiry than they are doing. These excessive hours must be stopped, and if the President of the Board of Trade would just take up the emphatic stand that these excessive hours must not be permitted, I venture to say that they will be put an end to. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway is one of the most congested bits of railway in the whole country. What do we find? We find that in the case of guards and brakesmen there was not 6 per cent, of these men working more than 12 hours in March last. Does anyone mean to tell me that if the Lancashire and Yorkshire can work for a whole month with less than 6 per cent, of guards and brakesmen working over 12 hours, and that the Great Central can work without any, that there is any reason why the Great Eastern should work 81 per cent, of their men more than 12 hours in the same month? I think these discrepancies are the best justification that the Board of Trade could have for taking stronger action than they are doing. It is nearly 20 years ago since I wrote to the official organ of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants in favour of 10 hours. I am sure I will not be regarded as a very advanced revolutionary. I wrote in favour of the 10-hours' limit. Surely that is a modest request, and I think those lines of progressive safety in these matters would be found, if the Board of Trade issued terms putting away from them altogether the 12 hours' standard, and then let the nation see how many hours are worked not above 12 hours but above 10 hours. I am sure the railway directors of this House will come to this conclusion that their property is more secure, and that their own position would be safer all round, if they bore in mind and discharged the responsibilities which must follow from possession of property. Surely it is the very minimum of such reformation to say that the railways of England have accepted the rule, except in an emergency which cannot be helped that no one shall work more than 10 hours and in some of the grades it shall be even a shorter day of 8 hours.

Having a very strong interest in one of the railway companies—not a pecuniary interest, but in so far as that railway company goes through the Constituency I have the honour to represent, and as they have a great works where men are employed not too many hours, but, on some occasions, not as many hours as people would wish, as they have to work sometimes for a short time—I wish to emphasise what has been said by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. The curious thing is the extraordinary contrast, which, to the outsider, is perfectly inexplicable. The figures not only give differences in 10, or 20, or 30, or 40 per cent., they vary so enormously that one does think that there must be some real reason which, of course, does not appear upon the tables which give mere totals. We may assume them to be absolutely accurate, as no doubt they would be, for no one wishes to impute to the railway companies that they would show anything or give any figures that were not quite capable of explanation. There is one thing that may be said in regard to these railways companies, namely, that those that look best are by no means in the worst financial position. I think that some of the railway companies that have the best financial positions as shown by the return of these tables look after their men best. Therefore, I think there is a strong presumption that it is not necessary for railway companies to work their men inordinately long in order to make dividends for their shareholders. That would not appear from the returns of the railway company which give an analysis of the work in these tables. The American conditions are very different, indeed any comparisons that can be drawn between America and this country have no very strong bearing upon these things. First of all the number of miles travelled must be considered. It is perfectly well known to those who have travelled over American railways, particularly if they have been standing upon the footplate of an engine, that the character of the American line is very different to what the best railways laid down in this country are. The conditions of work are also very different. The Board of Trade should very seriously take these matter into consideration, and I hope we may find that other railway companies in this country will work up to the standard set by the best companies whose experience shows that such standard has produced the most satisfactory results.

I wish to ask the hon. Member in charge of this Vote several questions, which will probably save us a considerable amount of trouble later on. I have had occasion to put to the hon. Gentleman and to the President of the Board of Trade a great many questions on the subject of the lighting of the coast of county Down. I wish to pay a tribute to the hon. Member, because since his appointment the particular object which I have had in view has been furthered more rapidly during his term of office than during the tenure of office of his predecessors. The hon. Member will recollect that some time ago he disclaimed having very much power over the Irish Lights Commissioners in connection with works which had already been sanctioned by the Board of Trade. Undoubtedly experience das shown that at all events since the hon. Member came into office he has exercised considerable power over the Irish Lights Commissioners in dictating their policy. For three years, in association with the hon. Member for North Down, I have pressed the Board of Trade to look better after the lighting of what is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous parts of the coast of county Down, where the weather almost invariably during the autumn season and also during the winter and the spring is extraordinarily severe, and to that we also have to add the disadvantage of a very strong current, whether ebbing or flowing. It is so strong that when the wind is against the tide it is almost impossible for any of the old-fashioned lighted buoys to be of any value whatever. On other parts of the coast, where the general effect of storms is to make waves of considerable height and length, these ordinary lighted buoys can undoubtedly cope with the difficulty, because the long billows merely rock the buoys to and fro, but do not extinguish the light; but in the troublesome waters of the particular locality to which I refer in the Strangford Lough the sea is in a constant state of choppiness which makes it extremely difficult for one of those buoys to keep alight. I have been watching carefully to see what would happen when the Board of Trade had brought sufficient pressure to bear upon the Irish Lights Commissioners, and the result of my personal observation was that the wrong class of buoy was moored in that particular locality. I asked for reports to be sent to me to show that such was the fact. Week after week, when the buoy was moored I received communications from various shipping companies trading along the North Coast of Ireland, and in all cases they complained that the lights were extinguished at night, and consequently this buoy became not a source of guidance for shipping but actually a danger to navigation.

what Vote is the hon. and gallant Member addressing himself to?

Vote A.

There is a special Vote for Harbours, and I am afraid I cannot allow this discussion upon this Vote.

I was under the impression that upon the salary of the President of the Board of Trade it would be possible to raise the question as to whether the right hon. Gentleman should not bring pressure to bear upon the Irish Lights Commissioners.

The point which the hon. and gallant Member is raising comes under a separate Vote, and, therefore, it cannot be raised on the question of the President of the Board of Trade's salary.

I understand my hon. and gallant Friend is dealing with the question of lighting under the Irish Lights Commissioners, and this does not come in under the Vote for the Harbours.

If that is the case, of course, the hon. and gallant Member is in order.

I think this question has to be raised on this Vote or not at all. It is upon this Vote that the money is voted for the Irish Lights Commissioners.

Then the hon. and gallant Member is quite in order.

