(c) crown copyright
Catalogue Reference:CAB/23/63
Image Reference:0004
(THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S
oECRST.-
g
M
COM
T
J:?o. /
CABINET 4(50)
eting of the Cabinet to be Held at No,10, Downing Street,
S.W.1., on Wednesday, 22nd January, 1930, at 10,0 a.o.
1. PQRBIfiN AFFAIRS .
2
If required.
' ^VAL^CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME, 1029,*
(To be raised by the Prime Minister) .
3. SINGAPORE BABE * MALAY STATES CONTRIBUTION.
Memorandum by the First Lord of the Admiralty.
( C P . 20(30) - circulated herewith) .
4. UNEMPLOYMENT POLICY..
Memorandum by the Lord Privy Seal.
(CP.21 (30) - Circulated herewith)
TO TAKE NO 12! OF;­
5
* SPEECH TO BE ISLIYIERED. BY THE GOVERNOR. GENERAL OF INDIA AT THE
OPENING OF THE INDIAN LEGISLATURE ON 2 5 T H JANUARY/ 1930..
Memorandum by the Secretary Q.f State for India.
( C P , 19(50) - Circulated herewith)
C
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS.
Friday,,, .24th January...
1. Blasphemy Laws (Am&v) 2nd Reading.
(Mr Thurtle (LA)]
k
3-, Ho using:
2nd Reading,
(Sir R. G-ower (C))
Fridajy 51st January^.
Vi
3. Cahal Boats: 2nd Reading.
(Mr, Gosling (LA))
4. Blind Persons: 2nd Reading.
(Mr, Groves
(LA)).
(Sgd.)
I, Whitehall Gardens, S.W.1,
20th January, 1930.
)
T* JONES,
Deputy Secretary, Cabinet,
(THIS-DOCUMEMT IS' THE PROPERTY OF HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY.' S GOVERNMENT) .
S E C R B T.
Copy No. /*
CABINET 4(50).
Meeting of the Cabinet held at
10, Downing Street, S.W.I. on Wednesday
January 22nd, 1930, at 10 a,tn.
PRESENT: The Right Hon. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.,
Prime Minister. (In the Chair
The Right Hon
Philip Snowdeni M.P.,
Chancellor of the
Exche qn er.
The Right Hon.
Arthur Henderson, M.P.,
Secretary of fitate for
Foreign Affairs.
The Right; Hon.
J.H. Thomas, M.P.,
Lord Privy Seal.
The Right Hon.
Lord Passfield, Secretary
of State for Dominion Affairs
and Secretary of State
for the Colonies.
The Right Hon.
Lord Parmoor of Frleth,
K.C.V.O., K.C., Lord
President of the Council.
The Right Hon.
Lord Sankey, G.B.E..,
Lord Chancellor.
The Right Hon.
J.R. Clynes, M.P.,
Secretary of State for
Home Affairs.
The Right Hon.
W. Wedgwood Benn, D.S.O.,.
D.F.C., M.P., Secretary of
State for India.
The Right Hon..
Tom Shaw, C.B.E., M.P*,
Secretary of State for
War.
Brig,-Gen, The Right Hon.
Lord Thomson, C.B.E., D.S.O.
Secretary of State for
Air.
The Right Hon.
Arthur Greenwood, M.P.,
Minister of Health.
The Right, Hon.
Margaret Bondfield, M.P.,
Minister 4f Labour.
The Right Hon.
Noel Buxton, M.P.,
Minister of Agriculture
and Fisheries..
The Right Hon.
Sir Charles Trevelyan, BT-,
M.P., President of the
Board of Education.
The Right Hon.
William Graham, M.P.,
President of the Board
of Trade.
The Right Hon.
A.V. Alexander, M.P.,
First Lord of the
Admiralty.
The Right Hon.
William Adamson, M.P..,
Secretary of State for
Scotland ,
The Right Hon.
George Lansbury, M. F.,
First Commissioner of
Works.
Sir .M.P...A. Hanker, G..C..B., G.C.M..G. *
* * *
.
