HC Deb 13 July 1905 vol 149 cc579-645

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,220,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Capitation Grants and Miscellaneous Charges of Volunteer Corps, including Pay, etc., of the Permanent Staff, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on March 31st, 1906."

*MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.)

welcomed this opportunity of considering the question of the Volunteers as a separate issue. The question of the treatment of the Volunteers by the War Office was not a Party question. The popular feeling which had been aroused by recent events in connection with the Volunteers showed that the country would not stand idly by if there was any further attempt at the extinction of the force which, in spite of years of ridicule and discouragement and intimidation, and notwithstanding what was stated in the circular of June 20th, had increased both in numbers and efficiency. The country wanted to know why these attempts were being continuously made to impose impossible conditions upon the Volunteer force. The object evidently was to pave the way for something else which might not be openly advocated or acknowledged. They were very glad of the help of the Volunteers in the dark days of the war. Nobly had they been rewarded for their services! No doubt the generals who saw them in the field had paid generous tributes to the services rendered by the Volunteers, but he made bold to say that the War Office and the Secretary of State for War had minimised the services which the Volunteers then rendered. The rewind had been that since that time they had been hustled and harried. This treatment was all the more galling and contemptible when they considered that, the process of strangulation was being carried on under the hypocritical disguise of increasing: their efficiency. The latest move was the circular to which be had already referred. It was a mere incident. It was simply a move in the game. When he put a Question to the Secretary of State for War a week last Monday he said there were no new regulations. Technically the right hon. Gentleman was right, but the Answer was rather misleading the House as to what had been done. Since then there had been two explanatory letters of the circular, in one of which the right hon. Gentleman said the circular was quite clear, and last night they got a revised edition of the circular. Most people considered that the right hon. Gentleman had by that amended edition raised the white flag; but he had not surrendered.

He should like for a moment to consider the circular. It was divided into two parts. It asked that the Volunteers should be divided into two classes. Paragraph 5, in the delicate language so characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, asked commanding officers to divide their force into fit and unfit. He would like to point out that this definition was retained in the amended edition of the circular. He would also point out that there was nothing in the original circular as to service abroad. It was only after this matter had been referred to in the Press, and a reply had been given to a Question which he put to him, that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned service abroad. He made bold to say that when the circular was issued the conditions therein defined were meant for home service, and that obviously this question of service abroad was an afterthought. The right hon. Gentleman had availed himself of that to provide a means of retreat, but he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to ask each commanding officer what was the interpretation he put on that circular when it came under his observation. Commanding officers were, he thought, men of average intelligence, and he made bold to say that 99 out of 100 would reply that they read the circular in that light. He would go further and say that if this circular had not been disclosed to the public those conditions would have been insisted on and carried into effect. He could not understand the reason why the Government should so shrink from publicity in this matter. That document was marked "Confidential," but he said that the Press had done a national service in making its terms public.

He would like the Committee for a moment to consider what it meant. The right hon. Gentleman said it was for information only. If this was an Order merely for information there need be no secrecy at all about its issue. The returns undoubtedly ought to have been kept a secret, and would have been kept secret, but if it was merely an inquiry for information he did not see why it should be issued in the form of a confidential document. He asked the Committee whether anything could be more grossly insulting than to ask a commanding officer to divide his battalion into fit and unfit. [Laughter.] He did not think hon. Gentlemen would laugh when they considered the standard to be applied. He wanted to bring this home to the Secretary of State for War.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER,) Belfast, W.

Where do you find that statement? The circular asked commanding officers to state all those who were fit for active service abroad.

*MR. MCCRAE

Paragraph 5 says that the report should show the number of me in be each corps who were fit and unfit.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

The hon. Member will see that that sentence relates to what has gone before.

MR. MCCRAE

said that in the original circular it could not relate to active service abroad. Supposing that for information only they wished to inquire as to the fitness or unfitness of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, that they divided them into two classes, and supposing that they applied the first standard, and said that, instead of having the physical equivalent of nineteen years, they should have the mental equivalent of nineteen years, and supposing that their capitation grant was to be cut down by one half in the case of hon. Members who fell short of the nineteen years, what would they do? He knew what the Volunteers would do. They would at once resign. He would like to point out that, notwith standing the amended form of the circular, general officers commanding districts were asked to report as to the Volunteer units they proposed to disband or amalgamate. If this circular was issued to find out how many men were fit to go on active service abroad, why should this be mixed up in the same circular with, other matters? The more the circular was examined the more extraordinary it became. There were two conditions, first the physical test, and secondly expertness with the rifle. Paragraph 4 of the original circular said, "In addition to the above, men reported as fit for active service, should be first-class shots." That was the test applied to Volunteers, but not to the Regulars during the South African War. If this circular had any meaning at all it meant that that test was to be applied, and that the different battalions were to be divided into two classes. If it meant anything else, then all he could say was that this circular was as loosely drawn as any contract for the sale of surplus stores in South Africa. The physical standard which the right hon. Gentleman applied to the Volunteers was higher than that which he was going to apply to the home-service Army when brought into being. In regard to the shooting regulation, the Answer given today, supplemented by another Answer which was given to a Question which he put to the right hon. Gentleman, was that some of the Volunteer battalions had no first-class shots at all, because they were under the old conditions, and had only marksmen, second-class, and third-class shots. That was a mere technical point, but it showed how absurd the whole proceedings had been. He would go further and say that this circular was a breach of the Volunteer Regulations, which laid down definitely with regard to shooting that any regulation should not be in excess of the requirements for the soldier in the same arm of the service.

But this circular, after all, was merely an eruption. It showed the bad state of the blood. It was symptomatic of the disease, and must be taken in conjunction with the declared policy of the Secretary of State for War in regard to the Volunteers. His policy was divided into two heads. The first was the reduction of the Volunteer force, altogether apart from the question of efficiency. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that, because on July 14th, speaking in this House, he said— I propose, therefore, to fix the establishment of the Volunteers at 200,000 men and to reduce the strength by absorption, in the first instance to 180,000 men. The present establishment of the Volunteers was 344,000, and if the original proposal had been carried out that would have meant a reduction of 114,000 men. The present actual strength of the Volunteer force was 245,000. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce them to 180,000, a reduction of 65,000. Under the second head he proposed to divide the Volunteer force into two classes If the Committee had followed his argument they would find that tin circular conformed to both these conditions of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. He thought a very serious aspect of the question was that the House of Commons repudiated the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman both iv regard to reduction and classification and on the Army Estimates which were considered in this House on April 5th it was only by the intervention of the Prime Minister, backed up by the benevolent self-denial of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, that the Government was saved from defeat on this Vote. The Prime Minister on that occasion threw over the Secretary of State for War, who proposed to reduce the grant to the Volunteers by £300,000—a reduction of one-fourth the total amount. But the First Lord of the Treasury said, 'Oh no, we are going to spend that amount in extra efficiency grant." The fact of the matter was that the right hon. Gentleman dare not carry out his policy in the open, and, there fore, means secret and subterranean had been resorted to in this circular to carry it out. His policy was already condemned.

This policy of gradual extinction was worthy of the Spanish Inquisition. It was initiated by the late Secretary o State for War, who nearly destroyed the British Army. The present Secretary o State for War said at Edinburgh last December that if the three years system adopted by his predecessor had been continued the British infantry as a fighting force would have ceased to exist. The late Secretary of State for War also "tried his 'prentice hand" on the Volunteers He produced impossible camp regulation; with regard to them. These were afterwards modified, if not withdrawn, but not until mischief had been done, and after corps had been depleted of their best men. These camp regulations caused men of splendid physique to send in their resignations, and their places had not been filled in many battalions, notably the Metropolitan battalions. He understood the Artist Corps, which used to turn out 1,200 at inspection, only turned out 500 the other day. In other corps they had kept up the numbers by accepting men of a lower physical standard. Then came the present Secretary of State for War, who said they were going to introduce medical tests. The medical tests were for fitness for service abroad. What right had the right hon. Gentleman to apply that test to a force which had been raised for home service? It was an invidious distinction to classify any battalion under the heads of fit and unfit, with regard to service abroad—a condition which they never undertook to fulfil. He could not help thinking that this was an attempt to smash up the Volunteer force and pave the way for conscription. If this had been a medical test for home service it would have been a different thing. But, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, every recruit was medically examined before he was enrolled. But the right hon. Gentleman, in a letter to an hon. Member, gave utterance to this doctrine— The law of deterioration is not confined to the Volunteer. It is common to mankind. That was a very profound doctrine. He did not know whether it would apply to His Majesty's Government. He knew that it had been a popular idea that when a young fellow got into the Volunteers they rather increased his physical fitness, and that he did not deteriorate. The Queen's Edinburgh Rifle Volunteers had a strength of 2,400 men. Was it a small matter to ask the whole of the regiment to be medically examined on the off chance of some men volunteering for service abroad? He found that an hon. Member of this House had been written to by a colonel commanding an English Volunteer corps who had received a letter of resignation from the medical officer of his battalion because the proposed examination would take so much of the medical officer's time. That medical officer refused to make the examination unless he was paid. He regretted having to resign, but said there was no other course left open for him. All those things had evidently been under the consideration of the Army Council. Let the right hon. Gentleman make no mistake. The Volunteers did not object to serve under a high standard of efficiency, but the standard should be one for home service; and let it be limited by the demands of the Volunteer's daily employment. If anyone considered the progress which the Volunteer force had made during the past twenty years, he would acknowledge that the nation had no cause to complain, either as to efficiency or cost. The complaint had been made that the Volunteer cost £7 a year, and the War Office expected as much service and efficiency from him as from the ordinary soldier who cost £70 a year. But now they even demanded a higher standard from the Volunteers than from the Regular Army.

He, and those who agreed with him, challenged the policy of the circular of the Secretary of State for War. Would the right hon. Gentleman assure the Committee that this circular had nothing to do with his scheme, first, to reduce the Volunteer force, and second, to divide the Volunteer force into two classes? And, further, would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no reduction of the force, no division into classes, should take place, that no change whatever should be made in the conditions of service without the express sanction of this House? They did not want a renewal of the two abortive attempts to shatter, the Volunteer force. He used the words advisedly. Where did the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman now stand. What was wanted was a clear statement. They wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with the Volunteers; what part he expected them to play in the scheme of home defence—not for service abroad. Was the right hon. Gentleman surprised at that? He put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the other day as to service abroad, and the right hon. Gentleman gave him no Answer. They wanted to put an end, once for all, to this uncertainty. They wanted to put a stop to this policy of continual nagging. Changing conditions.

even if they were practical, were inimical to the efficiency of the force. And if anything was to be done, do not let it be done in the dark.

Now, this recent policy of the War Office had done infinite harm to the Volunteer force; it had done much to sterilise that patriotic enthusiasm on which the nation must depend in the hour of danger. The War Office had neglected obvious reforms, such as the constitution of Volunteer divisions and the Army Service Corps scheme for the Volunteers. Money had been voted for the latter on the Estimates for the last two years; but it had not been carried out. On the contrary, the War Office had adopted a destructive policy instead of a constructive policy. What was wanted was to restore confidence in the Volunteer ranks, and they asked the War Office to withdraw the circular which had been promulgated without thought and framed without knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman's policy rested on an entirely wrong foundation. That policy—he thought Lord Roberts was the first to initiate it—was "a small, highly trained Volunteer force." That was altogether wrong. Our endeavour should be to encourage the Volunteer service, and to give as many men as possible a certain degree of military training. He should have thought that that would have appealed to hon. Members who were in favour of universal military service; and why did they not support it? It was because they realised that the Volunteers stood between this country and conscription. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War dilated in one of his letters, with unctuous rectitude, and at great length, as to the intentions and motives of the Army Council. They would judge the right hon. Gentleman and the Army Council by their actions; and it would be found—if the right hon. Gentleman had not discovered it beforehand—that the Volunteers, while giving valuable although gratuitous service to the State, were heartily sick of this treatment; and that they did not intend to be the shuttlecock of any War Minister. He begged to move.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,219,900, be granted for the said Service."

SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

said it was very important that this matter should be kept as free as possible from Party politics; and in rising to support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh he truly believed that hon. Members on both sides of the House who would support that Motion were not animated by any feeling of hostility, personal or Party, to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion had drawn attention to the very serious condition of things, which had been going on for some time, with reference to the Auxiliary Forces. The incident which had called forth the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite was mainly the circular issued on 20th June last. He could not understand with what object that circular was issued, or what advantage it could possibly have when issued. It might possibly have been excused if some great war were imminent; but the ordinary man in the street did not think that there was such a lamentable state of things. Even if war were imminent, the information required by the circular would be out of date within three months, and the whole of the trouble which had been put on the officers of the Volunteer force and on the medical officers would be absolutely useless.