I was trying to impress upon the Government the necessity in future action of making it clear to the Irish Lights Commissioners that the buoy which is to be permanently moored off this very dangerous and rocky coast should not be one of the old-fashioned pattern, but one brought up to modern requirements. Year after year in the Strangford Lough the tale of shipwrecks and loss of life on this part of the coast is simply appalling, and that is why I have taken this opportunity of raising this very important point. What I wish to emphasise most is that care should be taken in selecting the spot for mooring the buoy, and also the class of buoy to be placed there. We know that the type of buoy which has been moored there as a temporary measure has not fulfilled its function, and it has been so unsatisfactory that the Irish Lights Commissioners have had to change the place of mooring nearer to the bar mouth. I hope the hon. Member will consult the fishermen on the spot who live by small trading there, and I am sure they will impress upon him the necessity, of getting some information from them as to the exact spot at which the buoy should be moored, because a couple of miles one way on the other makes all the difference to the shipping passing, not only North and South, but to that which navigates in the narrow waters. I hope the hon. Member for North Down will co-operate with me in urging that this matter should be pressed to a satisfactory conclusion. I quite understand that some time must elapse before the hon. Member can actually arrange that this buoy is placed in its proper position on account of notice having to be given to foreign countries and to our own Colonies with regard to the change of the position of a lighted buoy. I can quite understand that some time must elapse, but it cannot be too often urged that the making of this change is absolutely necessary before the heavy weather sets in again. Every year we have had to come to this House and call attention to some foreign vessel lying a total wreck off this coast. Once a vessel touches this particular part of the coast it is very rare indeed that it can be got off, and it almost immediately becomes a total wreck, and very often there is serious loss of life. I know the hon. Member is very sympathetic on this question, and I do not urge this matter upon him in any spirit of hostility. I hope the interest he has shown during his tenure of office will be continued in connection with this matter.

Another point I wish to deal with is in regard to the Supplementary Estimate for Labour Exchanges. Upon looking through the papers in connection with this Vote the sum of £31,000 for Labour Exchanges struck me as rather a heavy item. I have had one or two questions put into my hand referring to an answer to a question given by the First Commissioner of Works as to the amount of money that would be necessary to supervise any action taken by the Board of Trade in regard to Labour Exchanges. I was surprised to hear the First Commissioner of Works place the total sum at £9,339 to cover the cost of staff and other expenses for the purpose of supervising this work. To require such a large sum as that for clerks or Commissioners in the First Commissioner's Department to watch over the expenditure of the Board of Trade with regard to Labour Exchanges appears to me to be out of all proportion to the benefits which are to accrue. I do not suggest that we should divide the Committee against this Vote, but this is an item which I think requires some explanation from the Department concerned. This is only for eight months, so far as I can make out, and the salaries for the Labour Exchanges amount to £19,000, while the travelling expenses come to £6,000 and the London Traffic Branch to £2,590. The estimate in the London case was £1,590. It will be seen that these salaries are very much in excess of what I think it will be agreed would be considered reasonable to carry out the schemes which have been so fully explained to us on former occasions by the President of the Board of Trade. This £30,000 is to be spent to enable people to find work; that is the whole idea. It is considered necessary to spend this enormous sum of money in order to enable employers on the Clyde who discover they require a few more shipbuilding hands to obtain them from the Tyne or the Thames, where the pressure perhaps is not so great. I know from experience that, as a rule, one is able without any trouble at all to get men to augment a staff which is perhaps working at high pressure if they send a message to one of the other yards. The Labour Exchanges are to supply what has hitherto been done in a more or less rough-and-ready way by having offices built, with clerks in charge, to take the names of those who call to ask for employment and where they can find it. I do not mind so much large towns like London, Glasgow, and even Belfast having Labour Exchanges, but I think it is rather an expensive improvement of present conditions to start with salaries and incidental expenses amounting to £31,000 for the first eight months.

It must be remembered that this Vote under discussion does not cover Vote 9a, which includes £70,000 for furniture, rents, new works, and alterations, whilst there is an additional £10,000 for the First Commissioner of Works for the supply of supervising clerks. It seems to me there is a duplication of work, and that we are starting on a very expensive scale indeed. Even granting you are assisting people to a certain extent to find work. I cannot see why you should start on such a gigantic scale as is indicated by these figures. I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the salaries of these inspectors and clerks are to be on a very high grade or whether this sum of £31,000 will cover a very large number of clerks. If a few are to get enormous salaries it will mean that after the first eight months, when more exchanges are open, the first to receive salaries under the scheme will set the example for every other appointment made, and we may then, look, not for £31,910, but for something like £80,000 or £90,000 in order to pay the staff who are looking out for work for other people. I thought when the scheme was introduced we were to proceed tentatively, and to feel our way before rushing into this enormous expense. I would not like it to be thought I was against any scheme to assist people to find employment, but I do protest against starting in this very extravagant manner.

On this, the last day of the Committee of Supply, it has already been ruled that it is not in order to interrupt proceedings by a count, as under the Standing Order on the days appointed for concluding that business of Supply no dilatory Motion may be moved, and the proceedings are exempt from the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House. Consequently it is not possible to take any action which would prevent Supply being finished at 10 o'clock in terms of the Standing Order.

I have put my two points as clearly as I can, and not in any carping spirit, but in an endeavour to try and discover what the views of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote are upon these two subjects.

I am bound to say a few words on this occasion, because of the great interest which is taken in the subject of railway amalgamation by the commercial community. That question has come before this House in a very acute form several times during this Session, and the action of the President of the Board of Trade and the account he has given on various occasions have caused a very great deal of comment among the trading community and organised bodies of traders. I think it is only right in their interests, as well as in the interests of my right hon. Friend, that this fact should be brought home in public discussions of this character. We have had during this Session three occasions on which the question has occupied the attention of the House. The first occasion was the consideration of the Great Eastern, the Great Northern, and the Great Central Railway Bill. That discussion lasted three nights. The action of the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion is in the memory of most of the Committee. There was a very strong opposition to the second reading of the Bill, and that was fully recognised by the President of the Board of Trade. In order to meet that opposition he asked the House to give a second reading to the Bill, and he promised that an Instruction would be put down so that we could utilise the Bill in order to go into the whole question of railway amalgamation. The Bill on that condition obtained a second reading. The Instruction was duly moved, but the Bill, we know, was afterwards withdrawn. I should like to quote one word from that Debate, because it has some bearing on a point I am coming to. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking on 5th April, said:—

"I propose to secure that these thoroughly able and competent persons should help us and call witnesses who would unfold before the whole nation the essence and the main features of the great question of railway amalgamation."