,.....Secretary.
CABINET
BUSINESS
DURING THE
NAVAL CONPERENCE.
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 1 ­
(SO), Con­
elusion^.)
1.
The Prime Minister said, he hoped to be able to
Cabinet
k-eep in touch with/business during the progress of
the London Naval Conference, but he asked the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist him by keeping
a close watch on the business in general.
- 1 ­
2*
The Prime Minister reported that he had
received a letter from the First. Lord of the
Admiralty, dated January 15, 1930, enclosing a
Memorandum from the First Sea Lord setting forth
the views of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty
which they were anxious the Prime Minister should
have before him In connection with the decision to
be taken on the Navy Estimates for 1930.
Extracts
from the Memorandum were read to the Cabinet.
The Cabinet took note of the letter
and Memorandum, which it was decided
should be attached as an Appendix
to these Conclusions.
THE SINGAPORE
3. The Cabinet had before them a Memorandum by the
NAVAL BASE.
—
First Lord of the Admiralty (Paper CP.-20 (30)) on
The Malay States'
Contribution.
the subject of the Malay States' contribution to the
(Previ cue
Reference:
Cabinet 47
(29), Con­
elusion 7.)
cost of the Singapore Naval Base.
In this Memorandum
it was pointed out that if the payment of the contri­
bution during the next ten weeks, as proposed by the
High Commissioner for the Malay States, cannot be
counted on, a supplementary Estimate for the Navy
would be necessary.
The deficit would have to be
explained as resulting from the loss of the Malay
money, and an embarrassing Debate on Singapore in
the middle of the Naval Conference would probably
result.
On the other hand, a discussion in Malaya
as to whether the consideration for the contribution
has failed or no is only slightly less undesirable.
The Memorandum contained the suggestion that a further
telegram should be sent to the High Commissioner from
the Colonial Office to the following effect:­
"Have referred your telegram of 1st January
to His Majesty's Government, who think
position cannot be fully understood. No
decision has been taken affecting scope
of scheme or date of completion. The
precautionary slowing down of work pending
Naval Conference can have no effect on that
date. Decision to withhold contribution,
therefore, appears premature unless it is
precautionary on supposition that money
would be lost in the event of results of
Naval Conference leading to entire change
of policy regarding Base. On this I am
to assure you that His Majesty's Govern­
ment recognise that if scheme were abandoned
or altered fundamentally contributions
would have to be refunded or adjusted as
mighrbe mutually agreed. In those
circumstances it is thought no question
of consultation ttith Rulers or Federal
Council about present payment need arise.
In opinion of His Majesty's Government
it would be very undesirable for such a
discussion on Base to arise in Malaya
while Naval Conference is sitting and
still more undesirable to have Parlia­
mentary Debate here as would be unavoidable
if contribution actually budgeted for is
not received" .
-3­
After a short discussion the Cabinet agreed That the Secretary of State for the
Colonies should send a telegram to
the High Commissioner of the
Federated Malay States on the lines
proposed by the Admiralty, accompanied,
at his discretion, by a private tele­
gram .
UNEMPLOYMENT
POLICY.
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 3
(30), Con­
cltision 5.)
4. The Cabinet had before them a Memorandum by
the Lord Privy Seal (Paper C P . - 2 1 (30)) on the
subject of a speech he recently made at Manchester
in which, after describing the general Unemployment
Policy of the Government, he made an announcement as
to the readiness of the City to consider sympathet­
ically the proposals that may be put forward for
assisting the re-organisation of industry on sound
lines.
The Memorandum also contained particulars
of the action the Lord Privy Seal is taking to
follow up this pronouncement, and concluded by a
statement that in certain quarters the over-riding
cause of the rather sombre outlook in Employment
is the fear that the Eudget may be an unfavourable
one.
The Lord Privy Seal informed the Cabinet that
since circulating his Memorandum he had been in touch
with the Presidents of the principal Banks, four out
of five of whom were supporting his policy.
He
communicated the names of a very strong Committee of
Bankers which had been set up and which would assist
him on the financial side, as well as of an equally
strong Committee on the industrial side.