Then, had the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War any authority or right to issue such a circular? Was it possible to give power to the Secretary for War to issue a circular, and within a fortnight withdraw it and issue another amending circular, which, though marked 'Confidential,' appeared the next day in the newspapers? What were the conditions of Volunteer service? They were that— In case of imminent national danger or of great emergency (the occasion being first communicated to both Houses of Parliament, if Parliament is sitting, or declared in Council, unit notified by Proclamation if Parliament is not sitting) His Majesty may call out the Volunteer corps of the respective counties, or any of them, for actual military service. Evidently no such condition of affairs existed at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman wanted a medical examination of the Volunteer force. Was he not aware that, under Regulation 119 for the Volunteer Force for 1901— Every candidate for enrolment will be required to pass a physical examination by a medical officer of the corps. These returns were submitted to the War Office, and the right hon. Gentleman had only to ask for an analysis of these returns in order to give him all the information he required. Again, who was to pay the expense of this examination? Was the right hon. Gentleman to issue an order that the sergeant in charge of the battalion was to sound the bugle-call so that he might obtain the information? He had had a communication from the commanding officer of a Volunteer regiment, who said that it would be impossible to examine more than four men in an hour. Take a regiment of 400 men, that meant that the medical man would have to spend 100 hours in this medical examination for the information of the Secretary of State for War. He noticed that the circular had been put in much better terms in the version which appeared in that morning's papers; but it was a great pity that it had not originally been issued in these terms.

He could not understand who it was that drafted the War Office circulars. He could not bring himself to believe that it was the military members of the Army Council who were responsible. They were the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, the Chief of the Staff, and others and he could not believe that they ever consented to the issue of such a circular. The Adjutant-General had been an adjutant of a Volunteer corps quite recently, and he might have known the extraordinary effect which that circular would produce in Volunteer circles. General Kitt had been connected with the Auxiliary Forces and had commanded in the field, and he maintained that, if a circular such as this was issued to the Volunteer and Auxiliary Forces without the Director of the Auxiliary Forces being called into consultation with the Army Council, it was a most unsatisfactory and unfortunate state of things. In 1901 600 officers and 20,000 Volunteers came back from active service in the field in South Africa, and a circular was issued asking "If the Volunteers wished to be taken seriously!" He knew perfectly well who was the author of that circular, He was an officer who was retained, at the headquarters in defiance of all rules and regulations that had been made as to the headquarters staff since 1898. He had always refrained from mentioning his name before, but he must do it now. It was Colonel Adye. He did not say that that officer was the author of this circular; but he was the author of the circular of 1901 which had to be withdrawn. And that officer was the only officer of all those connected with the great disaster at Nicholson's Nek in South Africa who had not been punished. He did not say that that officer was the author of this circular; but, at any rate, the style of it was much the same as that of the circular of 1901. He was not going to labour this matter; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be better advised in the future; and that he would withdraw the circular. Everybody made mistakes, and the right hon. Gentleman should admit that he had made one on this occasion.

His hon. friend who moved the Resolution had rightly said that this circular was only an incident in the career of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He, himself, was animated with the most friendly feeling for the right hon. Gentle man; indeed he was one of the first to congratulate him by telegram on his appointment to his present high office. The right hon. Gentleman had said recently that the Volunteers would always find in him a most sympathetic defender of the Volunteer force. But how cruelly had the Volunteers been disappointed in him! The right hon. Gentleman had shown an extraordinary method of exhibiting that friendship and sympathy. What was the position of affairs? The right hon. Gentleman had been in office for eighteen months or two years. He had had in his hands the Report of the Norfolk Royal Commision—a Commission which had called eighty-two witnesses and had held 130 odd sittings, and which placed in his hands a series of propositions. What had the right hon. Gentleman done with that Report? It was common knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman had done nothing to give effect to the recommendations of that Royal Commission. There was not an officer or a private in the whole Volunteer force who was not willing to aid the Secretary of State in any reasonable manner to improve the condition of the force. What did the Royal Commission say? The Volunteer force owes its origin and continuance mainly to the energy and goodwill of its officers and men, and the fact that it does not attain to this standard imposed by war conditions is in no way attributable to them. If the right hon. Gentleman had read that passage on page 9 he would at once have said that it depended on the War Office to put the Volunteer force into a proper state of efficiency. It was not possible, with the limited time at their disposal, to go into the whole of the Report of the Royal Commission, but there were one or two passages to which he would like to call attention; for instance the Report said— The training of the Volunteers is carried on under considerable difficulties as to both time and space, and is in many cases especially hampered by the want of easily accessible ranges. The efficiency of the different units varies greatly, and some reach a high level, bu1 taking the force as a whole neither the musketry nor the tactical training of the rank and file would enable it to face with prospect of success the troops of a Continental army. The Volunteer Artillery lacks the requisite training and mobility. The transport, equipment, and artillery matériel of the Volunteer force are far from satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt with that by taking away the only guns they had and sending down a whole army of artificers to alter and improve their until the result was that in the opinion of experts it was dangerous to fire them at all. The Report continued— The only attempt at organising the Volunteer force in the cadres required for war has been the grouping of the infantry battalions in brigades. Certain battalions are picked out from these brigades to form other brigades ii the field army, and no less than twenty-six Volunteer battalions are shown in the Army List a belonging at the same time to two different brigades. These Army field brigades have no permanently appointed commanders. Of the others, some are broken up on mobilisation, and their peace organisation does not correspond with their war duties. Some are under the command of the officer commanding the regimental district, who has many other duties, especially on mobilisation. Four are under officers commanding the regiments of the Guards, and the remainder are during the week's camp under the command of a brigadier who has no authority over them at other times. There is no divisional organisation, nor are any arrangements made for the command and staffs of large masses of Volunteers of the various arms told off to the defence of London, beyond the grouping of the infantry brigades as already mentioned. He submitted that, when this document came before him, his right hon. friend and the Army Council had a definite task to discharge. With very little difficulty and trouble they could have corrected this deficiency in the Volunteer force. But had anything been done in that direction? Absolutely nothing. And in his opinion this was attributable entirely to his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War making speeches in derision of the force and in derision of the contribution they made to the South African forces, and it was only natural in those circumstances that nobody under him would do anything. The hon. Member who brought forward this Motion spoke of the losses which the force had suffered in officers and men. From 1900 to the present time a large number of officers had sent in their resignations, and there had been a loss of 34,000 men, but had anything been done by the right hon. Gentleman or anyone under him to obtain officers for the Volunteer force? Had anything been done to give the force confidence or to reorganise it for war under officers who would not be taken away to other duties on the declaration of war, but who would be responsible for their brigades in times of peace and in the field in time of war? Nothing had been done. What had been done was to make declarations deriding the assistance given by the Volunteers in South Africa and deriding their efficiency. The inspecting officer saw every man individually at times of inspection, and it was the duty of that officer to make a report which ultimately came into the hands of the Secretary of State, who should communicate with the commanding officer upon the subject. If a regiment was inefficient, it was the fault of the commanding officer; but nothing had been done in that matter. He had a letter from a commanding officer who told him that that sending out of a circular was merely furnishing the Secretary of State for War with ammunition for further sarcasms.

The state of affairs was very serious indeed. The Prime Minister, as President of the Defence Committee, said only the other day that in 1899 and 1900 they had a great mass of Volunteers, but no means of organisation by which they might be utilised. Lord Roberts, in another place, recently said also that the condition of this force was worse than it was in 1899. The right hon. Gentleman was the only man connected with the administration of the Army who had not approved of the Volunteer force in the slightest degree. Lord Roberts in a letter said the lesson of the South African War had been learnt in America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and that legislative measures had been passed to deal with this matter-Had the right hon. Gentleman done anything to form a strong force? At the outbreak of the South African War 35 per cent. of the Regular Army were unable to embark either from being under age or from medical inefficiency. These were vital headquarter matters but why should the right hon. Gentleman waste his time and the finances of the country and upset the whole Volunteer force by retaining it in its present state of uncertainty. Unless there was some satisfactory information to-night and an undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he would not persevere in this ridiculous course, and that during the recess no attempt would be made to take any step with the object of cutting down the force, he would have to vote for this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to carry out these ideas of his own against the will of the representatives of the people, and unless the right hon. Gentleman could give the assurance asked for he should vote for this Amendment, because he believed the Volunteer force was necessary to this country as a barrier between this country and that conscription which the right hon. Gentleman favoured. There had been no declaration so far on the part of the right hon. Gentleman of his views with regard to conscription.

*MK. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Yes. In this House I have made a public declaration that I am strongly opposed to it.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

expressed his gratification at the definite declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, and said he thought that this debate had well occupied the time of the House even if nothing else resulted from it. He earnestly hoped his right hon. friend would pardon him if he had used any expressions he should not have used in the heat of the debate. He was animated with the most friendly feelings towards his right hon. friend, and he was only urging him to take the course which he (Sir Howard Vincent) believed was best for himself, best for the Government, and best for the Party to which he belonged.

*MR. C. R. SPENCER (Northamptonshire, Mid.)

said he felt justified in asking the Committee to allow him to say a few words upon the Volunteer question, although he had spoken upon it on a previous occasion, because something very serious had recently happened and he felt bound, as a Member of Parliament, to express his opinion on the two circulars issued recently by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. The position of the Volunteers at present was a very serious one, and it was the bounden duty of everyone who had the interests of the force at heart to speak out with no uncertain voice and to say what he thought should be done to assist the Volunteer force. This was a question which, had a very great interest for the country at large, because it not only affected the, well-being of the constitution of the Auxiliary Forces but also the country as a whole for if these circulars were allowed to be continued there was a fear that this one great rampart which protected us from the evils from which foreign countries suffered would be removed. He, therefore, would oppose everything that might end in almost the ruin of the Volunteer force. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him saying that he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had improved at all in his knowledge of the Volunteers. If the right hon. Gentleman had learnt a little more of the feelings and the wishes of the Volunteer forces he would not have embarrassed them "with the circulars that had been referred to, and would not have allowed that force to be worried and harried until large numbers had been forced out of the force altogether.

He himself believed that the Volunteer force could be brought up to a state of efficiency if regard was had to its conditions of service. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that the Volunteers were Volunteers, and that no amount of screwing, by circular or otherwise, could raise or, as he would prefer to put it, lower good Volunteers into sham Regulars. He disapproved of the harassing of the Volunteers, and strongly protested against the additional worry recently entailed by the medical examination. It was impossible for the medical officers, without extra remuneration, especially in country battalions, many of whose members lived at great distances from headquarters, to go about medically examining under the new circular. "Faulty teeth" were referred to in that document. Everybody, whether civilian or military man, knew that faulty teeth were a great hindrance to the comfortable carrying out of the duties of life, but in these days, when Volunteers were not required to bite off the ends of their cartridges, he thought it was really unnecessary to set up a difficulty about faulty teeth or the number of teeth possessed by Volunteers. If the Army Council or the right hon. Gentleman laid down the requisite number of teeth a Volunteer was to have to ensure proper mastication, the further difficulty would immediately arise as to who was to decide which teeth were thoroughly sound and which not. Then there Was the question of age. That was always delicate matter to discuss either in or out of Parliament. Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman, like himself, would gladly recall his forty-fourth birthday. Bui he did not consider that the fact of s man's being forty-five years of age was any bar to his performing good and efficient service as a Volunteer. The enforcement of that condition would deal a heavy blow to the Volunteer force because in many battalions the back- bone of the regiment were men of forty-five who had been in the battalion fifteen or twenty years, understood the discipline, and encouraged the younger members to follow in the proper course.

What was the object of the circular? It was said to be economy, Laudable economy was to be strongly supported, but there was such a thing as ill-judged parsimony, and he greatly feared that the action of the right hon. Gentleman would cost the country millions if hereafter—which heaven forbid—there was demanded from the population of this country an armed force to resist invasion. Was this the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Volunteers? Was the Government going to follow what he conceived to be the fatal guidance of the Secretary of State, and, ignoring the valuable services rendered, by them in the late war, regard the Volunteers as a force which could not be taken seriously? Was the Government going to support the Volunteers or not? It was time the Volunteers had that question answered. Already there were unmistakable signs that the force was getting discouraged. Some of the great London battalions, the pride of the Metropolis, had been considerably reduced, and an end ought to be put to the present uncertainty at once. Was it the policy of His Majesty's Government permanently to reduce the Volunteer force? If so, the Volunteers would know where they stood. The deputation of the National Guard of America which recently visited this country were horrified at the disregard and contempt with which the Volunteers were treated by the Government. Why was it the National Guard occupied the position it did in America? As far as he could understand, they were more or less the counterpart of the Volunteers here; they had taken across the Atlantic the hatred which we shared of conscription on European models; and, like our Volunteers, they regarded themselves as the strongest rampart against the adoption of a policy of conscription. In all sincerity and friendliness, he asked the Secretary of State to pause long before he enforced his immature schemes against the Volunteers. But if the right hon. Gentleman turned a deaf ear to his cry, he would appeal with confidence to the House of Commons itself, from which all the power of the right hon. Gentleman was derived, to prevent the ruin of the Volunteers being consummated.