It was no fault of the President of the Board of Trade that the Bill was withdrawn and that the Committee was not set up. In order to carry out the promise he made he set up a somewhat unfortunate tribunal, in my opinion—a Departmental Committee—to deal with this question. It is a very unpleasant duty for any Member, and especially for me personally, to criticise in any way the constitution of that Departmental Committee, but I would like respectfully to point out that a great many resolutions have been passed by representative trading bodies—I only received one from the Cardiff Chamber of Commerce the other day—expressing disappointment with the composition of the Committee. They consider an undue amount of influence has been given to gentlemen who are either representatives of railway companies or who are, in the minds of traders, by their training and bringing up, liable to be prejudiced in favour of railway companies. I do not wish to press that point personally, but that impression has been strongly created. Traders feel their representation is too weak, more especially because they have no legal expert who is thoroughly conversant with their case to examine and cross-examine witnesses. We have the advantage on that Committee of having one gentleman who was a solicitor to a railway company and is now a director, and another gentleman who was until recently the very able and energetic secretary of the Railway Men's Association. Although I have no doubt men of that standing will be impartial, still they are more conversant with the railway case than with the traders' case. I understand complaints have been made—and very strong ones—by Scotch traders, to the effect that they are not represented on the Committee. They, I understand, have very strong grievances on this question. The Mansion House Traders' Association, at a conference, which was attended by over 200 delegates from all parts of the country, passed a resolution asking that traders should have greater representation on this Committee. There is no doubt that Chambers of Commerce and large bodies of traders generally are bitterly disappointed with their representation upon this Committee. I am sorry it has fallen to my lot to deal with this matter, because it may be suggested that I am aggrieved because I have not been called upon to serve on the Committee; but I think I may be acquitted of any personal ambition, because nobody is particularly anxious to serve on a Committee of this kind, which involves a great deal of labour. There is another point which arose during the Debate on the Taff Valley Railway, and that was with reference to the scope of the terms of reference to the Committee. I think the hon. Member who represents the Board of Trade is quite right in his interpretation of those terms. I had imagined that they were a good deal wider, but I do hope that the language in which they are framed will not be utilised in a narrow sense. We were promised that the whole subject of railway amalgamation should be investigated, and we were disappointed to learn, in reply to a question a few days ago, that the sittings of the Departmental Committee were to be held in private, and that the evidence was not to be available in the usual way, although it might be purchased. It seems a curious method of unfolding this question before the whole nation to hold a practically private inquiry. That certainly seems to be scarcely carrying out either the intentions or spirit which, the traders gathered, were aimed at by the President of the Board of Trade. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman is not anxious in this very important matter to arouse against him self the suspicions of the trading community. I am glad to be able to congratulate him on the success with which he has settled a very important dispute in the Scotch coal trade. But what traders feel in connection with this question of railway amalgamation, is that the Board of Trade appears to have taken, not the impartial attitude in trade disputes, which might be expected of it, but that it leans towards the most powerful and better organised side of the railway companies. That is an unfortunate impression for the President of the Board of Trade to create. I regret it should prevail. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intends that it should. I believe he is anxious to protect all interests alike, and that he is also anxious to be regarded by the traders as their friend. I hope my hon. Friend who to-day represents the Board of Trade will say a few words to reassure the trading community, and that he will give us some hope of an enlargement of the Departmental Committee by adding one or two more names. I submit this rather in the capacity of a friend of both parties. I am anxious that this great question, if it is settled, should be settled on a basis acceptable to both sides, but I must add that unless the present composition of the Departmental Committee is modified I am afraid such a result will not follow its labours. The organised traders will declare that their representation was too small on the Committee, and consequently whatever opinions are expressed by the Committee cannot be taken as binding upon them. What I want to see is this question settled once and for all. I think it is an unfortunate thing that some of the organised bodies of traders have not been more fully consulted with regard to representation on this Departmental Committee, and I hope that that point will be reconsidered as well as that terms of reference, with a view to interpreting the latter in the widest sense, thereby allaying the growing storm of indignation among traders throughout the country—a storm which the Board of Trade should do its best to avert as much as possible in the interests of this country.

I just wish to add one word to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Down in regard to the lighting of the Irish coast. He spoke for North Down. I wish to say a word for the West Coast. I have on more than one occasion forwarded to the President of the Board of Trade representations from harbour and other authorities in Galway on this subject, and I do hope that pressure will be brought to bear upon the Irish Lights Commission with regard to the extremely unsatisfactory condition of lighting of the coast from Galway down to Clare—a condition productive of much danger owing to the defective harbour accommodation. It is a matter which should be seen to as soon as possible.

I do not at all complain of the tone adopted by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this Debate this afternoon, especially on the very important subject of the hours of labour for railway servants. On the contrary, I have not very far to look back to when, on the same subject, I was advocating very much the same views. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hudson) was quite right in stating, if I may say so, that the Act of 1893 has been beneficial in its administration and has most enormously reduced the hours of railway servants in this country. I was glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because it is perfectly true that the hours of railway servants have been considerably reduced since the late Liberal Government passed that Act in 1893. I should like, if I may be allowed, to make the position of the Board of Trade quite clear upon this subject of the hours of labour. We have been taken to task because we have not insisted upon certain grades of railway servants having as short a day as 10 hours, or even eight. I am one of those who would like, however, to see all the hours materially reduced, and I am also one of those who believe that, within reasonable limits, the greater the reduction of hours that you can make, the more likely you are to receive an increased and improved output. I do not know whether you can say that of railway servants so much as you can of some other classes. But what I wish the Committee to realise is that it is not perfectly fair or true to say that in all classes we demand a 12-hours' day. I do not say the hon. Gentleman did say that, but that is rather the impression conveyed to my mind, and I think it might be the impression conveyed to the mind of a casual listener to this Debate.

In point of fact, what the Board of Trade do is to say that the hours of engine men, goods guards, and brakesmen shall not exceed on the average, under ordinary circumstances, 10 hours a day or 60 a week, and are on no one day to be more than 12. That is rather a different thing from saying that we allow a 12-hours' day. We allow a 12-hours' day, but we say that, ordinarily, it ought to be 10 hours. Take the passenger guards: We say that they should have a maximum of 12 hours, that in the case of the signalman the maximum is 10 hours, except in some unimportant places on the line where 12 hours may be allowed. But at the junctions and important places, eight hours is the ordinary limit, and these have by far the larger portion of the men in the signal boxes. Then, again, with regard to shunters. The hours of labour are not to exceed 10 a day, in busy places, though in other cases 12 may be allowed as a maximum. In the case of the staff of porters and others 12 hours is to be the maximum. That is the position we occupy, and that is what we lay down, and I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that our discretion was given to us on the recommendation of a Select Committee, upon whose Report the Act of 1893 was passed. In the arrangement of hours the dangers not only to railway servants and their fellow-workmen, but to the travelling public, should be the governing reason. I quite agree that it is perfectly possible to argue that not only the safety of the men themselves and of the travelling public and the colleagues of the workmen ought to be the governing feature of the situation, but that also the general social position is a question which we have before us just now, and that also ought to enter into the matter. If Parliament were to lay down that no railway servant shall work more than ten hours, Parliament is competent to do so on the social aspect of the question, which is desirable from many points of view, but I would point out that the Board of Trade do not possess any such power, and they must consider, and only consider, the safety of the worker and the safety of the travelling public.