Both
Committees would meet twice a week.
The Prime Minister instructed the
Secretary to keep the Lord Privy
Seal*s Memorandum on the Agenda,
with a view to a discussion as soon
as convenient.
INDIA.
Situation in.
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 3
(30), Con­
elusion 7.)
5. The Cabinet had before them the following
documents relating to the situation in India:A Memorandum by the Secretary of State
for India (Paper C P . - 1 8 (30)) circu­
lating for the information of his
colleagues a copy of a telegram from
the Government of India summarising
the political situation which "results
from the meeting of the All-India
National Congress held at Lahore at
the end of December, and outlining the
policy which they recommend should be
pursued to deal with the violent move­
ments revolutionary activities and
campaign of civil disobedience which
they apprehend may result? also a
copy of the reply which, after consult­
ing the Lord Chancellor and the President
of the Board of Education, and obtaining
the approval of the Prime Minister, the
Secretary of State had despatched to the
Government of India on the 17th January;
as well as private telegrams to the
Viceroy:
A Memorandum by the Secretary of State
for India (Paper CP,-19 (30)) covering
a copy of a speech to be delivered by
the Governor-General of India on the
25th January, 1930, at the formal opening
of the Indian Legislature, together with
certain alterations which the Secretary
of State had suggested. In this connec­
tlon the Secretary of State informed his
colleagues that all his proposed amend­
ments had now been accepted by the
Viceroy:
A Memorandum by the Secretary of State
for India (Paper C P . - 2 2 (30)) on the
subject of the reaction of the Indian
political situation on Indian Government
securities, including the draft of a
reply on the subject to a letter received
froix Mr H.W.Holloway, of which a copy
was also enclosed. In his draft letter
the Secretary of State pointed out,
inter alia, that His Majesty*s present
Governmerit have no intention of allowing
a state of things to arise in India In
which repudiation of debt would become
a practical possibility.
While approving the general lines of the GovernorGeneral' s speech, the Cabinet agreed
—
That the Secretary of State for India
should confer with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in regard to the following
points:­
(i) The following passage towards the
end of the speech:­
"But it is no less my duty to
make it plain that I shall not
hesitate, if need he, to use
whatever powers I or my Govern­
ment may command in the discharge
of the responsibility imposed
upon us for the effective preserv­
ation of law and order in India":
(ii) The terms of the letter to be
sent to Mr H.W,Holloway in regard
to tne slump in Indian securities.
BLASPHEMY LAWS.
6 . The Cabinet had before them a Bill to amend the
Blasphemy Laws, to be introduced in the House of
Commons by a Private Member on Friday, January 24th,
1930.
The Home Secretary reported that he proposed to
take a non-committal attitude in regard to this
Bill.
-8­
HOUSINGBILL.
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 2
(30), Con­
elusion 2.)
7.
The Cabinet had before them the Housing Act,
1925, Amendment Bill, 1929, to be introduced in the
House of Commons by a Private Member on Friday,
January 24th, 1930.
The object of this Pill is to
make better provision for the improvement of
unhealthy areas?
to provide adequate compensation
for business disturbance;
and to make certain conse­
quential amendments to the Housing Act, 1925.
The Minister of Health reported that the Bill
was not a good one, and he would have to oppose some
of Its provisions.
THE CANAL
BOATS BILL.
8. The Cabinet had before them a Bill to amend
the Canal Boats Acts 1877 and 1884, to be introduced
in the House of Commons by a Private Member on Friday,
January 31, 1930.
The Cabinet agreed to leave this question until
the following- week.
/
THE BLIND
PERSONS BILL.
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 24
(28), Con­
elusion 10.)
9.
The attention of the Cabinet was drawn to the
Blind Persons Bill, to be Introduced by a Private
Member in the House of Commons on January 31, 1930.
No copy of the Bill was available.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer reported that the
Blind Persons Bill was open to strong objections from
the financial point of view.
THE GENERAL
STOPPAGE OF
1926.