*COLONEL DENNY (Kilmarnock Burghs)

said there had been many debates on this subject; but all the arguments which had been put forward for the benefit of the Secretary of State for War appeared to have been thrown away. There were two aspects of the question—the sentimental and the practical. Human nature, being what it was, was not expected to offer or to anticipate gratitude. Whatever was done for one's country or kin should be done spontaneously from high motives, and nothing expected in return—and it was astounding with what unanimity the Volunteers had been paid in accordance with that principle. The sentimental grievance was powerful, but the practical one could be brought in in such a way that the Committee would sympathise with the Volunteers in the one and help them in the other. For more than forty years this country had enjoyed the services of a force which had stood between it and conscription. He feared that sometimes they had stood too successfully between the country and a proper system of military training; at any Tate, they had given their best, and had proved that within the conditions of service of men who had to earn their living there could be given sufficient military training to render a War Office of any common sense whatever secure against the adoption of a policy of conscription. But for forty years what had they received? The same neglect, the same method of being ignored, the same statements in Parliament that whatever they did was not enough. However much they tried, they could not attain to the high standard of Pall Mall. He gave the Unionist Government the credit of having been the first to recognise the necessities of the Volunteers and to offer them the additional money they required, bat if the Government were so certain that Volunteers were of use as to give them that money, why had they not consulted them? He did not blame the present Secretary of State any more than his predecessor or his successor; they were only ripples in the sand, and the tide swept them away. What he blamed was the permanent feeling that subsisted in those who really governed the military forces of the country in the War Office itself. Secretaries of State were friendly enough to the Volunteers before they went into office, but immediately they got there they came under influences which caused them to throw overboard their previous views on the matter.

What had the Volunteers left undone for which they were condemned? They were said to be so puny that they could not compare with the "Sons of Anak" found in our Line regiments. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh, the hon. Member for Central Sheffield, and himself were fair samples, and they had given twenty or thirty years service free, gratis, and for nothing, to their country. Then the War Office asked as to their teeth. "Were the miserable stumps that adorned the gums of the Auxiliaries to be compared with the rows of ivories of our Regulars, one smile from which was supposed to be sufficient for the destruction of the foe?" In other words the foreign service conditions were to be applied to the inspections of teeth of a home-service Army. That was the sort of rubbish to which they were treated from the War Office! Would it not have been far better for the Secretary of State to have gone to the Association of Volunteer Commanding Officers and have said, "Gentlemen, I am not quite satisfied with you, but if you will come and reason together with me I think we can manage to make you better than you are?" Every single officer would then have placed his experience and knowledge at the service of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would have got exactly the information he wanted. But that was not the way the War Office did its work; it was the way business men would have done it.

It was no use the War Office thinking they could do without the Volunteers. What happened in the South African War? Practically every available Regular was sent out of the country, leaving scores of thousands of useless men behind whom the War Office dare not send, and then the War Office came on the Militia and Volunteers. The Secretary of State had never yet given the correct figures of what the Volunteers did for the country in that campaign. His own battalion, for instance, was credited with 115 men. The terms of service were made most difficult; they had to be not under twenty or over forty-five years of ago; they had to be unmarried, to have all their teeth, to be marksmen, to go out in companies. Instead of sending only 115 men his battalion sent 389 men to the front, the difference being accounted for by his men enlisting in the Regulars, Militia, and Yeomanry, of whom no notice was taken by the War Office in their calculations of the services rendered by the Volunteers. He repeated it was no use the War Office thinking they could do without the Volunteers. The South African War clearly proved that, and what would happen in the next war would be exactly what happened in the South African War—in less than six months the War Office would be begging for help from Auxiliaries, and they would get it again if they did not interfere and spoil the service now. What was going on at the present moment? They were to depend on the Regular Army, apparently, for the defence of these shores, and upon the Volunteers for foreign service. They were dealing with men who did not aspire to place themselves alongside the professional soldier; the Volunteers had to earn their bread and they did their training in their spare time. But were they, therefore, to be ridiculed? They gave their time to the country, and were they on that account to be despised and told that they were not being taken seriously. The Volunteers served a much bigger purpose than any mere training of men. He did not care whether a man were seventeen or seventy, if that man underwent regular training, was put under the discipline which a Volunteer regiment ought to give, and trained to shoot, he could not be the worse for it, and he was bound to be better. They served a great purpose in that they afforded an opportunity for that physical training which all desired, and for fifty years they had plodded on, doing their best in a quiet way for the benefit of their country, and, while permitted, they would continue so to do.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)

said that anybody who had listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite and other hon. Members who had spoken in the debate, would very much regret that this was the first time for four years that the Volunteer Estimates had been put before the House, and the House had been able to give the Secretary of State any guidance. This was all the more important because the Volunteer force was essentially a civilian force dependent upon civilian officers, maintained by civilian efforts, and put under the control of the Secretary of State as distinct from the Commander-in-Chief in all particulars of its discipline and organisation. The present Secretary for War had told them that the only condition upon which he would grant the Volunteers any improvements in their organisation and their training facilities was dependent first, of all upon a reduction in their number. That was a most unfortunate state of things for the Volunteers. He did not wish to labour the point made by previous speakers that the action of the Secretary of State for War and his predecessor towards the Regulars and the Volunteers had been precisely the same. A circular had been issued which was afterwards condemned and then withdrawn, and that process had prevented people entering the Volunteers, and not only had it reduced the number both of men and officers, but it had also reduced the efficiency of the force.

All this trouble had arisen be cause the Secretary of State for War would not listen to the advice and recommendations of the Commission who had considered this question. He believed that the answer which the Secretary of State must give to those who drew up the Report of that Commission would be the kind of exertion which would have to be exacted from the Volunteers in the future. That Commission had put a definite question which had never been answered. They asked for what purpose did the Volunteers exist. Was it for the defence of this country, and, if so, was this country to be defended solely by their efforts or was it to be defended by the efforts of Volunteers plus a stiffening and strengthening by the Regular Forces? Upon the answer to that question must depend the Vote before the House and the sort of duties the country was going to exact from the Volunteers. To that question the Secretary of State for War, whatever his other shortcomings might be, had given them a frank, consistent, and constant answer. He had told them both by his own words and through the mouths of two or three other gentlemen that the Government looked for home defence against raids to the Volunteers. Lord Esher had stated that it would be an illusion to suppose that the Volunteers could repel an invasion. It was said that an invasion of this country was impossible, and that raids could only be attempted by a force of less than 5,000 men. It was further stated that 250,000 Volunteers were more than sufficient to deal with 5,000 raiders and therefore the Volunteers ought to be Gut down. That was the kind of argument which had been addressed to this House.

He agreed that the right hon. Gentleman had been consistent and courageous in the arguments he had put before the House, and he would quote a phrase or two from the statements which he had made. He told them in the debates which took place at the beginning of this session that there were in the Volunteer force a large number of men who ought not to be in it, and that it was the intention of the Army Council to deal with them in such a way that they would not remain in it in the future. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that they wanted better officers, more efficiency and training, longer time in camp, and other things, and he stated that these could only be obtained after a reduction in the numbers of the force had been effected. That was the principle which animated the right hon. Gentleman in his action to-day and in the circular which he had issued. A similar statement had been made in another place by Lord Donoughmore, who had stated that the Volunteers were slightly more numerous than were now required, and that by a reduction in their numbers they proposed to increase their efficiency. He had laboured this point because he anticipated from the right hon. Gentleman a defence which had already been set up that afternoon. He would no doubt reply that he meant nothing but good to the Volunteers, that he had their interest closely at heart and identified himself with all their aspirations, and that they had no more consistent supporter than himself. He thought it was important to pin the right hon. Gentleman down to his previous statements and actions.

He wished to draw attention to the terms of the circular which had been issued. The first three lines of the original circular stated that it was a statement to the effect that the Secretary of State had been told that from various causes many Volunteer units were not in an efficient state to take the field. They attempted to find out where the right hon. Gentleman got that report from, but he noticed that it had now been withdrawn in the second circular, which read— In view of the fact that during the South African War large numbers of Volunteers, offered themselves for service in the field and in view of the many expressions of readiness to take a similar step in the event of this country being engaged in a war— In the first circular they stated that the Volunteers were unfit to take the field and in the second circular they call attention to their patriotic efforts in the past. That was no doubt owing to the fact that these proceedings had become very unpopular and that the Volunteers were sternly resenting the action which the right hon. Gentleman had taken. He agreed with the seconder of this Amendment when he said that the Volunteers recognised their short-comings and acknowledged their defects. They did not object to the Secretary for War pointing out these defects, but what they did object to, and what they would not submit to, was the attempt on the part of the Secretary of State for War, under the cloak of obtaining information which it was perfectly legitimate for him to ask for and proper for the War Office to have, to carry out desires which, so far as they operated at all, had injured and not benefited the Volunteer force. While they did not object to criticism and acknowledged defects, and while they admitted their own shortcomings and wished to have them remedied, the War Office and the Secretary of State must remember that the work of the Volunteers in the past had been a labour of love. Valuable time had been given up by people who could not afford to give it, and money had been given by people who could little spare it, and all they asked was that the opportunity should be given to the Volunteers to improve themselves and make good their shortcomings. Those efforts could only be continued if the Government remembered that the Volunteers provided a reserve defence for this country wholly and strictly upon voluntary lines, and those people who provided that reserve defence, and who were saving the country an enormous sum of money, had to earn their livehood from day to day by their own exertions in civil life. Therefore, it was the duty of the Government to restrict their military demands on these people to the exigencies and the needs of these people, who, they had to remember, had to get their own living.

Personally, he had for some years had the command of a Volunteer regiment, and he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman what he thought was necessary to improve the Volunteer force. In the first place the Government must redeem the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover in that House five years ago, when he under took on behalf of the Government to give them a separate department at the War Office. He knew the Secretary of State for War would say that they had got an Inspector-General of Volunteers. But they had not got an independent department at the War Office, and an independent officer who would act without the intervention of other high officials at the War Office. They ha dnot got a staff closely connected with the Volunteer force. It was true that I here was a Volunteer staff officer at the War Office who represented 250,000 Volunteers. If the rest of the War Office were run on the same principle the whole of the institution in Pall Mall could be abolished, and a great deal of expense saved to the country. He would ask one other concession. There were different conditions of employment all over the country, but the War Office applied the same cut-and-dry regulations in regard; to camp to all forms of Volunteer corps. They could not make the same conditions apply in civil life all over the country. Why had the Metropolitan corps dwindled? It was because they could not go into camp every year, though other corps in other parts of the country could easily go into camp. As to the question of training, the Norfolk Commission admitted, and all Volunteers admitted, that if they had to face a. Continental force, whether large or small, they must be better trained, officers and men. If the Volunteers could not afford to go into camp for a longer period than at present, it was no use attempting to make them do so. Let the great mass of the Volunteer force have separate training on isolated field days throughout the year, and let the Government devote a small sum of money to taking the corps from their centres to some rural district where they could receive some military training in the course of an afternoon. If that proceeding were spread, over the whole year they would be able to get the whole length of time, which, under present conditions, they could not get in camp. He urged that the Volunteers should get a reasonable amount for musketry.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Both these things have been done this year; £15,000 extra has been voted for the purpose, and we have relaxed the regulations with regard to camp.

MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE

said that any effort which the right hon. Gentleman made to meet the needs of the Volunteers would be gladly acknowledged. In regard to ammunition he would ask I the right hon. Gentleman if he expected the Volunteers to become marksmen unless they were allowed more than ten rounds for practice. He would beg the right hon. Gentleman, if he thought the Volunteers were of any real value, to make a further allowance to them for ammunition. He was not one of those who pressed the Government for further grants. Upon the ordinary grants now made to the Volunteers their expenses could be met and the men could be made efficient. He knew that because he had proved it in the course of the last four years. There was no need of money, but there was need of encouragement. They did not want a bribe to do their duty. They were ready to do their duty if they could only get the War Office to encourage them. He remembered that the Prime Minister said that the great deterrent of invasion was the Volunteer force. It stood to reason that the larger and more efficient the force the greater the deterrent. He believed that the Secretary of State for War had either himself initiated, or permitted others to initiate for him, a policy that militated against efficiency. He would only add that the premium which the country paid to the Volunteers as an insurance against invasion was the least burdensome of all the sums devoted to military purposes.