My point is, that the Board of Trade have power to call for returns and re-schedule the work, and they fix the maximum at 12, and we say that 10 would be equally a reasonable proportion.

Of course, the hon. Member is perfectly within his rights in saying that, inasmuch as we have now a 12 hours' maximum, we might progress a little and cut it down to 10 and see how that answers. I do not quarrel with him for saying that. All I say is that it is not an easy thing to do. You cannot do it by a stroke of the pen; that is not a reasonable thing to ask us to do, but there are limits, as the hon. Member would be the first to admit, and I have given the limits of the various grades, and I do not think I need labour it any further.

Who issued those instructions?

They have been in force several years—I cannot say how long, but I will inquire if the hon. Gentleman wishes to know. A number of figures have been brought before the Committee with regard to percentages of hours of labour, but I wish the Committee to realise that these figures of 40 per cent, and 61 per cent, would not represent the number of days over 12 hours, but the percentage of the men employed who have worked over 12 hours on one day at least. For instance, the Great Eastern goods drivers worked for 196 days for over 15 hours, it was said, in one of the figures which have been quoted. But if you take the total number of days worked by those men it is 29,311, and it works out at 67, not 1 per cent, of the days worked. For instance, if you employed the same man every time you worked more than 12 hours, it would hardly work out that you employed that man 14 and 15 hours every day. I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but it works out like this. Take the return in one case. It shows that 61 per cent, of the goods guards on the Great Northern Railway worked for some one or more periods 12 hours a day; but if you take the whole of the periods worked by the goods guards that only represents 1.2 per cent, of the days worked.

It is quite true. The report gives 61 per cent, of the men who work over 12 hours a day.

Yes, it is true that there were 61 per cent, of these goods guards who worked over 12 hours, but if you take the whole of the periods worked by the goods guards it only represents 1.2 per cent, of the amount worked. That is not really very much. Out of every 100 days worked there was only 1.2 of over 12 hours. I want the Committee further to realise the percentages of duties exceeding 12 hours by one or more in the last eight periods when they have been returned. For April, 1907, the return was 3.31 per cent., in July of the same year it was 2.65 per cent., in October 4.02 per cent., in January, 1908, 2.57 per cent., in April 99 per cent., in July 1.04 per cent., in October 1.12 per cent., and in March of this year it was down to 91 per cent. This is an almost continuous improvement, and it relates to 38 of the most important companies, and to all the guards and men included in the returns.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me the position with regard to the hours worked over 10 for the whole of the men?

No, I cannot tell him that. We used to get returns of all the hours worked over 10, and another return for hours over 12, but some years ago it was dropped. It was very difficult to get, and involved an enormous amount of labour, and, what is more, it was almost impossible to ask railway companies, employing people alike in busy places and in places which are not busy, as all railway companies must do, to restrict the whole of their hours to ten. Where there is great pressure of work it has been the policy of the Board of Trade to ask the companies not to employ men more than 10 hours, and in some cases not more than 8, and I do not think you can expect the Board of Trade to go further than that. Further, under the Conciliation and Arbitration Board, which has been set up by the agreement of two years ago, these questions of the hours of labour can be brought before them and settled. In one or two cases we find that the arbitrators have reduced the hours which the Board of Trade considers reasonable, and I make a present of that to the Committee as against the Board of Trade, but the reduction has only been very small in amount. I daresay if there are cases of hardship, if they were brought before the arbitrator, they would be seen into and then we should know whether our ideas are correct or the ideas of the hon. Gentleman who wishes the hours reduced very much more.

Now may I come to the question of accidents. I think it will be admitted that there has been a very large reduction in the number of accidents both fatal and non-fatal. The fatal accidents in the moving of trains or movement of railway vehicles have been reduced from 441 to 376. I still think that is a very large number, but it is infinitesimal compared to what they kill in the United States. It is a reduction of 65 deaths in the year, and there has been a reduction of 601 injured. Trespassers, including suicides, are 479, whereas servants are only 376. Considering the enormous number of persons—over 400,000—who are perpetually working, in and out, in very dangerous places, with trains going past at all speeds, in the dark and wet, liable to accidents of every kind, the figure of fatal accidents is almost remarkable. It does not fill me with indignation at the directors of the company being callously indifferent. I think really great strides have been made towards the improvement of the conditions and the safeguarding of human life, and though I should like to see the strides increased, I think the railway companies have brought them down as much as can be expected. The question of automatic couplings was raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. F. Maddison), who told the Committee that the introduction of automatic couplings in the United States produced a very considerable diminution in the number of accidents. That is quite true, but in spite of the fact that they have automatic couplings they kill ten times as many people as we do, while they employ, roughly speaking, twice as many. The reason why the introduction of automatic couplings in the United States produced such a considerable diminution in the number of accidents was because, prior to the introduction of this form of coupling, every man had to get between the wagons before he could couple up, and it was extraordinarily difficult to do that without serious if not fatal accident. Generally with regard to couplings I used to occupy the position which the hon. Member for Burnley occupies in urging previous Presidents of the Board of Trade to insist on automatic couplings. I have seen automatic couplings, but I have never seen one which gave me great confidence in its being an article of which you could say, "there is a thing which is absolutely reliable, strong and flexible in going round the curves." Colonel Yorke, who has more experience of these matters than I have, says there is no individual automatic coupling in which he could say he had confidence. I would remind the Committee that in a dangerous calling like the working of railway traffic the fatal accidents are not very many. I, of course, should like to see shunting accidents and coupling accidents reduced, but I do not feel at all confident that there would be any diminution in the number even if we were to introduce the form of automatic coupling to which the hon. Member referred. There might be a rule such as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Sir F. Channing) that trucks in motion should not be coupled until the buffers are in contact.

What I pointed out was that the Railway Department of the Board of Trade has stated that several railway companies have adopted that rule, and my suggestion was that the Board of Trade should exercise its power with the railway companies to make it universal.

