(by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further statement to make as to the unrest in the Navy with regard to the reductions in pay?

In consequence of the decision which I announced yesterday the following Order was issued to the Fleet: The Board of Admiralty is fully alive to the fact that amongst certain classes of ratings special hardship will result from the reduction of pay ordered by His Alajesty's Government. It is their direction that ships of the Atlantic Fleet are to proceed to their Home ports forthwith to enable personal investigation to be made by the Commander-in-Chief and representatives of the Admiralty with a view to necessary alleviation being made. Any further refusals of individuals to carry out orders will be dealt with under the Naval Discipline Act. This order is to be promulgated to the Fleet forthwith. In accordance with this Order the Fleet sailed yesterday.

Will the House be given an opportunity to discuss this matter, and, if so, when?

All questions relating to the business must be addressed to the House.

May we take it that this statement about hard cases does not apply only to the men of the Atlantic Fleet, but to the men in other ports and other commands—that it applies to the whole Service?

Obviously. One fleet is not going to be picked out for special treatment.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether these cuts in naval pay are among the cuts which were agreed provisionally by the members of the late Cabinet?

It is not very easy for me to answer about the late Cabinet, but the instructions which I found at the Admiralty when I arrived there were to make these cuts.

rose—

Viscountess ASTOR:

Tell the truth.

HON. MEMBERS:

Withdraw!

Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite to make imputations?

Imputations are always out of order.

HON. MEMBERS:

Withdraw and apologise!

Viscountess ASTOR:

No, I will not.

On this occasion I suffer from the same infirmity as the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown). I could not hear.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that the men of the Fleet were defended faithfully with regard to their position by his predecessor; secondly, that the Cabinet of the day were warned specifically by the Admiralty, the Sea Lords, and their political representatives of the danger of what has since taken place; and thirdly, he has said that instructions were left that the cuts were to be made—has he not been aware that it was left for the details of any procedure to be taken to be discussed with the Chancellor of the exchequer?

I have no doubt that while the right hon. Gentle- man was First Lord of the Admiralty he would do, as everyone in that position would, his best to defend the interest of that great Service.

I am the only person who can speak for the communications that passed between the Admiralty and those who were considering this question. The advice given to us by the Admiralty was that the men would loyally accept these cuts provided two things were done. One was that there were cuts all round in the public services; and, two, that an adequate cut was made in unemployment pay.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will add to the answer, first whether he denies the truth of the points put in my first two questions; and, secondly, whether what he now indicates was the view expressed by the Admiralty was because they were asked to say whether they thought they would be able to put the cuts into operation, that they expressed their doubt, but said that, on balance, they thought the loyalty of the Service would prevail.

That is perfectly true. Every Department was requested to make its observations about certain proposals made regarding cuts. The Admiralty replied in the terms, so far as I can charge my memory, that there were two conditions attached which were essential in offering cuts to the men in the Navy, and under these conditions they said that they felt perfectly certain that the men would loyally accept them.

May I ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the House whether, when the communications were received from the Admiralty, they were accompanied with any protest from the First Lord as the head of the Service?

The hon. Member must deal with the Department.

Arising out of the earlier reply of the First Lord, may I ask if he can inform the House whether the manoeuvres about to be engaged in have been entirely suspended, and, if so, whether the interpretation which is to be drawn by the police, teachers, civil servants and others is that a strike—[Interruption].

I want to ask that the Papers should be laid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—because the Prime Minister has quoted from them. It will be within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister said that the statement in the Admiralty reply was a certain thing. Secondly, I take it that he was quoting from the reply of the Admiralty, and consequently I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Papers in connection with this matter will be laid?

If the hon. Member puts that question to me, I cannot tell him whether there are any papers.

May I submit that the Prime Minister, in his reply, said that there were requests or recommendations made. May I submit that those recommendations, requests, or memoranda must have been made in writing, and therefore there must be a document. If that is so, has it not always been the common practice of this House for documents like those to be produced by the Government as a white paper?

May I make the position clear. I did not quote, I only charged my memory.

I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the contradictory statements, not only on this particular matter, but in a previous answer this afternoon, when there is a great public controversy about what certain people have done, I should very much like to make my own position as an individual clear on this matter. We were all colleagues, and we were all in it, but if there is to be a public controversy, I want the Prime Minister to get permission for all of us to be able to read whatever documents we are responsible for, and to be able to make our own statement in regard to this controversy.

I only intervened to-day on account of the questions which reported statements of fact according to my right hon. Friend opposite. I replied. "What was' the gist of the communication?"

Then there was a, document?