LORD BINGHAM (Surrey, Chertsey)

said this was the first occasion on which he had ventured to intervene in a debate on the subject of the Volunteers. With regard to the question of the circular Which had been so much discussed, he was not in complete agreement with many of the opinions which had been expressed in regard to it. Most of the speeches on the Volunteers which he had heard during the time he had been in the House hid been made by Volunteers on behalf of Volunteers. He did not think enough regard had been had to another party in the transaction—the British taxpayer. He looked upon this circular as the logical method of fortifying the taxpayer in getting value for the money which was laid out on the Volunteers. He entirely agreed with what had been said on behalf of the individual who came worst off in the whole scheme, namely, the medical officer. While strongly sympathising with him, he would say from his knowledge of Volunteers that he did not think that the majority of them would have any objection to having this examination made At the same time, he must strongly urge the Secretary of State for War not to use this insidious form of reducing the number of the Volunteer force. He hoped it was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention to do so. He would urge him, if he wished to undertake any grave step of that kind, to do it boldly, and say exactly beforehand what he really meant to do.

He associated himself most cordially with the views expressed that afternoon on the subject of the regulations, and the way in which the Volunteers had been treated during the past four or five years. The Secretary of State for War had said that he had relaxed the camp rules. They were all most grateful to him for that indulgence. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not merely the relaxing temporarily of camp regulations that was required. They must have some security that in future those regulations would be taken off entirely. The different corps must be judged on their merits. He himself had the honour of belonging to a London corps, and he knew that it was absolutely impossible, looking to the nature of their occupations, that the members of it could go into camp for a week in summer. The majority were clerks in offices in the City, or clerks in banks. A clerk in a bank had probably a fortnight's leave during the year, and if he was a junior clerk he had to take it in March or Apri1. Therefore, a man of that sort must find it absolutely impossible to go into camp in the first week of August with his Volunteer regiment. He would urge the Secretary of State for War to look at the question of the Volunteers in a broad-minded way. Although there were many regiments with men not physically capable of going through a hard campaign, they were yet perfectly well able to do much work that was required of them, and, in addition to their value in that capacity, there were a great many of them who were most invaluable in other ways by the example they set to young men to come forward and do their duty in defence of their country. The Secretary of State for War had always expressed himself in sympathy with the Volunteers, and they were waiting anxiously for practical proof of that sympathy. They hoped that that afternoon they would hear some more definite announcement as to the circular. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he could make it clear that it was not intended as a means of reducing the Volunteer force, he, for one, would see no reason to take exception, to it.

MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

said he would like to defend the Secretary of State for War from the charge of ambiguity which the noble Lord the Member for Chertsey had attempted to put upon him. The noble Lord said that if there was any intention to reduce the Volunteers it should be done in a straightforward manner. The Secretary of State had stated in the most definite and emphatic manner that in his judgment—and he himself believed it was the opinion of some other members of the Government—the Volunteer force, irrespective of whether they were efficient or inefficient, was too large and ought to be reduced. He believed the vast majority of the Members of that House wholly dissented from that view. Therefore, the charge of ambiguity could not be levelled against the Secretary of State for War.

He wanted to draw attention to the method by which the circular was issued, and the object with which it was issued. The hon. Members who had taken part in the debate that afternoon protested not only against the reduction of the force, which was a broad matter of principle, but also against the perpetual mistakes with reference to the Volunteer force. Reference had been made to the proposal to reduce the numbers, but it had been ascertained that that circular was issued without the knowledge of the Inspector-General of the Volunteer force, and that the first he saw of it was in the newspapers. If such a thing were done in business, the place would not last a week. What had happened in this case? The staff officers had never been consulted upon that Order, the issue of which had created a mighty stir. It would be as well to consult the staff officers before issuing such an Order. After the publication of the Order in 1901 no fewer than five of the Metropolitan Volunteer regiments lost 50 per cent, of their numbers by resignation. The Inspector-General was not consulted before the issue of that circular. They had now got into a difficulty regarding the issue of another circular which was causing the greatest concern. Again, he believed the staff officer of the Volunteers was never consulted about this circular at all. Even if the Order—he was referring to the first Order—had been a wise one, the right hon. Gentleman would admit that it had created a mighty stir and it would have been well to have consulted the staff officer of the Volunteers before such an Order was issued. He thought they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman why it was that these perpetual mistakes occurred? They knew why the Volunteers were discontented; it was because they were never consulted. The Committee would hardly believe it, but a brigadier-general of Volunteers, who was a strong supporter of the right hon. Gentleman and his political Party, complained to him only two or three days ago in conversation that he had not got a copy of this Order although it had been published in the Standard. Not only was the opinion of these brigadier-generals not asked about this Order, but they had never seen it until they read it in the Press. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War how that was.

He wished to draw the attention of the Committee to an entirely fresh aspect of the matter: of which this circular was an indication. It was an indication of the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to reduce the Volunteer force. The noble Lord said there was no ambiguity on this point; but he would direct the noble Lord's attention to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in July last, in which he said that it was proposed to reduce the establishment of the Volunteers from 350,000 to 200,000. The right hon. Gentleman afterwards said that he proposed to reduce the number of Volunteers by absorption to 180,000, the present strength being 245,000. The right hon. Gentleman could not be charged with doing a thing which had no method or meaning in it. He frankly said that the Volunteers could not be relied on to face Continental troops, nor could they be relied upon unless they had been through the mill.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that he quoted that phrase from the Report of the Royal Commission.

MAJOR SEELY

said if the right hon. Gentleman quoted it he did so with approval. Did the right hon. Gentleman say yet that the Volunteer force could not be relied upon to face a Continental army?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said he quoted the opinion of the Royal Commission.

MAJOR SEELY

said he wished the right he a Gentleman to understand that they made no charge against him whatever, but they profoundly disagreed with his policy. The right hon. Gentleman believed that the Volunteers would not be able to repel an invasion, that they were not fit to meet a Continental army, and, therefore, he proposed to reduce their number and to put in their place a short-service home Army which had gone through the mill.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that the whole point of a short-service enlistment in the Army was to build up a large Reserve in a comparatively short time.

MAJOE SEELY

said that that was perfectly true; but the right hon. Gentleman also intended to reduce the Volunteer force by absorption to 180,000 men. The position was perfectly clear, and one of those days it would be demonstrated which school of thought was right. He believed that this policy of reduction of the Volunteer force would be disastrous. The noble Lord said that the policy, at all events, tended towards economy. Probably it would do nothing of the kind. They could not, in a Volnnteer force which was unpaid, have reduction and efficiency at the same time. The thing was impossible. Experience had shown that in the case of the Yeomanry—a branch of the service which had been singularly successful of late—they had increased in number from 10,000 to 28,000, and with that growth there was a corresponding increase of efficiency. A Regular soldier was paid in money; the Auxiliary was paid in appreciation. If, therefore, they reduced that appreciation they reduced greatly the inducement to join.

The only possible way to get efficiency in the Volunteer force was for the whole Ministerial Bench to say, "We want to get every man to serve." The utmost it could possibly cost was but a trifling matter in comparison with the huge sums of money the country spent. If anyone said that it was unnecessary, he appealed to the recollection of only four years ago. The Financial Secretary to the War Office had had to command men in the field, against an enemy, who did not know one end of a rifle from another. He himself had been in the same position. These men were not trained to know. If the policy which he advocated had been upheld then, ail that would have been changed, and Lord Methuen would never have fallen a prisoner, wounded as he was, into the hands of the enemy. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was an argument for conscription. Not at all; it was an argument in the direction of asking the people to give all they could to the service of the State. That was how the Japanese succeeded. This vote was probably the most important that could be given on military matters, because the House was at the parting of the ways. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman was right in his opinion, and that the reduction in the Volunteer force was also a wise step to take. There were other persons, however, who believed that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were fatal to the military efficiency of the country, and by this persistent throttling of the patriotic aspirations of the people, the authorities would, by degrees, unless they were more fortunate than they had been in the past, stifle every patriotic desire on the part of the people.

*MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY - GORE (Lincolnshire, Gainsborough)

said he did not desire to deal with the general question of the Government's treatment of he Volunteers, but to particularise as to that portion of the force to which he had the honour to belong, namely, the Volunteer artillery, and more especially the field or light artillery. No portion of the Volunteer force had received less consideration at the hands of this and previous Governments than had the artillery. The branch of which he was peaking comprised five brigade divisions, the 1st Monmouth, the 1st Lanark, the 4th Yorkshire, the 1st Lincoln, and the brigade division to which he had the honour to belong, namely, Kent. The Committee would remember that successive Secretaries of State for War had promised an improvement in the armament of these light batteries. His right hon. friend the Member for Dover, as far back as 1900, said in reply to Questions in the House that it was intended to re-arm the Volunteer artillery with modern guns. But that was not a question he could enter into in detail because it would have to be settled almost battery by cattery in accordance with whether the corps was field artillery or position artillery. One of the grievances the field artillery had during the régime of the Secretary for India was that they beheld the absurd spectacle of artillery Volunteers in spurs doing infantry foot drill, but he believed that the present War Secretary had now altered that.

What was the present position of the Volunteer artillery of which he was speaking? They were armed with 16-pounder guns which would be absolutely useless in case the force was called on to protect this country against a raid. It might be said that they had their mobilisation orders and their districts in which they were to operate in case of a raid were distinctly laid down. But what chance could they possibly have of efficiently performing their duties if suddenly called upon? Their guns would be just about as efficacious in case of a raid as the noted revolver loaded with Brummagem fireworks would be against the big gun of the foreigners loaded with brick-bats. He must therefore ask his right hon. friend for some explanation as to what he was going to do so far as the Volunteer artillery was concerned. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House some time ago that he had given the Volunteer artillery 15-pounder guns and shortly afterwards that they were to become different kind of gunners, and that they would be armed with the 4.7 gun. That was very subtle on the right hon. Gentleman's part, for the reason that alteration had been made in the experiment with the 4.7 gun, which had been prove to be the worst-shooting gun of any calibre in the British Army. He hoped his right hon. friend would give the most careful consideration to this question, because there could be no use in having men to protect this country in case of a raid if they had not proper and efficient weapons with which to protect it. And he believed he was right in saying that his right hon. friend did not want to abolish the old field artillery Volunteers in the same way as the others. He urged him, therefore, to see to this matter as soon as possible, and to see that the artillery was properly armed in as short a space of time as possible.

SIR A. HAYTER (Wakall)

said the views of the Secretary of State for War were very plain, as could be seen from his own words in various speeches made in the House and elsewhere, and also in the Memorandum presented to the House with the Army Estimates. He sympathised very much with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, who initiated this debate in so able a speech, and who said some information ought to be given as to the circulars. The first of those alluded to "active service in the field" and showed the intention of sending Volunteers abroad; the second introduced the South African War and referred to "active service abroad." In the concluding paragraph of both, circulars was to be found indication of an intention to draw a sharp distinction between distinction and non-efficients so as to distinguish between, the sheep and the goats and keep them distinct. The commanding officers were asked for information as to Volunteer units inefficient from any cause, and whether such should be disbanded or amalgamated, and also, in making those recommendations, what was proposed as to reduction of adjutants or staff. He rose chiefly to quote exactly the views of the Secretary of State for War. Some doubt had been expressed in regard to them; but he had no doubt whatever He would not say that the views of the right hon. Gentleman were right; in fact he thought they were wrong; but there was no doubt about what those views were. The right hon. Gentleman on March 21st said, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight— It is proposed to make a reduction in the strength of the Volunteer force. He was then asked— Is it to be a reduction in numbers or in establishment? and the reply was— It is in both; it must take place very gradually. On March 28th he said— We have 360,OOO men who are tied to the soil of the country in time of war. I have expressed the view, which I think is logical, consistent, and coherent, that we should consent to a reduction of that force in order to increase its efficiency. I want someone categorically to affirm that the maintenance of 360,000 men tied to the soil by law, is necessary for the defence of the country against any danger reasonably to be apprehended. On April 3rd he said— I am an advocate, and a strong advocate, of the reduction of the establishment of the Volunteers. Again, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition he said— You eliminate those who, after a medical examination, are found to be unfit. It is the fact that medical examination is the rarest possible event after entry into the Volunteers. From that it would be seen that there could be no doubt as to the views of the right hon. Gentleman. But if there were any doubt it would be dispelled by the words of the Memorandum issued to the House with the Army Estimates. If anybody entertained a doubt that these circulars were intended to give the right hon. Gentleman a basis upon which he could strike off the men, then he could only reply that the introduction of "foreign service" was intended to give him a lever by which he could do so. The view of those on that side of the House was exactly that expressed by the right hon. Member for Berwick, who on April 3rd said— The Volunteers, I think, must be made to feel that their system is a real system of national training, by means of which, if this country is over attacked in a great war, either at home or abroad, the nation will be able to use all its forces and united energies for the defence of any part of the Empire. What I think the Government ought to do is, without any limit of numbers, to concentrate their attention on physical development and the elementary training of as large numbers of the population as possible as Volunteers. With that view, expressed on that side of the House, he Cordially agreed. He hoped hon. Members would vote for the reduction.