I shall be glad to inquire into that matter and let my hon. Friend know whether we can actually adopt the suggestion. In regard to the question of the inspecting staff raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Maddison), I am informed that all the appointments have been made from the ranks of railway men who have experience, and who are quite competent for the work with which they are entrusted. [An HON. MEMBER: "That refers to the sub-inspectors."] That is so. I understood my hon. Friend to say they had not had railway experience. [An HON. MEMBER: "He meant the higher ones."] I think the House knows very well that we get the higher ones from the ranks of the Engineers. We may congratulate ourselves on having the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire with us. After the experience he had in America riding on the frame of engines, I am surprised that he should have lived to represent Buckinghamshire. Attention was called to the variation in the figures with respect to the hours of service. In regard to that I have to say that in some oases they do employ men here and there for 12 hours, though not very often. When they do that, even though seldom, it makes a brave show in the figures. On some railways they do not do it at all. In regard to the Great Eastern Railway, I think a remonstrance has been made. Explanations have been asked, and we have not yet received them. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Mond) found fault with the constitution of the Committee. Nobody suggested that the Committee was meant to be representative. It was meant to contain experts on railway matters. As to the appointment of Mr. Speaker's Counsel, a gentleman of very large experience in railway affairs, I personally can see no reason why he should be supposed to be more on the side of the railway companies than on that of the traders. He is a distinguished lawyer.

His only experience of railway matters was that of a barrister practising on behalf of railway companies. He was, I believe, the standing counsel of the London and North-Western Railway Company for a large number of years. He conducted cases on behalf of railway companies, and he must know their case better than that of the traders. He has not had an opportunity of getting practically acquainted with the matters of which traders complain.

I am quite unconvinced as to the unsuitability of that particular gentleman to act on the Committee. I know he is supposed to be a railway companies' man, but I cannot admit that he is so. The same has been said of another member of the Committee, and I should think he was no more a railway companies' man than the others. He was a railway director for about a month; then he gave up the office. He is a land-owner, but I do not know that he carries on any active trade himself. I must say if I had the formation of a Committee I should put everybody upon it—everybody who was not interested on one side or another. We want to get an impartial tribunal, and directly you begin to try to get representatives of various interests there is no end to it, and, moreover, you never satisfy the different interests. The Committee has only nine or ten members, and, with one or two exceptions, they are quite independent men. I think I am right in saying that the President of the Board of Trade in appointing the Committee did not mean it to be representative, he meant it to be authoritative. My hon. Friend said that the traders were anxious to have a representative. The Board of Trade has already offered one trader a place on the Committee in substitution of the Noble Lord the Member for Maryle-bone (Lord R. Cecil), who resigned. We are trying to get a representative of the Scottish traders, but we have not yet succeeded. Two traders have been offered the position, but they have declined to join the Committee on the ground that they cannot spare the time to come to London. My hon. Friend also said that there was an impression on the public mind that the Board of Trade was pro-railway, and was not impartial in matters in which big railway questions were concerned. I cannot imagine how my hon. Friend could bring forward such an idea—I will not say charge.

I did not bring any charge.

The Board of Trade is, and I hope always will be, completely impartial. What we do realise is that railway companies are in a very serious situation, a situation much more serious than my hon. Friend the Member for Chester realises. Whenever they come to this House they are nearly always subjected to one demand or another. Whenever they ask for money for new undertakings the public insist upon getting facilities; labour insists upon shorter hours and higher pay; and everything that can be done is done to increase the advantages which the public enjoy and increase the reward of labour; and it is all at the expense of the unfortunate railway companies. The result is that you cannot get any development at all. If the House wants the railways of this country to be improved and increased facilities given to the public this fact must be borne in mind. That is all that the Board of Trade say. We want to increase the public facilities; we want to try and get better facilities and greater advantages to serve the trading interests, and to shape the railway policy of the country so as to develop further the whole general commerce of the country; and we find the greatest difficulty in doing it. If in adopting that view we are going on behalf of the general traders to oppose everything put forward by the railway companies, I think it is very hard on the railway companies. Our sole object is to try to improve the trading facilities of the public by means of the railways. We will not do that by acting always against the railway companies. My hon. Friend, I think, talked about the railway companies being the more powerful side. That is really not my view. I do not know where he thinks the power of the railway companies lies. It seems to me that the power of the traders and of the other interests is not only equal to, but greater than any power of the railways that has been brought to my notice. I now come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gwynn) and the hon. Member for Down (Captain Craig). In reference to the buoy at Strangford Lough Bar, I am perfectly aware that the coast that has to bi lighted by this buoy is a very dangerous coast, and that there have been very serious wrecks with loss of life and ships in the vicinity. I made representations to the Irish Lights Commissioners that this matter ought to be reconsidered, and it was reconsidered, and a conference was held between the Irish Lights Commissioners and Trinity House on 19th May this year, and on 11th June the Commissioners informed the Board, as a result of the conference, that they had decided to withdraw the buoy at Strangford Lough Bar and place it in another position. The hon. Gentleman (Captain Craig) asked me whether I would see that on this question there was some consultation with local people. The exact site has been a matter of considerable controversy locally, and, t think, has been more or less decided upon; but with reference to that subject and to the lighting of the Galway coast, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Galway, of course, I shall be very glad to forward to the Irish Lights Commissioners any information which the hon. Member for Down or the hon. Member for Galway think should be laid before them. With regard to Labour Exchanges, I was invited to give a synopsis of the general policy under the Labour Exchanges Bill. I am afraid that I really cannot tell very much more than is actually contained in the document presented to Parliament. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Winston Churchill) presented to Parliament some time ago a financial statement, from which it will be observed that the number of officers employed will probably be over 800. The effect on the cost of salaries and wages when the scheme is in complete working order is estimated approximately at £95,000. That is a very large sum of money. The hon. Gentleman (Captain Craig) asked me why such a large sum of money was wanted for these services. All I have got to say is when you have got to employ 800 persons you cannot pay a smaller sum. Of course, in the Estimate you are only taking £19,000 this year, and there will be £6,000 for travelling expenses, as a certain amount of travelling must be necessary at this early stage in developing Labour Exchanges. I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been addressed to me by hon. Gentlemen both as regards railways and Labour Exchanges, and also the Strangford Lough Buoy, and I thank the Committee for the patience with which they have heard me.

With regard to the last few words which have fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Tennant), having served on the Committee which discussed this question of Labour Exchanges, I remember that it was brought out very clearly that a matter of this kind required an experiment on a large scale to do any good at all. Certain things can be done tentatively and on a small scale at first and be increased afterwards, but I remember very well coming to the conclusion, which was shared afterwards by the remainder of the Committee, that to do any good whatever with such an enormous question demanded an experiment on a large scale, and therefore I think this is a justification for the spending of the considerable sum of money that is necessary to embark on this question. If this measure is to be successful, an immense improvement must take place, not by way of creating labour, but by way of organising the labour and directing it into the most profitable channels.