-
10. In view of the attitude of certain. Trade
Uniong towards the action taken by the Admiralty in
The Position of accordance with the decision of the Cabinet in regard
Established
Admiralty
to the position of Government employees who took
Employees who
took part.
part .in the General Stoppage of 1926, the Cabinet
agreed
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 35
(29), Con­
cluslon 8.)
—
That a Cabinet Committee, composed
as follows —
The First Lord of the Admiralty
(In the Chair),
The First Commissioner of Works,
The Financial Secretary to the
Treasury —
should review the question again and
advise the Cabinet as to what should
be their final attitude.
-12­
PROCEDURE OP
THE HOUSE OP
COMMONS.
11. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reported that
a Private Member's Notice had been placed on the Order
Paper in regard to the Sittings of Parliament.
The
proposal that the House should meet in the morning
would be raised again, and the setting up of a
Committee would be asked for.
The Cabinet agreed —
That the Government spokesman should
not oppose the proposal for setting
up a Committee.
THE LONDON
NAVAL CCNFERENCE.
12.
A short discussion took place in regard to the
London Naval Conference.
(Previous
Reference:
Cabinet 1
(30), Con­
clusion 2.)
The Prime Minister reported
that he was proceeding actively with the work of the
Conference.
The main difficulty was likely to arise
in connection with the Press.
2, Whitehall Gardens. S.W.,1,
January 22, 1930.
Lettor from the First Lord of the Admiralty to the Prims Minister.
15th January, 1930.
My Dear Prime Minister,
I send you herewith a Memorandum which I have received
from the First Sea Lord setting fcrth the views of my Uaval
colleagues on the Board of Admiralty which they are very anxious
that you should.-have before you in connection with the decision
to be taken on the Wavy Estimates for 1930,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) A.V. Alexander,
The Pit. Hon. 3. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P.
NAVAL
CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAMME
1929.
Re-port of Fighting Seryi.ces Comm111ee.
-
MEMORANDUM
First^Lord
BY
THE
FIRS T
SEA
LORD.
A
The Naval Members of the Board of Admiralty understand
that the Fighting Services Committee have decided to recommend to
the Cabinet a drastic modification of the construction programme
already presented to Parliament (Command 3283).
That programme made provision for the laying down during
the 1929 financial year of ­
3
1
8
6
1
6
Cruisers
Flotilla leadejr
Destroyers
Submarines
Netlayer and Target Towing Vessel
Sloops
The Fighting Services Committee propose to
the Cabinet that instead of the above the 1929 programme
shall consist of ­
1 Cruiser
1 Flotilla Leader
4 Destroyers
3 S ubmarines
4 Sloops.
In regard to this recommendation, the Naval
Members of the 3oard of Admiralty deem it their duty to
ask that the following representations may be put before
the Prime Minister for communication to the Cabinet if he
thinks proper.
CRUISERS.
The question of adequate cruiser numbers is a
vital one.
Repeated investigations carried out and laid'
before successive governments and Imperial Conferences
have established the number of 70 cruisers as necessary
for defending our sea communications in all parts of the
world, the United States of America not being taken Into
account as a possible enemy.
But our present number of cruisers is only 58,
of which no fewer than 34 will reach the extreme age limit
of 20 years and must pass out of service between now and
1940, so that merely on the basis of replacing losses,
since it takes 3 years to build a cruiser, the programme
years 1929 to 1936 inclusive ought to provide for 34
cruisers.
The Admiralty were requested, on the initiation
of conversations in July last with the U.S.A., to give
full consideration to the general peaceful international
situation and to the great importance attached by the Prime
Minister to the political effect of the Pact of Paris, the
signing of which was to form the basis of the negotiations
of tha Prime Minister.
As a result, the Admiralty finally
agreed that, twinng
jnj^^^jAfiTrf^tijnrx^riri
1.
the relevant
poU-ti-cal.-factors, they could regard naval requirements ,
as satisfied for a limited period with a n-imber of 50
oruisars, provided proper provision was made in the
meanwhile for the steady replacement of our war built
cruisers which was an essential condition.