*MAJOR EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

complained of the disproportionate amount of Parliamentary time given to the Volunteers, who would seem to be the only serious branch of the British Army. But there were other brandies of the military organisation of this country which were quite as important as the Volunteer force I to which more time might be devoted. There was no lack of suspicion as to anything concerning the Secretary of Stats for War and the administration of the War Office. It had town said this circular in some mysterious way was an insidious attempt to bring about conscription in this country. The right hon. Gen leman the Secretary of State had over and over again stated had that House in most unmistakable terms that he was opposed to conscription; that at all events was quite plain. Other hon. Gentlemen had said the right hon. Gentleman was not clear in his expression of his views, but the last speaker had to a large extent settled that point by quotations from, the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, which were clear beyond dispute. It had been stated with some justice that a portion of the Volunteer force might be utilised as a reserve for the Regular Army, to serve abroad in case of necessity, and when the right hon. Gentleman made an endeavour to find out what proportion of the Volunteer force would be for medical and other reasons fit to take part in service abroad, he had all these violent accusations and suspicions levelled against him. The constant charge against the War Office had been that it was lacking in prevision. Here was his right hon. friend making a perfectly sensible endeavour to find out what the real condition of the Volunteer force was as to service abroad, and immediately all this outcry was raised.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Is it for service abroad?

*MAJOR EVANS GORDON

said they would hear from the right hon. Gentleman what his view was, but personally he would be delighted to see such. information collected, not only for service abroad, but for service at home. It was a perfectly reasonable and proper inquiry to make. It was information which ought already to exist at the War Office. [OPPOSITION Cheers.] Then what possible objection could there be to calling for that information? A good deal of ridicule had been cast upon the regulations as to the condition of men's teeth, but that was a very large element in the efficiency of men going on service. The attitude adopted by some hon. Members made one despair as to the improvement of the Volunteers in efficiency or as to the War Office getting possession of the information which every other staff required.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

These are Volunteers.

*MAJOR EVANS GORDON

said of course the Volunteers were exceptional. Nothing that applied to any other service applied to the Volunteers. They were to be treated as a force apart. Those were views with which he had no sympathy whatever, and he did not believe Volunteer officers generally in the least opposed such inquiries as had been made. If the enthusiasm of the Volunteer force rested upon so delicate and sensitive a basis, the sooner the fact was known the better, but he did not believe it to be so. He believed the discussions raised in that House were out of all proportion to the feeling which existed in the Volunteer force itself. He, therefore, hoped his right, hon. friend would not be influenced by such criticisms as those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sheffield.

As regarded the general policy, the Report of the Royal Commission and other inquiries declared that there were numbers of men in all branches of the service, including the Volunteers, who not only were unfit for military purposes, but were never likely to become fit. In his opinion it was a wise policy to cease spending money upon matérid which could never be of any real military value, and to devote the money thus saved to providing those things which every Volunteer officer knew were urgently required to make the force efficient. As the Secretary of State had over and over again told the House, the Volunteers were in need of many things the provision of which would cost money, and it was difficult to see how hon. Members could reconcile their constant cries for economy with their desire that, without any sacrifice on the part of the Volunteers, this enormous force should be provided with all that was requisite. Moreover, as far as his information went, the so called infamous treatment of the Volunteers by the Secretary of State had not resulted in a reduction of numbers. The last Return showed that, taking the whole force, there was actually an increase.

MR. CHURCHILL (Oldham)

pointed out that in an official Memorandum just quoted by the right hon. Baronet on the Front Bench it was clearly stated, that the reduction this year would be 15,000.

*MAJOR EVANS GORDON

said that at any rate in the early part of the year it was distinctly stated that the Volunteers had increased in number. A great deal too much had been made of these circulars. He cordially supported the idea with which those circulars were issued, and trusted the Secretary of State would persist in his policy of finding out as much as he could about the actual condition of the Volunteers. The criticisms which had been made seemed to point to the fact that the Volunteers were afraid of the true facts being brought I out. ["No."] If that were not so, all he could say was that the outcry raised about the circulars was very much out of proportion to the danger that had been, put forward.

MR. FULLER (Wiltshire, Westbury)

said the opposition to the policy of the Government with regard to the Volunteers was due only in a very small degree to the circulars. What was complained of was that the circulars were an indication of the policy of the Government, that policy being directed towards the gradual reduction of the Volunteers, and the Opposition were prepared to challenge that policy both in Parliament and in the country. They disagreed with the policy of keeping a large Army for Imperial defence across the seas, holding the proper policy for this country to be the maintenance of a small and efficient Army for the defence of the Empire over the seas, and the encouragement of the patriotic spirit of the people so that the Volunteers might he relied upon in time of national stress as a great school of arms from which recruits could be drawn for the Army over the seas. The Liberal Party were not alone in this view. In a recent debate in another place Lord Roberts said— We do not want a large standing Army.…Behind that standing Array there must be a Reserve large enough to mobilise all the Regular troops, and to expand the Army to and maintain it at such a size as circumstances may require. … The Regular troops … can only provide a very limited portion of the Reserve, the main body of which must be formed by the Auxiliary Forces and by the man-hood of the country generally. Thus the opinion of so high an authority was diametrically opposed to the policy of the Government, and it was that policy the Opposition challenged.

SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)

said that he held strong views, not as a Volunteer, but as a citizen, regarding the condition of the Army and the military system applied to the Army, and he profoundly disagreed with the basis upon which the Secretary of State was acting with regard to the Volunteers. He disagreed with the proposed reduction to a rigid 200,000. Various speakers had expressed the clearest views as to what the right hon. Gentleman meant and did not mean. Personally, remembering previous debates and utterances of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, he was not so clear regarding certain points. He was not clear whether the Government intended the Volunteers to be used only fir purposes of home defence, or whether they were to be used for home defence and also as a reserve behind the Regular Forces which would be expected to serve abroad in time of war. The Secretary of State on a previous occasion said— The Volunteers to be really valuable must organise their training, their transport, and equipment, and arrange for these purposes on the basis of a foreign-going Army. … The Volunteers are rooted to the soil. … If they are really to go abroad in time of war, would it not be better to arrange in time of peace so that they may fail into their places in time of war? He took it, therefore, that under the present policy of the War Office the Volunteers were intended to be an efficient body for the defence of the soil—of which all would approve—and also that they should be a reserve to go abroad in time of war, if they were willing to go. This was where he differed so strongly from his right hon. friend. If we were ever engaged in a great war, 200,000 Volunteers would not be sufficient for our needs. If we were faced with a great orce on the frontier of India, the whole of the Regular Army would be thrown upon that frontier, and where would the Reserve be? Not only all the Regulars, but another 200,000 or 250,000 men would be required if ever we had to face a "Mukden" such as the Japanese and the Russians had fought. If we were to face such possibilities of disas[...]er as the Russians had faced, if we were to be pitted against great armies, we must have great armies to pit against them. The Secretary of State very properly placed great stress upon quality. But quality alone was not sufficient. In the present war it had been proved incontestably that it was only when the Japanese were able to throw great numbers of men into the field that they were able to make their victories decisive and follow them up.

The policy of the Government was unsound in that it did not give enough men. It was also unsound in that it appeared as though the Government thought it necessary to encourage the military spirit only in those who were physically fitted to go abroad. Others besides so-called amateurs had expressed themselves very clearly on this point. For instance, Sir J. Ardagh stated before the Royal Commission that he would prefer 300,000 imperfectly trained men to 100,000 well trained. In the vicissitudes of war it was not necessary that all the men, cither on the field of battle or on the line of communications, should be of the highest order of intelligence or military efficiency. Thus experts in whom the Government plated confidence disapproved of the whole War Office policy in this respect.

But there was a much higher attitude to take on the question. Did the House believe that the present Government were organising the military forces of the country to the best advantage of the Empire? A series of young nations within the Empire, with military problems of their own, and anxious to bring their military forces to as high a level of efficiency as possible, were watching us, and what could they think of our policy? He believed there was not one of those nations that was not profoundly unhappy, to say the least, when it looked at the confusion, dissatisfaction, and lack of definiteness which affected our Volunteer system, to say nothing of the Regular Army and the Militia. Those young nations, having gained experience from the South African War, were endeavouring to set their own houses in order. In The Times of yesterday appeared a telegram of great moment stating that the Canadian Government was proposing to adopt the principle of universal service, to compel every young man before he reached the age of twenty-one to serve three terms in the Militia, Those young countries were, as democracies, far more definite in their military arrangements than we were, and they were anxious that no particle of energy should be diverted from industrial into military channels if it was possible to avoid it.

In this country he believed there was a real sympathy not with militarism, but with such military life as was absolutely necessary for safety; he did not think the Government really trusted this sympathy, but he believed that if the people were called upon for universal service they would readily respond to the call in time of need. The most democratic people in the world responded in this way in time of need, although they were anxious that their manhood should not be tainted by milinarism. In Canada and Cape Colony they had had tome experience of this kind of service. He thought they might trust the people of this country also to respond to the call if they only gave every man his opportunity, and although the people might not become a highly efficient body, they ought to give every man an opportunity of serving under the colours. As soon as a man donned the King's uniform he acquired something of a national spirit which he had never known before. The average Volunteer had a year's start of any recruit, because it took a year to turn a recruit into a man. The Volunteer started at least with the advantage that he had been trained as a citizen, and as soon as they put him into the uniform he developed a national spirit. As Lord Roberts had said, the fault he found with the present system was that it did not link itself up with the national life. Those were not his exact words, but that was his meaning, and he thought the Committee would agree with him that it would be a good thing if the Government would change their mind concerning this attempt to reduce the possibility of not only not availing themselves of the man-hood of the nation but of providing those necessary military services in time of peace for the possible defence of the soil in time of war. He regretted that he was obliged to differ from the view of the right hon. Gentleman representing the Government, because on this matter he believed that the Government was absolutely wrong. What was more, he thought the whole Empire and the country would say they were wrong, if the people were asked. He had stated this before in the House, and he thought the time would come when the action of the Government and the action of the Secretary of State for War would be regretted because the country, when it was really roused to a sense of its possibilities and to the real danger, would immediately reverse this policy.

*MR- CHURCHILL

said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given the House various arguments of a far-reaching character dealing with the Volunteer force and its influence upon the defence and character and spirit of the nation. He thought the Committee would be very generally in agreement with the hon. Gentleman in the opinions he had expressed, and he wished to say a word in support of those opinions. They ought to remember that it was not right to judge the Volunteers as they saw them in time of peace. The Prime Minister had shown in the luminous and comprehensive statement which he had made earlier in the session that it was probable that a certain amount of time would always intervene before any serious blow could be struck at this country, and even if that period only amounted to a few weeks or months, the Volunteer force at the end of that period would be in a very different condition to what it was in ordinary times of peace.