There are one or two points in connection with the discussion of the Excise Department to which I wish to call attention. The first has reference to the compulsory retirement of officers who have not completed the full term of 40 years' service. The old Customs and Excise and the Board of Inland Revenue have been joined, and the two Departments so formed a few months ago issued an Order reducing the age at which its servants might be called upon to take superannuation payment. I do not go into the question of the legal right of the Board of Customs and Excise to issue instructions of this character. The age has been successively reduced by Order from 65 to 61, the limit at which the age stands at present. The latest Order intimates that possibly at no very distant period the age may be reduced to 60. The matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee is very simple. The question of Excise officers' superannuation is regulated by the Act of 1859, and that has been interpreted by a number of circulars which have been issued by the Board of Inland Revenue since the period of the passing of the Act. The most important is the General Order issued by the Board of Inland Revenue in June, 1897. It states that officers of all ranks who attain to the age of 63 will be required to retire provided they have completed 40 years' service. My case is mainly based on the phrase of that General Order, that the officers are only to be called upon to take their superannuation papers if they have reached the age of 63 and have completed 40 years' service. That has been the practice up to within the last few months. The Board of Customs and Excise are now calling upon officers on the completion of 61 years of age to take their superannuation papers, notwithstanding the fact that they have not completed 40 years' service. That is an innovation, and one which, although it may be legal, is not justified by precedent. It is, I think, a violation of the expectations under which these men entered the service; at any rate, that was the opinion held and expressed by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Goschen. Mr. Gladstone said that, in his opinion, the Treasury should take no action which changed the conditions under which the men entered the service. These men entered the service in the reasonable expectation that they would be permitted to complete 40 years' service.

By this Order the Department is making a new precedent, and officers are called upon to retire after 37, 38 and 39 years' service. When the anticipated Order comes into force fixing the age at 60, it will be quite possible for men to be called upon to retire five years short of the maximum service of 40 years. That is a very serious matter, because it means that they are called upon to retire at 37 years, with the loss for three years of the difference between the amount of pension and the amount of salary they will be receiving if they were kept for the full period of service. Another matter which I think constitutes a very real grievance is that the men, when they are called upon to retire, have gone a very long way towards completing another year's service. A number of questions from time to time have been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and now we have got from him the definite statement that any Civil servant who, on reaching the age of 61, is within three months of completing another year's service will be permitted to make up that three months' service. That means that a man may have been retired at 38 2–3 years, and therefore may be deprived of two-thirds of a year's pension. I do not wish to use a harsh term, but I think that is distinctly dishonourable. This man has earned at least two-thirds of another year's pension, and by this action of the Board of Customs the Treasury is appropriating what I believe is not only morally but legally his property. May I just sum up the points of grievance which these men have? In the first place, there is a distinct violation of the practice, which has obtained up to this time, that compulsory retirement shall not affect any officer at all until he has completed 40 years' service. Another point is that a man is being deprived of the uncompleted part of a current year's service. I do not want to trouble the Committee with a number of cases, but I may perhaps be allowed to suggest one or two. There is a case of an officer who until recently was a principal clerk in Birmingham, and if he had been permitted to remain only three weeks longer in the service he would have been able to obtain another year's service for pension, and that would have increased his pension by £6 a year. This man is poorer by £6 a year, and the Treasury is richer by £6 a year. There is the case of an officer in Leeds who had even a longer term of service before he was called upon to retire. He repeatedly put his case before the Treasury, but gained no satisfaction. This man was born in 1848, and entered the service when he had turned 21. He was called upon to retire on his sixty-first birthday. He applied to the Board to be allowed to complete 40 years' service, but was refused. He applied again about a fortnight ago to be given a full pension, in view of the fact that he had completed 39¾ years' service. This morning he showed me a reply to the effect that the Board had refused to modify the Order; and when he wrote to the Treasury they sent him a copy of the Board's letter that his application had not been successful. This is a case which is distinctly in violation of the statement in reply to a question given by the Secretary to the Treasury in the House some time ago. In reply to the hon. Member for Andover (Captain Faber) this reply was given. [The HON. MEMBER quoted text of reply.] Here is a case where that has not been done, and where, if he had been permitted to remain three months, he would have been enabled to gain another year towards his pension. The Treasury, under the Superannuation Act of 1859, have the power to grant the pension for the uncompleted portion of the year, or if they wish to do so to make an exceptional allowance on account of the compulsory retirement. Clause 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1859 provides: "It shall be lawful for the Treasury to grant to any person retiring or removed from the public service in consequence of the abolition of his office, or for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organisation of the Department—"May I say that the reason given for reducing the age is that they want to facilitate improvements in the organisation of the Department. Therefore, it is covered by the words of this clause. The clause continues: "to which he belongs, by which greater efficiency and economy can be effected, such special annual allowance by way of compensation as on a full consideration of the circumstances of the case may seem to the said Commissioners to be a reasonable and just compensation for the loss of office; and if the compensation shall exceed the amount to which such person would have been entitled under the scale of superannuation provided by this Act if 10 years were added to the number of years which he may have actually served, such allowance shall be granted by special Minute … and no such allowance shall exceed two-thirds of the salary and emoluments of the office." Under those circumstances the Treasury have not only the power to do what I am asking of adding four or five months to the service, but they have actually the power to add a year to the pensional service.