The Admiralty opinion was reported to the
Dominions on the 15th September as follows ­
"in view of the general international position and the
situation created by the Paris Pact, the Admiralty is
satisfied that if agreement can be reached with the United
States on the basis of present proposals, and the
maintenance of the Washington ratios with other Powers,
the security and interests of the British Empire are safe­
guarded and my technical and political advisers unanimously
support the above proposals".
These proposals, reported to the Dominions and
unanimously supported by the technical and political
advisers of the Prime Minister, involved the completion
of fourteen new cruisers by 1936, in replacement of eighteen
wartime cruisers, and four ships of the "Effingham" Class.
It was on this basis that the Washington conversations
were initiated, and the Admiralty in accepting the
number of 50 cruisers assumed that there would be no ­
question but that the necessary construction programmes
of 2 cruisers in 1929 and 3 cruisers in 1930, 31, 32 and
33, would be authorised.
ISven so, it was recognised that there may be
great difficulty in maintaining the total of 50 cruisers
after 1936, in view of the fact that 14 cruisers will
reach the extreme age limit between 1936 and 1940.
The Fighting
Services Committee have, however,
recommended to the Cabinet that the 1929 programme
should be only 1 cruisersinstead of the "two necessary
to comply with the Prime Minister s policy at
1
Washington.,
DLSTROZLRS.
The position in regard to destroyers is
certainly equally, if not more, unsatisfactory than,
that In regard to cruisers.
The trend of negotiations has made it clear
that the most we can hope for is an agreement as a
total limitation figure of something "between
200,000 tons and 150,000 tons..
The latter figure
indeed assumes such a low figure for, foreign
submarine tonnage as to rule it out for practical
purposes in view of the
attitude of branee and
Japan on the submarine guest ion..
On the 31st December, 1936, allowing for
all approved programmes, our under-age destroyer
tonnage will have shrunk to a figure of 38,581 tons.
If, therefore, we assume agreement upon even the
lowest possible figure of 150,000 tons, this means
that In five programme years we ought to complete
111,419 tons of destroyers,, giving an annual programme
of 22,300 tons.
Again, taking full account of the general
situation, the Admiralty have suggested an annual
programme of only 12,600 tons, approximately,
giving us each year a new flotilla of 1 leader and
8 destroyers. :
- The Fighting Services Committee, however,
recommend that the 1929 programme should make
provision for only 7,000 tons approximately towards our
deficit of 111,419 tons.
This amount is entirely
inadequate for defensive requirements, and places the
British Empire in a position of considerable inferiority
to Japan. .'ith no further construction, Japan will have
is
72 under-age destroyers of a tonnage of 95,305 tons in
1936 as compared with our 35 destroyers of a tonnage of
45,581 tons.
In the foregoing remarks the Naval Members of
the Board of Admiralty have endeavoured to draw
attention to the serious situation that will result from
the cancellation of the entire cruiser programme for 1928
and the suggested reduction in all types for 1929.
In their opinion, the inclusion of two cruisers
and a complete flotilla of destroyers iQ the 1929
programme is a necessity for the maintenance of the Fleet
at the lowest level considered either reasonable or safe,
and whatever the result of the London Conference, that
necessity will remain.
It Is understood from the report of the
Fighting Services Committee that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer only consented to the proposed skeleton 1929
programme on the understanding that there would be a
further large reduction in Naval Estimates effected mainly
by :­
(a)
Suspending for 1930 the building up of the
naval oil fuel reserve;
(b)
Cancelling the new flights required for the
Fleet Air Arm both in 1929 and 1930.
The Naval Members of the Board of Admiralty
therefore deem it their duty to advise that a steady
adherence to the policy of the Oil Fuel Reserve, as approved
by the Committee of Imperial Defence, and an adequate
development of the Fleet Air Arm, so
as to keep our naval
air strength comparable to that of other Powers, are both
matters of urgent importance if the Fleet is to be capable
of fulfilling its responsibilities in case of emergency.
(Signed) C.1L, Madden.
8th January, 1930.