The question they had to decide was really a very grave one. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had defined his position in regard to the Volunteer force with much candour, and the views he held were formed with knowledge and experience and advocated with great conviction. The policy the right hon. Gentleman had put forward was a policy of reduction. Nobody who had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from the Front Opposition Bench (Sir A. Hayter) would doubt that the policy of the Secretary for War was a policy of reducing the Volunteers. To the right hon. Gentleman the improvement of the Volunteers was a secondary, and their reduction a primary, object. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the number of Volunteers was greatly in excess of what the general staff required for the mobilisation scheme they had in hand. The right hon. Gentleman had declared in the Memorandum upon the Estimates that he was enforcing a reduction of 15,000 men and that it would not stop there, but would be carried on until they reached an establishment greatly below anything they had known in recent times. They had been asked to absent to the policy on grounds of economy. The Member for Dumbartonshire had compared the cost of the Volunteers with that of the Brigade of Guards, and he showed the extraordinary cheapness of the Volunteers in proportion to the number maintained and the strength developed. The total cost of the Volunteer force in the Estimates was £1,200,000, whilst that of the other forces exceeded £30,000,000. Therefore the result of the economy the right hon. Gentleman proposed must be inconceivably small compared with the great scale of our military budget. Under these circumstances he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman a plain Question. He invited him to turn his mind back to July 14th, 1904. On that date the right hon. Gentleman said— I am going to ask the Volunteers to submit to the same scrutiny as I ask the Line to submit to, as I ask the Militia to submit to, and that is a sacrifice in numbers. I ask leave to reduce the establishment of the Volunteers to 200,000 men. I propose, therefore, to fix the establishment of the Volunteers at 200,000 men and to reduce the strength, by absorption in the first instance, to 180,000. That was a clear declaration of a most important and momentous decision. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to that statement which he made on July 14th, 1904. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee whether that was the policy which he now put forward and which he was endeavouring to carry out. The Committee would realise from the short quotation he had read that the right hon. Gentleman did not approach the question of Army reform solely in respect of the Volunteers. He had a scheme to reduce the Regulars, the Militia, and the Volunteers as well. No less than fourteen battalions of the Line were to be removed in the interests of economy. All those reductions had been abandoned and no attempt had been made to carry them out. One reduction alone remained and that was the Volunteers, and that policy was being carried out in a terribly effective manner. Whether the right hon. Gentleman meant his circular to be a step in the process of reducing the Volunteers or not it was idle to inquire. It had, undoubtedly, spread discouragement and dismay far and wide. Was this policy to go on? Having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had postponed all those other large schemes, or at any rate many of them, which he laid before the House last year, surely it would be better to postpone the reduction of the Volunteers until such time as he was able to deal with the whole problem of national defence.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

It is not an easy task for me to endeavour to reply be so large a number of valuable speeches, the greater portion of which have been speeches of criticism, and speeches which have dealt with the Volunteers only. I should like, if I can, to put this debate on a somewhat different plane and to bring into the discussion some considerations which do not appear to have appealed to hon. Members who have spoken. Something has been said of suspicion attaching to myself and to the War Office. It is not for me to deprecate the opinions which hon. Members may have formed; but I sometimes think it would be better if it were possible for hon Members to believe that those who are charged with the very onerous duty of endeavouring to administer the War Office are as fair-minded as themselves and as truly desirous of solving the difficult problems involved. Those difficult problems will confront anyone who has this task to deal with. Whoever sits at that table at the War Office has to consider not one but many questions. He has to consider, in the first place, the efficiency of the Army as a whole—I mean the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers, the whole of our fighting forces; and he has also to consider the question of the financial ability of the country to bear the burdens the military defence of the country throws upon if. It has been the good or bad fortune of this debate that the discussion has necessarily turned exclusively on one very important branch of His Majesty's forces; but it is not possible for me to have in mind only that one branch of His Majesty's service, being responsible, as I am, for all.

I must deprecate the suspicion that has been attached to me. I confess it came to me rather with surprise. I do not know why I should be suspected of bad faith in this matter. The Committee will remember that Mr. Forster, whose name I bear and who was long a distinguished Member of this House, was the founder of one of the first Volunteer corps in this country. I do not know how many of my relatives have been, or are now in the Volunteer force, and I have myself been through the ranks in every mood and sense as a Volunteer at school, at college, and in London as a private and as an officer. I count many of my friends among the Volunteers, and I have been in weekly consultation with Volunteer officers, individually and collectively, during my tenure of office. Therefore I do most emphatically protest, against the suggestion that I can possibly bring to the consideration of this question the sinister motives attributed to me, or that I desire by stealth, or by any means I cannot disclose, to carry out the policy I have in view.

I have to consider what is, after all, the first duty of my office. I happen to be Secretary of State for War. I have not the experience that some hon. Members in this House have of what war means, but I have been on the fringe of two wars. I have seen Bazeilles with only three houses left, the rest smoking ruins; I have seen Paris destroyed; I have seen the vast extent of territory devastated by the Turkish arms; I was in the middle of the war in South Africa; and I have seen almost weekly the reports of the operations in the great war in the East. And all this experience tends to convince me that some of the considerations, at any rate, which have been brought forward to-night are not those on which this problem ought to be settled.

The overwhelming consideration is, what will be the fortune of this country if we are involved in a War at home or abroad with troops not capable of conducting that war to a successful issue and without the organisation and preparation they ought to receive to enable them to secure Victory? That is my sole motive in dealing with this question.

Let me now explain to the House how I have translated my duty into action in this mutter. I should like to ask, first, what the situation is; secondly, what the steps taken are; thirdly, what the complaint made against the Army Council is; and, lastly, what is the justice of that complaint; and I hope I shall make it clear to some of my hon. friends that the motives they attribute to me are not correct, and that the intentions charged against me are entirely alien to my mind. We have before us the lessons of the South African War; and some say we have ill-learned, and others that we have wisely learned, those lessons. We have before us the great war going on in the East; and we have before us the change in the whole immediate outlook of this country which has resulted from the definite adoption of the policy which was described in the recent speech of the Prime Minister. What has been the result? We have been led to realise that to a large extent we must look for our principal dangers outside the United Kingdom. I am not going to argue at this moment as to what is the extent of the danger to which this country is exposed from invasion. We are all agreed that there are dangers, and that those dangers have to be guarded against. We are all, I think, equally agreed that the more frequent, the greater, the pressing danger is the possibility of our being engaged in a foreign war, when we shall be in the position described by the hon. Member for Gravesend, without a sufficient number of men to carry on that war. Are we, or are we not, justified in looking upon our great Auxiliary Army as in any way capable of making a contribution on such an occasion as that? I think we are. I think all the House is of that opinion. I have before me a speech by my hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield, who rather censured me for a crime I do not think I committed. He said that the South African War entirely dispelled any illusions which might have prevailed as to whether or not the Volunteers would be fit for service in the field should the necessity arise. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said the Volunteers would be ready in such an emergency to take the same part or a greater part than they had taken in South Africa. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick said that in a national emergency the Volunteers would come forward, in his belief, freely to serve. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he trusted that when we were engaged in another war, the conditions under which that war was waged, the conditions of unreadiness and want of preparation, would never be so discouraging on the part of our Government as they had been. So we have the frank admission that we can and ought to rely upon individual members of the Volunteer force for service abroad in time of emergency, and we have the injunction that we are to make some better preparations for their utilisation than were made in the case of previous campaigns. What have we done? We have acted strictly on that injunction. We are not acting upon it with regard to the Volunteers only. The long experience of this country in war has taught us that you can only make war in the countries in which we have principally fought with men who are specially qualified for that arduous task.

The hon. Member asked me if we had made the same inquiries about the men in the Regular Army. Of course we have. We are c instantly making them. I have told the House over and over again that in my belief there is far too large a proportion of men in the Regular Army who are unfit for this purpose and ought not to be put in the Regular Army at all. Have we put our belief to the test? Of course we have. We have raised the physical standard for the Army; we have increased the number of rejections. Within the last three months the rejections of men as physically unfit have increased from 35 to 42 per cent. We have introduced a new course of physical training for the whole of the Regular Army. We have greatly diminished the number of soldiers who were taken as special recruits, and we have introduced long-service enlistment, which must give us a much larger number of mature men in the Regular Army. What happened in the South African War? We had to leave behind thousands and tens of thousands of men, because they were either physically unfit or under age. It is now suggested, and I agree with the suggestion, that we ought to look to the Volunteers to furnish us with a contingent for foreign service. Are we to apply to them a less test? No one would suggest it.

But the Regular Army is not the only branch; the Yeomanry his been consoldated in a way which I think has been to the satisfaction of everybody.

MR. CHARLES HOBH0USE

Reduced.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Exactly, reduced. The Yeomanry has been reduced, and with what result? That the Yeomanry is now reported as being better than ever before in its history. Every single report about the Yeomanry is to the same effect. The officers tell me with on a accord—the very officers who protested most strongly—that this is the case, because they can choose for their regiments, because they are not bound to retain in their regiments men whom they do not consider desirable from a physical standpoint. Are we right or not right to endeavour to ascertain beforehand what men we can rely upon? I will refer again to the circular. One part refers to the question of active service abroad. We desire to know how many men in the Volunteer battalions are fit under the ordinary conditions of active service abroad. What are these conditions? Are they reasonable or unreasonable? We have already decided that no man shall go to India with the Regular Army under twenty years of age. Is it unreasonable that we should know that the Volunteer who comes forward to serve us is over nineteen years of age? We ask that in general physique he shall not be below the standard laid down in Appendix 13 of the Volunteer Regulations. We ask that he should have a sound constitution, that he should be free from organic disease, that he should possess a sufficient number of sound teeth for efficient mastication—a very important matter—and lastly, that he should have no defects which are likely to interfere with marching or with active exercise. I agree with the comment made by a Volunteer officer the other day, who said that this circular vas perfectly right and ought to have been issued ten years ago.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Who said that?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

We are making this inquiry and ought to have ill is information, and I think we should be open to the accusation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick if we did not make the inquiry now. It is a perfectly bona fide and simple inquiry. It affects no man in the Volunteers. No man who is allowed to go into the Volunteers row, no man who is in the Volunteers, will be excluded on account of this inquiry. It is simply an ordinary military precaution which I think we ought to take.

Another part of the circular asks whether there are any battalions which in their present condition are inefficient from any cause. I was twitted by an hon. Member the other day for not disclosing what were my reasons for believing that there were any such inefficient battalions. I do not think that was a very fair taunt. I think we have had brought to our notice facts that cannot be overlooked; we have had a very important Commission, on which not only the Volunteers were represented, but before which many Volunteer officers were heard. I have sometimes been told in this House that I have said unsympathetic things about the Volunteers. I entirely fail to recognise the justice of that charge. I have never entertained that sentiment, Not one single word have I said about the Volunteers which has not been quoted from Volunteer testimony itself. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that we have a very large number of statements, by commanding officers of Volunteer regiments and officers who are brought into contact with Volunteers, to the effect that the condition of some battalions is not what it ought to be, that there are large numbers of men who ought not to be in the battalions at all. I do not want to weary the House or lay myself open to the charge of saying bard things about the Volunteers. I will not quote the very large number of passages that I might cite, unless hon. Members desire it. But their general tendency is uniform—that there are large numbers of battalions in which there are men who ought not to be in them.

A Volunteer officer of one of the best battalions in this country told me the other day that were it not for the pecuniary loss he could dispense with advantage with no less than 400 men in his regiment. What is the meaning of that? It means that the incidence of the capitation grant is now such that the Volunteers are not in the same position as the Yeomanry, that they are compelled in their pecuniary interest to take men who are not men whom they would select on physical or military grounds, but who have been taken simply for financial purposes to keep up the finances of the corps. I do not blame the officers concerned, but I have had that testimony from officer alter officer. There are hundreds of officers who, if they were made secure, as I think they may be made secure and ought to be made secure, against pecuniary loss, would welcome this opportunity of dispensing with these men on whom they cannot rely, even though it meant some small reduction of the total of their regiments.

COLONEL DENNY

Who are the men you refer to?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTSR

We are asking now that we shall have a report from the regiments themselves as to whether there are any men who come within the terms of the Report of the Volunteer Commission and who ought to be out of the regiments.

Now I want to meet, if I can, this charge which has been brought against, me, that it is my desire to reduce the Volunteer forces. Let me give a perfectly frank answer. I have to deal with the whole of the Army, with the finance of the Army; and I am quite confident that if the House of Commons is going to insist, as it has insisted over and over again, not only upon there being no increase in the Army Estimates, but upon a reduction of the Army Estimates, then the only way in which you can give the Volunteer force that which, I believe, they ought to have, that which the Commission reports they should have, that which the Army Council desires they shall have, is by a reduction of those men who ought not to be in the force. I will admit that, if the House likes to increase the Army Estimates by £300,000 or £400,000, they can go a great way towards keeping up the whole of the present Volunteer establishment without a great sacrifice of efficiency. It will not do, however, merely to add £400,000 to the Army Estimates. If you gave me that to-morrow for the purpose, I would not accept the offer. Four hundred thousand pounds, applied under the present capitation grant regulations, would simply increase pro tanto the number of men who ought not to be in the force at all. If you change the incidence of the capitation grant, then I admit that a large addition to the Army Estimates would enable you to keep the force at its present strength and at the same time increase its efficiency. But I am not in a position to make additions to the Army Estimates. We are making large reductions. The hon. Member for Oldham asked about reductions in the Regular Army. We have already made a much larger reduction in the Regular Army than we have made in the Volunteers. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that if there was one doctrine more constantly preached to the House than another in regard to the Army it was the necessity for a reduction in the Estimates. My point is this. If I have only to deal with the present amount for the Volunteer force, I cannot give some £300,000 or £400,000 more, which is the minimum sum required, according to my valuation, to provide those things which I think ought to be provided. I believe, therefore, that it is common sense and common reason, as long as I am limited to that amount of money, to apply it in the best way; and if I am right, and my advisers are right, and those Volunteer officers who have given me their counsel are right, there is room, by a judicious adjustment of capitation allowances, to give all that is wanted, and, at the same time, reduce the force. That is the extent to which I have always wanted to go, and I never wanted to go further. I entirely take issue with the hon. Member for Oldham. It has never been my desire to put reduction before efficiency. It is because I could not get efficiency without reduction that I went in for reduction.