There is another question which I wish to refer to, and I have been told this is the proper occasion to do so. I want to draw the attention of the House to the way the Board of Customs and Excise have remunerated their officers for their special work in connection with old age pensions. When the announcement was first made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he described it as special remuneration. Later it became a "gratuity," and I think the name which it has been given entitles it to be correctly described as a tip. There can be no question of the efficient way in which these men have carried out the duty. I could occupy a long time reading eulogies which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has passed on the pension officers for the admirable and efficient way in which they have done their work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently taken refuge in the statement that this gratuity is an addition to their salary. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for statements he may make in this House, and which have been put into his mouth by the permanent officers at the Treasury, but I think I am justified in stating that that is not a correct representation of the actual state of things. Of course, they were drawing their salaries in addition to the remuneration for pension work, but they were doing the pension work in addition to the work for which they were ordinarily paid. I am quite sure it is not the desire of the Board of Customs and Excise that their officers should work regularly 14 and 16 hours per day for seven days per week. That does not constitute an ordinary official day certainly at the office of the Customs, or at the Treasury. These men were working for the last three months of last year on an average from 14 to 16 hours per day, not for six days' work, but for seven. I have here statements giving the fullest details of the kind of work the pension officers have done, and these cases are not exceptional, they are typical. Here is a case of a pensions officer who was engaged in pension work alone 1,472 hours for six days per week, averaging 18 hours. In addition to that, he did all the ordinary work of a very heavy Excise station. He fully investigated just under 400 pension claims, and the special gratuity he received for this work from the Board of Customs and Excise was £18, which works out at 1¼d. per hour overtime. The clerk of the committee received £54. If this pensions officer had been paid what I believe is the recognised rate of pay for overtime of 2s. per hour, his remuneration would have been £85 12s. I have here the case of six officers in one town, and the total amount they received was £98. The clerk of the pensions committee, who had nothing at all to do, and I know everything appertaining to these cases of my own knowledge, but appointed one of his clerks to do it, actually received remuneration which amounted to £230, while the six officers who did all the hard work in connection with the investigation of claims received a total of £98. When we come to consider individual cases, the indictment against the Board of Inland Revenue for the way in which this grant has been distributed becomes all the more serious. Here is' the case of an officer whom I know personally. He distributed over 400 pension books in 10 days. He was at the same time doing his own Excise work and the Excise work of a brother officer who was specially engaged in pension work. For that work he received from the Board a princely gratuity of £2.

There is one other matter I want to mention in regard to the remuneration, because it shows the way in which the Board of Customs and Excise have approached this question. When we raised this matter on 25th March we were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had received no complaints; yet I know that at that very moment there had been sent up to Somerset House from one district in the Midlands alone 70 complaints, a petition signed by 10 supervisors had been forwarded, and 20 officers in a certain district in Shropshire had also sent in. There must have been at the time hundreds of complaints somewhere, either at Somerset House or at the Treasury. After stating that he had had no complaints, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—

"I cannot help thinking that if these men feel badly treated they should first make a representation to the Inland Revenue Department. I am waiting for them to begin."

The Secretary to the Treasury cannot say to-night that he has heard no complaints. They had begun when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that statement, and the complaints have been coming in ever since. The Chancellor of the Exchequer at the same time promised that if any complaints were made they should receive the careful consideration of himself. Encouraged by that statement, the complaints increased. I have a letter in which one pension officer says:—

"After fruitlessly sending in complaints to the Board of Customs and Excise, I should have written to Lloyd-George, but as, according to the general instructions it must go to the Board of Excise, I cannot believe that it would ever reach him, and I do not think it worth while to waste my time."

I have in my possession dozens, I might say scores, of copies of letters which have been sent by the Board of Customs and Excise in reply to these complaints, and they are all couched in the same language:—

"I am directed by the Board to inform you that the amount awarded you as remuneration in respect of old age pensions cannot lie increased."

Just to show that the Board of Customs and Excise have never carried out the spirit of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should like to read a letter which I have here. It expresses the case very concisely, though it is a rather lengthy letter; but as it will save many words of my own I should like to be permitted to read it. It is the case of an officer who had to provide special office accommodation for the old age pensions work, and he appealed to the Board for some acknowledgment. He says:—

"At the commencement of the old age pensions work my supervisor called on me and stated that he was authorised to obtain rooms in a convenient place suitable for the performance of the work. He said he was prepared to take £10 for three months. He tried to get a suitable place, but did not succeed in finding one. He asked me if I could provide accommodation in my house for a second officer and himself, and told me I should be sure to receive a substantial increase in my office allowance. On this understanding I agreed to provide the necessary accommodation "

The letter proceeded to state that in the first week of the work 152 claimants called at the officer's house; that during the three months every person who called was asked into the house; that sometimes there were six or seven old people in different parts of the house waiting for interviews, and that the increase in the amount of gas consumed, as compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year, was 7,000 cubic feet. To sum up the matter, he made an application to the Board of Excise and Customs for 50s. on account of the use for three months of this room and of the extra expense he had incurred, and he received from the Board a curt reply, saying that his application could not be entertained I cannot convey to the Committee any idea of the indignation that has been caused throughout the whole of the Revenue service by the way in which this pension grant has been distributed. I have a letter, not from a pension officer, but from a supervisor of Inland Revenue, who knows from personal touch something of the work that these pension officers have done. His testimony is all the more valuable because it comes from an officer who, in a very special sense, is a Board man, expected by the Board to look after their interests rather than the interests of the men he supervises. At the conclusion of a long letter dealing with other matters which are causing grave dissatisfaction in the service, he says:—

"The distribution of the pension payment is a scandal. Some officers who were relieved of Excise work and devoted their whole time to pensions, received the same payment per claim as officers who had their ordinary work to do in addition to the pension work, although assistance was also given to the pension officer in the former case by doing the clerical work. This resulted in one man getting £40, and another, who worked quite as hard, got not dug. The Board would not take the trouble to ascertain from supervisors and collectors how the money should be divided, but threw it to the service as carelessly as a man would throw some bones to a pack of bounds Lloyd-George will not get the service to work again as they did last winter."

I am not going to say that these men are going to do their work less efficiently because of the way in which they have been treated, but it is only human nature that men cannot work so earnestly when they are labouring under a sense of injustice, as these men undoubtedly are. I would like to say that, from a revenue point of view, it is not desirable to treat these men shabbily, because they are practically responsible for the disbursement of about £8,000,000 of public money a year, and it would be easy, by a little carelessness, for an officer to throw away a great deal more than a proper amount of remuneration. I will give one case which came under my notice to show how important it is that officers should be encouraged to do their work well. This is a case where a pension had been granted to a woman in a certain town in the Midlands, and the officer went to give her her pension. Of course it was necessary that he should see the woman and obtain her signature. When he went the woman was not there. He was told by one of the daughters that she was away on a visit. He said: "Very well, I will call back later." The woman seemed anxious that she should sign for her mother. However, the officer went back, and when he saw the applicant he noticed that she seemed to be dressed very differently to what he had expected she would be. He had his suspicions aroused. To cut a long story short, he eventually discovered that the woman did not live there at all, but that she lived in a comfortable boarding house, where she actually paid £2 per week. I mention that to show bow important it is that these officers should be encouraged to do their work well, and that they should feel that their services are appreciated by the responsible authorities. Just one other matter, although I believe it will be raised by subsequent speakers. That is the question of the salaries of the officers of the Customs and Excise. I can quite understand that for the present it may be impossible for the Secretary to the Treasury to give any definite information, but I should be very glad indeed if, when he does reply, he is able to tell us what is to be done in the matter.