The hon. Member must know perfectly well that that is not affected by the rule. It is not a question as to whether there was a document, but as to whether the document was textually quoted. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite know that each one of them has the right to go to the Cabinet Secretariat and ask to look at the records that exist during the term of their office.

That is not the question. I have the whole of the Cabinet papers in my possession. Every Cabinet Minister has the right to have the documents concerning Cabinet matters during the time that he is a member. I do not want to stand apart, nor do I propose to publish or say anything as an individual, but statements are being made in this House about the unanimous decisions of the Cabinet which are not true, and all that I ask is whether we are to be allowed to publish documents that we ourselves put forward in this controversy, and make our own statements as to what took place in the Cabinet. If we are not to be allowed to do that, then I think that Ministers in this new Government ought not to be told what to gay as to what we did or what we did not do.

Keeping to the specific point before us, hon. and right hon. Members must not put questions indicating their knowledge of the situation inaccurately, because they compel us to reply. If the right hon. Gentleman had not put the question he did to-day, I would not—[Interruption.] He put a question whether so-and-so and so-and-so had not been done by the late Government—[Interruption.] Hon. and right hon. Members can look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning regarding the question put by the late First Lord, and in reply to that question I gave the information which I gave.

At the beginning of Questions to-day, a statement was made in regard to unemployment benefit, and so on. A statement was made by the Minister of Labour which could only have been supplied to him by some member of the late Cabinet, and as he could not have got from anyone except one of my late colleagues what the attitude of the Cabinet was as to transitional benefit and a means test, I only want to know whether I have the same right to stand here and say what happened in the Cabinet?

This Debate is, strictly, entirely out of order. There is no question before the House.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, when is the opportunity for an ex-Minister to make his statement as to why he resigned from a particular Government [Interruption.] Every Minister who resigns individually has a right to make his statement in this House. The difficulty of the position just now is that the Cabinet broke up, certain members of it are in a new Government and certain statements are bandied across the Floor of the House as to what was unanimous and what was not. I only want to know if I am to have the right to give the story of the happenings in the Cabinet from my point of view?

It is clearly not for me to give a Ruling on that. We have had several Debates since 8th September, when this question was fully discussed.

Yes, only it goes on from day to day.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of my colleagues in the House, I should like to say, on the point raised by the Prime Minister, that I should never have dreamed of putting the question in the form in which it was put, but for the reply in the House to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman found instructions in his Department for the cuts to be put into operation. In those circumstances, it was only due to myself and my colleagues in the late Government to make it plain that the men were defended, warnings were given, and, secondly, that instructions had not been given for the cuts to be put into operation at the Admiralty when we left.

On a point of Order. I wish to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the squabble which has arisen in the last five minutes arose out of the special request to you from my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that the established right of back benchers in this House should be conceded on this point, that where a Cabinet document has been quoted, Members have a right to ask that that document should be printed in extenso, and that the House should have the opportunity of seeing it. I put it to you that the use which the Prime Minister made of this document was a quotation making certain specific statements that the Admiralty could only accept a cut on the Navy if a substantial cut were made in unemployment benefit. That is, I submit, a quotation and not a mere casual reference to a document, and I ask you that you rule that it is necessary so as to preserve the order in this House, that that document shall be printed for the use of Members.

I have often ruled on similar questions, and I rule now, that if quotations are made from a document, the demand can be made for its production in this House. That is a rule which has always been in existence for years, but if there is no document, it cannot be produced.

On a point of Order. It is not a question, I submit, of there being no document; there was no quotation. The Prime Minister prefaced his remarks in my hearing by saying: "So far as I can charge my memory." No words whatever were quoted from any document.

I said that if there is a quotation from a document, it must be produced.

Mr. MACLEAN:

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister when talking on this matter used the following words to describe the medium by which the various intimations were carried to and from the different Departments—"According to the communication "—he used the word "communication"—[Interruption.] May I give my point?

I cannot allow the time of the House to be taken up with this.

Mr. MACLEAN:

My point of Order—

The point of Order does not arise. I have given my Ruling on this question, and I have nothing to add to it.

Mr. MACLEAN:

Your Ruling was that if a, document were in existence and were quoted, it ought to be printed for the use of Members of this House. I am submitting to you that by the Prime Minister's own words there are docu- ments in existence, that he made a, particular quotation from the communication that, passed between the Admiralty and himself, and, consequently, on your Ruling, the document should be printed.

I have already answered that question.

On a point of Order. Are we to assume that the Prime Minister can first of all refer to the existence of a document, and that, secondly, he can quote the broad effect of a document, but that, if he refrains from actually textually quoting any particular sentence from it, therefore he is not bound by the Rules of the House to produce the document? I suggest that that is exactly what has taken place.