MR. CHURCHILL

To 180,000?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I took that figure because, after going line by line through the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission, I calculated the sums which we should require in order to give the benefits which we think the Volunteers ought to have.

*MR. McCRAE

The right hon. Gentleman said that that was only to be the beginning.

*MR. ARNOLD - FOESTER

No; I think the hon. Member has misunderstood me. I was dealing with the question of reform, whether we should being with absorption or not.

*MR. MCGRAE

Will the right hon. Centleman allow me to quote his words?— I propose, therefore, to fix the establishment of the Volunteers at 200,000 men, and to reduce the strength by absorption, in the first instance, to 180,000.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Yes; but that has nothing to do with the immediate point. There is no intention whatever of suggesting any lower figure. But I am further very strongly of opinion that, if we have to expend so much money on the Volunteers, it is far better to get rid of those whom, by almost universal admission, we do not require, and to spend the money for the benefit of those who remain. I can assure my hon. friend the Member for Sheffield, who is naturally anxious about this matter, that there is not the slightest intention of reducing the Volunteer force during the recess in any way, except by the application of the ordinary regulations. That has never been the desire of the Army Council or the intention of the circular. The reason why this circular is published now is that if we are to introduce, as I hope we may introduce, these improvements in the Volunteer force to which I attach so much importance, including the addition to camp allowances, we must know to what numbers we are going to apply them. I am told that I have acted in this matter in a headstrong manner, without counsel, without assistance, and in total contradiction to the views of the Volunteer force itself. Well, I am bound to say that I do not agree with that charge. I do not think the Volunteer force takes that view. I confess I find sometimes an atmosphere among the representatives of the Volunteer force in this House—of whom I desire to speak with the utmost respect—which is not always reproduced at those gatherings of Volunteer officers which I have met in every part of the United Kingdom. I have found among Volunteer officers rather a different spirit. I saw that there was an expression of regret the other day on the part of a Volunteer officer that this circular had been given to the Press. I do not myself object to its contents becoming public property—as far as I am concerned it might be plastered all over St. Paul's—but the officer I refer to thought that it was a disadvantage that documents sent for the purpose of seeking information from commanding officers should immediately be sent to the newspapers, and I confess that I agree and that I appreciate the spirit of that officer. As I say, I think there is a very good soldierly spirit among Volunteer officers as a whole, and I do not plead guilty to this charge, that what I have done or what the Army Council has done has shaken the confidence or impaired the value of Volunteers.

Of course it will it will be said, as it has been said, that this is driving officers out of the force and diminishing the number of the men. Well. I should like in my own defenee to tell hon. Members what the facts are on this question. This disturbing element, which is represented at the present moment by myself, has had this effect or Volunteer officers. The last year, my first complete year in office, they diminished by fourteen. That is the smallest reduction in the number of Volunteer officers since the war ended. The number of officers now is 1,000 more than it was in 1895. I do not think that a reduction by fourteen is so vast that I ought to be charged with being a disturbing element.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Is the leakage not double what it was in 1898?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Well, I will give the hon. Member the figures I have here. The number of officers in 1898 was 8,354; the cumber in 1904 was 8,955. I should like now to say a word about the men. I do not think I have had a much more sinister influence on the men than I have had on the officers. The Volunteers now are 24,000 more than they were in 1899. But my hon. friend the Member for Kilmarnock said truly that good men had gone out of the Volunteer force, and I think he meant that they had gone out on account of the pressure of the camp regulations. That to a certain very limited extent is true. But what has happened is that the camp regulations did not drive men out of the Volunteer force in the sense that less men went into camp last year than before. Last year we had more Volunteers under canvas than we ever had before. The fact is that no less than 175,000 men went under canvas in Volunteer camps. That cannot be taken as an absolute proof of the unpopular and dangerous nature of the regulations. But there has been a relaxation this year, because I believe it is desirable to give some elasticity. The point my hon. friend refers to is this. There must be, especially in the large towns, a certain number of men who are of a class higher than that of the ordinary Volunteers, whose avocations do not permit them to spend a fortnight or even a week in camp. There are four or five battalions in London known popularly as "class corps," which have found these regulations very serious, and there has been a diminution in the corps which was quoted to-day, the Artists corps, and probably in three or four others. That is not common to the London corps, quite the contrary, but it has been the case with some of these regiments; and it is one of the problems connected with the Volunteer force to arrange regulations which shall suit the whole force and at the same time also suit certain battalions working undo peculiar conditions. I do not in the least believe that it is right to make the whole of the force after the pattern of these four or five battalions, nor do I think it is judicious to select battalions and label then as "class battalions." I think possibly it may be possible to make some equivalent in musketry or exercise of some kind for those men who, as we all know, would form excellent soldiers in time of war, but who cannot contribute this amount of time in peace. But I believe, as I have said that what we are aiming at is no objectionable to the Volunteer force as a whole.

I have been told, and, of course I know it, that the Volunteer force is a great voluntary force whose idiosyncrasies must be remembered and whose peculiar position must be considered. I do no think that I have ever made the mistake of forgetting it; and it would be idle to suppose that you can attempt any great change in the organisation of the force without a great amount of goodwill among those who are its leaders, I believe that we have that goodwill, and shall have it in an increasing measure when a great deal of this misrepresentation has been dispelled. I have before me here one of the Manchester papers, in which there appears a very severe article con-demningme and my plans, and I find side by side with this article a report of what is actually happening in Manchester. The article condemns the circular root and branch. It says the usual things about the thoughtless way in which it was issued, and so on; and I find, on the very next page, the statement that— Some of the commanding officers of Volunteers in Manchester have told Mr. Arnold-Forster that they were really anxious to mike the force a fighting machine, that redundant material must be sacrificed, and the whole of the citizen army brought up to a uniform standard. The commanding officers of the Manchester corps have already begun to make the order effective. The commanding officer of the 3rd Lancashire Royal Engineers has shown such care in selecting his men that very little fear is entertained of the working of the now order. When in camp at Ilkley, all the men in the battalion were examined by an officer of the Royal Army Medical Corps, and only two were in the least suspected of being under measurement. I turn again to the paper and I find that the officer commanding the 4th Battalion of the Manchester Eegiment— Fully sympathised with Mr. Arnold-Forster in his efforts to raise the Volunteer Force to the standard of fighting efficiency. All commanding officers he said, are, of course, anxious to have a sound and efficient body of men under their command, and he, with others, intended doing his best to meet the requirements of the Army Council. In the case of another great town I find an officer commanding a regiment in Middlesex says— It is deplorable that any commanding officer should have the credit of the force and the welfare of the country so little at heart as to tolerate the presence of such men (the physically unfit) in their regiments. Unfortunately the financial pressure and the need for numbers to satisfactorily swell the amount of the capitation grant, must, at times, dim the acuteness of vision of commanding and medical officers. The commanding officer of another, a country battalion, says— I think the War Office is fully justified in asking for information as to the number of Volunteers who are fit, from the physical point of view, for active service. It is useless, and worse than useless—because it gives a false idea of strength—to have men enrolled as Volunteers who would be unequal to the strain of active service. He oontinuus— It seems to me that the information asked for in the Circular is entirely reasonable Personally, I have no objection to a medical examination of my battalion, and it will take place during the August camp. If there are any men in my battalion unfit for active service, I should like to knew it. I have received communications from all parts of the country showing that the Volunteer officers are not only ready to obey any reasonable order, but that they are as anxious as we are to have this examination in order to make the work of the Army Council in time of war easier than it would otherwise be. I have endeavoured to work with the officers. I only regret that this debate has taken place to-day, because in a few days I am to have a fresh consultation with the Volunteer commanding officers from all parts of the country—a consultation that was arranged long before this Vote was put down. I believe entirely in working these matters in harmony with the Volunteer officers, and I repudiate the idea that this action was taken without reference to them. But what I have said would be quite in ufficient to convince hon. Members that they ought not to vote against this reduction if I could not add something constructive to it. The only possible ground on which we can ask the Volunteers to consent to any reduction is to give them something in exchange which they will value and which the country will also value; and this is what I propose. They are proposals that, if carried into effect, will enormously increase the efficiency of the Volunteers, and will meet definitely the difficulties of the Volunteer officers and men. But they will cost money. We want to change the incidence of the capitation grant. At present, practically every Volunteer, good, bad, or indifferent, is worth 35s.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

A third-class shot is worth only 10s.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

The return we have received indicates that the number of third-class shots has been reduced to the exiguous proportion of 02. If, therefore, my hon. friend will deduct 02 from my calculation the rest of it will remain. But while every Volunteer is practically worth 35s., there is no reason why a commanding officer should cease recruiting. Every Volunteer officer tell me that a fortnight's camp is not merely twice as good, but three or four times as good as a week's camp; but many Volunteers cannot do a fort-night's camp. We want to give those who can, however, a large inducement to do so. We want to give, not only to the selected "Field Army" battalions, but to all battalions, the opportunity o going, as far as their men are able to do so, into a fortnight's camp I made one mistake last year, of which I have repented. I thought the large amount of the camp grant we originally proposed would be adequate to recoup what the corps would lose if we took 15s. from the capitation grant for every Volunteer who did not go into camp. I was wrong; for, as I have been told, the camp grant is spent in camp, and the deduction would, therefore, be a net deduction from the sum available for the working expenses of the corps. That is true; and I think it ought to be met by increasing the capitation grant in respect of men who do go into camp. It might be accomplished by giving an extra 1s. a day for those who go into camp for a fortnight, deducting 15s. from the capitation grant for those who do not. The corps would then have the means of replacing by its merits what it would lose by its demerits. I have talked to many officers, and I believe that that arrangement would be very acceptable, though it may require to be modified by the grant being spread over those who go into camp for a week as well as those who go in for a fortnight. But, mark the result. You will, for the first time, put the Volunteer force on the same basis as the Yeomanry. You will give commanding officers the power to choose. The better your men the better your financial position will be.

I have been talking to Volunteer officers lately as to what may best be done. I have found that there is an expense falling on Volunteer officers for camp outside of that which ought to fall on them, as the expense is really incurred in the service of the country. We do not want to pay-Volunteer officers, but we do not want them to be out of pocket, and we should like to give them camp special allowances for a fortnight. It has been represented to mo that the pay of a subaltern would meet the case. As regards transport, it is perfectly true that we ought to have more transport for the Volunteers; I do not know that there is entire agreement as to how it is to be done. It is a moot point whether we should encourage such experiments as that recently made by an enterprising regiment in the South of England of starting a transport corps, or whether we should encourage battalions to find transport for themselves. I attach enormous importance to schools for non-commissioned officers. The question of men for the Volunteers is nothing to that of the officers and non-commissioned officers. You can train men in a hurry, but you cannot train officers. If I were given the money I would first of all relieve the officers I of their out-of-pocket expenses, and would enable the non-commissioned officers to attend schools. A divisional organisation for the Volunteers is to my mind a very important experiment to make, but whether it would be altogether what hon. Members suppose I do not know. Of course, the whole method of utilising the Volunteers at home must be affected by the principles we have adopted, which definitely exclude the maintenance of a great intrenched camp round London, and there must be a redistribution of our forces in accordance with the policy which we now think is the right one to adopt, and whether that will lend itself to a divisional organisation I do not know. But we ought to have some higher organisation for the Volunteer force.

I would say in conclusion that if I have gone against the opinion of any Volunteer officer in advancing the view that more training is necessary, I have erred in good company. Reference has been made to the sacrifices made by Japan in the present campaign. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen wish to convey the impression that Japan's victories have been won without effort, organisation, or preparation. I am led to believe that those victories are above all due to organisation, training, and preparation, and not principally to accurate shooting or to numbers, though those are important factors. There has, practically, not been a single man in the Japanese armies who has not passed through the regular training under Regular officers. That is an example we need not follow, but it is one we must not forget. I cannot recall more than one single instance in the history of modern warfare where a really untrained force has held its own against a trained army. ["The Boer War."] There could not be found a worse example; for the conditions of that war the Boers were most highly trained. But the only instance I can recall of success gained by untrained troops against a European army is the brief success of Andreas Hofer against the French in 1809.