I rise to appeal to my hon. Friend to consider the matter of the payment of the pension officers, or at least those officers who have been doing the pension work. It is not very congenial work to do; to take up point by point, and detail by detail, the work of Government employés; and I am sure that every Member wishes that some other method was possible than to bring it before the Committee. But I only want briefly to say that I went into this matter very closely, and, so far as can be judged from the information placed before one, the division of payment has by no means corresponded with the division of the work. It does seem that those who have done the bulk of the work—very trying work too, visiting the slums, and taking out extracts concerning the history of applicants, and sometimes men in unpleasant circum- stances—have been paid a few shillings;, whereas the men who merely stamped, or sealed, or gave their formal approval to the work were paid in pounds, or even more. It does seem that the first-named have a grievance, and I here appeal to the hon. Gentleman to see whether he cannot reconsider the matter. I can assure him that I rise with great reluctance. But the feeling that these men have not been fairly dealt with compels me to rise. I will say this: If the work at the start had been regarded as a piece of philanthropy, and it had been made known to those who administered the Pension Act that they were to act from philanthropic motives, I do not think they would have made it a matter of complaint. But when they see that those who have done little or no work receiving adequate and sometimes excessive remuneration for their work, and those who have done the real work put off with a few shillings, their feelings are to a large extent that injustice has been done to them.

The House will remember that an appeal was made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the Excise officers to make a special effort in dealing with the new and trying work of old age pensions. These officers were promised special remuneration. That was changed to a gratuity, and a very insufficient gratuity at that. I can give the House a case to show how the thing has worked out. The supervisor at Bridgnorth had a considerable part of two counties to look after. They contain eighty breweries, scattered about in a wild country. Two of his officers were taken away and sent to Ireland, and he had to do part of their work in order to help the rest of the staff, and keep them from breaking down. He had to do this extra work as well as attend to his ordinary work, which is also scattered all over a wild country. He had 745 old age pensions to look after. The remuneration that he got for all the labour he was put to extending over three months—very trying and worrying work—was £6—this for all his extra work night and day. The difference between what this officer got and what the clerks of the committee got is really extraordinary. The clerk of the committee who really does very little got an annual salary, and besides that he got 2s. 6d. per claim.

Do I understand the hon. Member to allege that in the case to which he has referred the clerk to the pension committee gets not only 2s. 6d. per claim, but a salary as well?

Yes, that is so. [An HON. MEMBER: "The clerk gets his regular salary."] Sub-postmasters get 1s. per claim for merely helping the pensioners to fill up their claims. The registrar of deaths is paid 2d. for every nil return and he gets 2d. additional for every name upon any of these returns. The Excise officer did nearly all the work. He had to enter up the claim on the pension register, he had to interview each claimant and get full particulars of character, means, etc. In the country districts these officers have sometimes to go two or three times to the same village to make the necessary inquiries. Very often one old woman who has got a pension meets another and tells her she had better put in for a pension also. The Excise officers have to investigate these cases. They work very hard and the distances they have to travel are very long. They have to make up papers showing the result of their investigations; they have to make entries on the official registers, and they have to report to the committees as well; and they have to post the committee's decision in the register and post the decision that the applicant is entitled to the pension.

Let me impress upon the right hon. Gentleman many of these men had to work from four or five o'clock in the morning until ten or eleven at night. I think I can say that to my certain knowledge, and for doing all this, the gratuities, at all events in the Bridgnorth district, worked out at from 10d. to 1s. per claim. The long and the short of it is that the Excise officers and supervisors do most of the work and get very little pay while the outsiders do very little work and get very well paid. Several Excise officers have actually died from overwork, and there are quite a number of them now suffering from bad health as the result of overwork. The Government appears to have considered that they have got these Civil servants entirely in their power, and they proceed to work the old age pension scheme by a system of sweating. I think if such a thing as that had been done by a Conservative Government there would be a pretty good row kicked up by the Opposition in this House. As Excise officers are working men, I must ven- ture to say that the Labour Party can now see how Liberals treat working people when they get them by the short hair.

How is the administration of the Act carried out in Ireland? In Ireland it is generally the case that the Excise officers there had only to deal with the old age Pensions Act; they got their Excise pay, although they did no Excise work. They are treated better than those in England, and that seems to be a great injustice to the English officers. It does seem to me that no Government has any right to ask its own Civil servants, especially after having promised definitely adequate remuneration, to do this work and to work them extremely hard, and then to do them out of their just reward by substituting for what was promised a small and quite insufficient gratuity. A gratuity, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, is a sort of a tip. Tips are usually large in proportion to services rendered. Government tips in this case are the very reverse of large, and I do think that nobody can deny that the Government have treated these men very badly indeed. It certainly is not right, and hon. Gentlemen upon the other side of the House who vote for an injustice like this, which is unmistakably a very great injustice, would vote for anything. I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £100.

Tie hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Philip Snowden), who initiated this discussion, has raised a subject which has been raised upon three or four previous occasions in this House, and perhaps I might be permitted to say a word or two in reply. I will take the question of the payments for old age pensions first of all. The hon. Member who moved the reduction touched upon the same subject, and so did the hon. Member for Birkenhead. The general allegation has been that the remuneration for old age pension work which, despite the assertion of the hon. Member who has just sat down, is given in addition to the ordinary Depart mental pay—

I did not say it was not an addition. I said it was not anything at all approaching enough.

The hon. Member quoted the case of Ireland, and said that the officials there got their Excise pay, and suggested that the officials in England only got gratuities in lieu of pay.

The right hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong. I said that the Irish officers got the money for their Excise work, but did not do Excise work, and only did the old age pensions work.

The hon. Member is mistaken even in that. The total remuneration for the working of old age pensions is £40,000, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has over and over again stated that he is not prepared to increase that payment. Certainly on this occasion I do not intend to give any different pledge on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer than that which he has himself already given. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Snowden) talked about this money being thrown about as bones are thrown to a dog—

Those were not my own words, I was quoting an extract from something written by an official. It was an extract from a letter sent to me by a supervisor.

Then the person who made that statement is entirely ignorant of the principles upon which the money is distributed. It is not thrown carelessly to anybody, but it is paid for definite work done. The money is allotted in such a way that a man who has the most work to do gets the most pay. In regard to what has been said about the scantiness of the remuneration for this work, I may say that the amount earned by a particular officer was no less than 75 per cent, of his pay for the quarter. It is not so large in all cases, and in some instances it ranges down to 12 or 15 per cent. Whether 75