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

referred to the case of the French revolutionary forces under Dumaurrez in 1792.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I admit that that is another case, but that was a very brief and a very peculiar campaign.

I can assure hon. Members that there is no concealment whatever in the circular which has been under discussion. It was prepared originally as a confidential document for the information of commanding officers. I believe that it was comprehended by them. It was published in a newspaper, and it was criticised on the point of form. When I found that it was a document published urbi et orbi, to be read by every one, I thought it should be made clear to all who studied it, and I caused it to be redrafted. But I assure the House that there was no ulterior motive in the circular except to ascertain now what is the material to be relied upon in time of war. We are making no new demand on the Volunteers, neither are we throwing any reproach upon them. I have explained as fully as I can what is the state of mind of the Army Council and myself with regard to the Volunteers. I have never spoken of the Volunteers in this House or out of it without expressing my appreciation of their military value, and I do not propose to do anything to diminish their value. I desire the reduction to be limited to that portion of the force not available for the purposes of war, but that is a matter of the future; there will be no serious reduction at the present time. I can only say that if we could be shown a means of carrying out these beneficial reforms without any reduction of the force I, at any rate, would welcome the information. I trust that I have dispelled the feeling apparently entertained that we have done something which was not desired in an endeavour to do what we believe to be in the interest of the Volunteer forces.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

appealed to the Committee to come to a decision on the Vote, because there was not much time to discuss the Secretary of State's Vote.

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES (Montgomery Boroughs)

asked whether the £300,000 or £400,000 which would be saved by the reduction of the Volunteers would be spent on the remainder of the force. [Cries of "Certainly."] They had to make that perfectly clean. If that were the case the House of Commons would establish the principle that the Volunteers were worthy of greater consideration. He hoped they would have some assurance on that point.

*SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech mentioned a great many good things that he said could be done and which he desired to see done for the Volunteers; but I understood from him that he had no money to do them with, and that was his position. He has given us purely a Barmecide Budget, and I do not think there is any prospect of it being realised. Therefore, if that is so, it is hardly a satisfactory Answer to the undoubted, grievances and suspicions with regard to the Volunteers. A second Question I would ask is this. Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman repeats the expression that he formerly made as to the reduction of the Volunteers? What he said has already been quoted, but it is very difficult to get an explicit Answer. He said— I propose to fix the establishment of the Volunteers at 200,000, and to reduce the strength, by absorption in the first instance, to 180,000. That is an implication that the process will go on beyond the 180,000.

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

No; that is not so.

*SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Then what does it mean?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

It means that this will take place in the first instance by absorption. The reason for that limit is that I had to calculate with the funds at my disposal what was the sum necessary to carry out the whole of the proposals which I desired to carry out. That sum represents the capitation grant and expenses and other items for that number of men, namely, 180,000. I have since said that the reduction is to be exceedingly gradual unless a much larger sum is available. It must absolutely depend upon the Army expenditure of this year. The War Office cannot spend the whole of the money in the next year, but they have already made a beginning. The Answer to the Question addressed to me by my hon. friend was that the consideration referred to must depend on the Army expenditure of the year. We have had forced upon us the necessity of a large reduction in the Army expenditure My hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Wight has proposed that we should cut off forty battalions of the Regular Army.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition is in prossession of the House.

*SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman adheres or does not adhere to the statement—he speaks for himself and seldom speaks of the Government—that it is his intention to reduce the strength of the Volunteers in the first instance to 180,000? If he is not going to reduce them below that number at any time, what is the meaning of those words?

*MR. ARNOLD - FORSTER

The words seem to me to bear no obscurity. There never has been, and there is not now, any intention of reducing the number of the Volunteers below 180,000.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the statement that

the reduction is to be to 180,000 men or not?

*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that they had no further funds available for the Volunteers than were available now, and they could only secure the benefits intended to be conferred by that reduction.

Question put—

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 232. (Division List No. 280.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E. Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Lamont, Norman
Ainsworth, John Stirling Emmott, Alfred Langley, Batty
Allen, Charles P. Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Ashton, Thomas Gair Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Lawson, Sic Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. HerbertHenry Eve, Harry Trelawney Layland-Barratt, Francis
Austin, Sir John Fenwick, Charles Levy, Maurice
Baker, Joseph Allen Ferguson, R. C. (Munro Leith) Lewis, John Herbert
Barlow, John Emmott Findlay, Alexander (LanarkNE Lloyd-George, David
Beaumont Wentworth, C. B. Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond Lough, Thomas
Black, Alexander William Flavin, Michael Joseph Lundon, W.
Boland, John Flynn, James Christopher Lyell, Charles Henry
Bolton, Thomas Dolling Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Fowler, Rt. Hon, Sir Henry MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Brigg, John Freeman-Thomas Captain F. M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Bright, Allen Heywood Fuller, J. M. F. M'Kean, John
Broadhurst, Henry Furness, Sir Christopher M'Kenna, Reginald
Brown, George M.(Edinburgh Gladstone, Rt. Hn.HerbertJohn M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson Goddard, Daniel Ford Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Grant, Corrie Markham, Arthur Basil
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Mooney, John J.
Burke, E. Haviland Griffith, Ellis J. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Burns, John Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Burt, Thomas Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Morley, Rt. Hn. John(Montrose)
Buxton, N.E.(York, NRWhitby Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B, Moss, Samuel
Buxton, Sydney Charles(Poplar Harcourt, Lewis Murphy, John
Caldwell, James Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil Newnes, Sir George
Cameron Robert Harmsworth, R. Leicester Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo. Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Causton, Richard Knight Hayden, John Patrick Norman, Henry
Channing, Francis Allston Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cheetham, John Frederick Helme, Norval Watson Nussey, Thomas Willans
Churchill, Winston Spencer Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid
Condon, Thomas Joseph Higham, John Sharp O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark) Hobhouse, O. E. H. (Bristol, E. O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Cremer, William Randal Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C, O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
Crombie, John William Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Crooks, William Hutton, Alfred E. Morley O'Dowd, John
Cullinan, J. Isaacs, Rufus Daniel O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dalziel, James Henry Jacoby, James Alfred O'Malley, William
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Jones, David Brynmor(Swansea O'Mara, James
Delany, William Jones, Leif (Appleby) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Parrott, William
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Joyce, Michael Partington, Oswald
Dobbie, Joseph Kearley, Hudson, E. Paulton, James Mellor
Donelan, Captain A. Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W Pearson, Sir Weetman D.
Doogan, P. C. Kitson, Sir James Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Labouchere, Henry Perks, Robert William
Duncan, J. Hastings Lambert, George Philipps, John Wynford
Edwards, Frank Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Power, Patrick Joseph
Elibank, Master of
Ellice, CaptEC(SAndr'ws B'ghs
Price, Robert John Shipman, Dr. John G. Ure, Alexander
Priestley, Arthur Sinclair, John (Forfarahire) Villiers, Ernest Amherst
Rea, Russell, Smith, Samuel (Flint) Wallace, Robert
Reckitt, Harold James Soames, Arthur Wellesley Walton, John Lawson(Leeds S.
Reddy, M. Soares, Ernest J. Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford Spencer, Rt Hn C R (Northants Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Reid, Sir R. Threshie(Dumfries Stanhope, Hon. Philip James Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan
Rickett, J. Compton Strachey, Sir Edward Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Sullivan, Donal Weir, James Galloway
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Taylor, Thoedore C. (Radcliffe White, George (Norfolk)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Tennant, Harold John Whiteley, George (York, W.R)
Rose, Charles Day Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Runciman, Walter Thomas, Sir A. (Gfamorgan, E. Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Russell, T. W. Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Samuel, Herbert L, (Cleveland Thomas, JA(Glamorgan,Gower Wilson, Henry J.(York, W. R.
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R Woodhouse, Sir J.T(Huddersf'd
Shackleton, David James Tillett, Louis John Yoxall, James Henry
Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Tomkinson, James
Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) Toulmin, George TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sheehy, David Trevelyan, Charles Philips Mr. MeCrae and Major Seely.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Chamberlain, RtHn. JA. (Wore. Gruville, Hon. Ronald
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Chapman, Edward Guthrie, Walter Murray
Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden Clive, Captain Percy A. Hain, Edward
Allsopp, Hon. George Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse Hambro, Charles Eric
Arkwright, John Stanhope Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Hamilton, Marq.of(L'nd'nderry
Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.HughO Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Asbford
Arrol, Sir William Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Hare, Thomas Leigrh
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Haslam, Sir Alfred S.
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Hay, Hon. Claude George
Bailey, James (Walworth) Dalkeith, Earl of Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley
Bain, Colonel James Robert Dalrymple, Sir Charles Heath, Sir James (Staftords.NW
Baird, John George Alexander Davenport, William Bromley Heaton, John Honniker
Balcarres, Lord Dickinson, Robert Edmond Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.
Baldwin, Alfred Dickson, Charles Scott Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r Dimadale, Rt. Hn. SirJoseph C. Hickman, Sir Alfred
Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Hill, Henry Staveley
Balfour, Rt. HnGerald W.(Leeds Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E. Hoare, Sir Samuel
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Doughty, Sir George Hogg, Lindsay
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside
Banner, John S. Harmood- Duke, Henry Edward Hoult, Joseph
Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Houston, Robert Paterson
Hartley, Sir George C. T. Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Howard, John (Kent, Faversham
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Faber, Edmund B. (Hants. W. Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham
Bentinck, Lord Henry C. Faber, George Denison (York) Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw. Hunt, Rowland
Bignold, Sir Arthur Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Jameson, Major J. Eustace
Bill, Charles Finlay, R. Hn Sir RB(Inv'rn'ss Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse
Bingham, Lord Fisher, William Hayes Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.
Blundell, Colonel Henry Fison, Frederick William Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton
Bond, Edward Flannery, Sir Fortescue Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.
Bousfield, William Robert Flower, Sir Ernest Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T.(Denbigh
Brassey, Albert Forster, Henry William Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Foster, PhilipS. (Warwick, S.W. Keswick, William
Brotherton, Edward Allen Gardner, Ernest King, Sir Henry Seymour
Brymer, William Ernest Garfit, William Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Bull, William James Gibba, Hon. A. G. H. Lee, Arthur H.(Hants. Fareham
Butcher, John George Gordon, MajEvans- (T'rH'mlets Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.
Cantley, Henry Strother Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Lewellyn, Evan Henry
Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire Green, WalfordD.(Wednesbury Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.
Cayzer, Sir Charles William Greene, Henry D. Shrewsbury) Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich Grenfell, William Henry Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Lowe, Francis William Pretyman, Ernest George Strntt, Hon Charles Hedley
Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Purvis, Robert Thorburn, Sir Walter
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Pym, C. Guy Thornton, Percy M.
Macdona, John Gumming Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne Tollemaehe, Henry James
M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Ratcliff, R. F. Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff) Tritton, Charles Ernest
Malcolm, Ian Reid, James (Greenock) Tuff, Charles
Manners, Lord Cecil Remnant, James Farquharson Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H.E.(Wigt'n Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Turnour, Viscount
Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriesshire Ridley, S. Forde Walker, Col. William Hall
Mildmay, Francis Bingham Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.
Milner, Rt. Hon. SirFrederickG. Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Warde, Colonel C. K.
Milvain, Thomas Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E (Taunton
Mitchell, William (Burnley) Rolleston, Sir John F. L. Welby, Sir Charles G E (Notts.
Moles worth, Sir Lewis Round, Rt. Hon. James Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne
Morgan, DavidJ (Walthamstow Royds, Clement Molyneux Whitmore, Charles Algornon
Morrell, George Herbert Rutherford, John (Lancashire Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Morrison, James Archibald Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Wilson, A. Stanley(York, E.R.)
Mount, William Arthur Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J. Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks)
Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Scott, Sir S. (Marleybone, W, Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath) Seton-Karr, Sir Henry Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Myers, William Henry Sharpe, William Edward T. Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart
Parkes, Ebenezer Skewes-Cox, Thomas Wyndham, Rt. Hon George
Pease, HerbertPike (Darlington Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley Smith, Rt Hn J Parker(Lanarks Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Pemberton, John S. G. Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand
Percy, Earl Spear, John Ward TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Pierpoint, Robert Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Pilkington, Colonel Richard Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M and Viscount Valentia.
Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Stone, Sir Benjamin

Original Question again proposed.

And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening,