§ As amended, considered.
§ *MR. C. P. SCOTT (Lancashire, Leigh)
The object of the proviso which I desire to move is to make it necessary that within ten days of calling out the Volunteers Parliament shall be summoned. That provision already applies in the case of the Reserve forces. Under Clause 13 of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, it is necessary that Parliament should be called together within ten days of the calling out of the Reserve forces, and the words of the clause I have put down are taken from that Act. It is true that no such provision is contained in the Volunteers Act, and it has never been necessary that Parliament should be called together when the Volunteers were called out. If the Volunteers Act remained as it has been hitherto there would be no necessity for a clause of this kind; but that Act is being very greatly changed by the Bill now before us, and the conditions under which the Volunteers may be called out are enormously extended. Instead of being perfectly definite they have become very indefinite, so that it is quite impossible for anybody to say exactly under what conditions in future Volunteers may not be called out. Under these circumstances it seems to me that the provision which was found necessary in the case of the Reserve forces is at least as necessary in the case of the Volunteers. The Under Secretary of State for War, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, referred to this matter. He spoke of the provision in the Reserve Forces Act as being to some extent unnecessary, and he appeared to think it was a sort of sacrifice on the altar of Whig traditions. I do not think that at all, and I do not believe anybody, at any rate on this side of the House, would think it right that the Reserve forces should be called out without Parliament being summoned. Nobody will dispute the 234 gravity of the circumstances which alone would justify the calling out of the Volunteers. The Under Secretary has stated that within the first month of calling out the Volunteers the cost to the country would be at least £3,000,000. On the ground of cost alone it is necessary that Parliament should be called together very speedily. The main ground on which I advocate this provision is that the terms of the Bill as it stands are extremely vague, and when a grave step of this kind is taken, the least you can do is to call Parliament together within the shortest time practicable. It may be alleged, on the other hand, that Parliament, in any case, would be called together, because you will not call out the Volunteers until you have called out the Reserve forces, and when you do that you will be obliged to call Parliament together. The effect of that argument is to show that this provision would be superfluous, but I am not at all sure that it is superfluous. It is conceivable that the Reserve forces might have already been called out, and that Parliament might have been called together in accordance with the Act, and might have adjourned. It is not true to say that we have perfect security as things stand. The Under Secretary for War, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, spoke of the unnecessary scruples of Parliament in introducing this provision in the Reserve Forces Act, and he said that provision was introduced to meet dangers which, to a large extent, were illusory. He said that those dangers were killed and buried by our ancestors nearly 200 years ago, and he went on to say that if anyone wished to perform ceremonial rites over their graves he should have no objection to them moving to insert an Amendment. I therefore hope that the Under Secretary will accept this Amendment, in accordance with the undertaking which he gave us in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 1, line 8, after the word 'emergency,' to insert the words, 'Provided always, that whenever Her Majesty directs the calling out of the Volunteer forces for actual military service, if Parliament be then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within ten days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet
and sit upon the day appointed of such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.'"—(Mr. C. P. Scott.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
I venture to hope that the hon. Gentleman, on the part of the Government, will accept this Amendment, and I hope with greater confidence because of those words which my lion, friend has just quoted in which the Under Secretary for War practically expressed his willingness to accept an Amendment of this kind if it were pressed upon him. As a matter of common practical experience, it is desirable to have some limitation upon the power of calling out the Volunteers involved in a question of actual invasion, that there should be some check placed upon any wantonness or inconsiderateness in using this power of calling out the Volunteers, and that check is naturally to be found in the necessity of calling Parliament together. As my hon. friend has pointed out, after all, that is no inconvenience to the authorities or the Executive, because when they decide to call out the Volunteers they must have previously embodied the Militia and called out the Reserves. There is no reason why we should not have in this Bill, as a necessary safeguard, the stipulation which has been found to be necessary in the case of the other forces mentioned. I think the hon. Member, even if he regards it as superfluous, may very well accept it, and I hope he will, in view of what he said on the Second Reading, allow this Amendment to be inserted in the Bill.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. WYNDHAM,) Dover
The Leader of the Opposition has said that on the Second Reading of this Bill I expressed my willingness to accept an Amendment of this character, but I should have thought that unwillingness would have been a more accurate description of the tone of my remarks on that subject. I do not think the criticisms which have been made have been addressed to the difficulties which we should have to face should any occasion arise for the calling out of the Volunteers. I stated in a previous speech that in 236 former times the nation was jealous of such power because they feared it might be used to restrict the liberties of the people, and they feared the standing armies of William III. and George II. because the existence of such armies might entangle them in continental quarrels. But that fear existed in respect of standing armies which they thought could be used to put down the liberties of the people or might be used on the continent of Europe. The Volunteers could not be used for either one or the other purpose. They could not be used for restricting the liberties of the people, and they could not be removed from our shores. This is not a practical Amendment, and I would urge upon the hon. Member who has moved it, and upon the Leader of the Opposition, that if this Amendment has any effect, that effect will not be the one which they seek, but just the opposite. The introduction of this Amendment into the Bill will cast doubt upon what I claim to be the fact, that this Act does not alter in any degree the purpose for which the Volunteer forces exist. The Volunteer forces exist to repel invasion, and all that we ask for is that words should not be put into the mouth of the Sovereign, which would be extremely inconvenient during a great crisis. The fact that the Volunteers exist only to repel invasion remains as true when this Bill is passed as it was before. It would cost £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to call out the Volunteers of this country, and a fortnight's pay, without all the appurtenances and munitions of war, has cost the country £750,000 this summer. Therefore, I think it is idle to pretend that any Government will call out the Volunteers under these circumstances except in the case of an apprehended invasion, and they could not be called out for any other purpose. Then said the Leader of the Opposition, there are no inconveniences could attach to the acceptance of such an Amendment. That is precisely what the Amendment would do, for it would create inconvenience. It would lay down at a time when every department is overstrained to meet a great crisis that Parliament is to meet upon, say, a Wednesday instead of upon a Friday or Wednesday week. It would have just that effect and nothing more. You could not call out the Volunteers to repel an invasion, because this proposal would lay down that Parlia- 237 ment should meet on that day ten days. I think that would be a very inconvenient provision to add to the many difficulties with which the Executive Government would have to cope upon such an occasion. I must therefore ask the Committee not to accept this Amendment, and I cannot admit that I am bound to accept it by my speech on the Second Heading. I think I have always been careful to observe and fulfil any undertakings which I have given, but I did in that speech all I could to induce the House to accept the Bill which I brought in. The House did not accept that Bill. There must be give and take in these matters, and having given more than my pound of flesh, perhaps I may be allowed to take the sense of the House upon my right to resist this Amendment.
§ MR. CALDWELL
said the words proposed were exactly the same as those in the Reserve Forces Act, and the Amendment proposed to take exactly the same procedure. The Under Secretary seemed to think that it was an extraordinary thing when the Volunteers wore called out that Parliament should be called together within ton days, but that was the very provision in the case of calling out the Reserve forces. Did anyone imagine that they were going to call out the Volunteers in a great emergency without having first called out the Reserve forces? Such a thing was inconceivable. Having discarded the words "actual invasion" and adopted "imminent national danger," all they were asked by this Amendment was that when they did call out the Volunteers they should call Parliament together in the very same way as they were bound to do when they called out the Reserve forces. He could not understand why those words should be objected to. It was all very well to say that the Volunteers could not be sent out of the country; but in the event of a national danger an Act could be passed in one single night to call out the Volunteers, because Parliament could do anything. Those who seem to think that the Volunteers only existed to defend this country were mistaken, because Parliament could pass an Act to-morrow to send the Volunteers abroad if necessary. If they did call out the Volunteers it ought to be necessary that they should call Parliament together, and he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)
said the hon. Member had already told them that it was impossible to call out the Volunteers until the Reserves had been called out. Therefore if the Reserves were called out first Parliament would be called together, and therefore there was no necessity for the Amendment.
§ MR. CALDWELL
said his point was that they should not give power to call out the Volunteer forces without first calling Parliament together.
§ MR. TOMLINSON
pointed out that when the Reserves were called out Parliament would have to be called together, and this was necessary because they would have to vote the money.
said he had listened with much surprise to the reply of the Under Secretary for War. It seemed to him that the whole effect of that reply was to minimise the usefulness of the measure which was now before Parliament. He wished to speak seriously of these proposals, and it seemed to him that if this Bill meant anything at all it meant that the whole question of making the Volunteers a useful defensive force implied that they must treat them as a whole by some definite method, and not as more machinery for obtaining recruits for the Regular Army at a time of emergency. That was not the way to treat them if the Volunteers were to be considered as a serious force for the defence of the country. The change in the words was undoubtedly a very serious one, for it placed power in the hands of the Ministry to call out the Volunteers upon a wholly different footing. To have the power of calling out 250,000 men absolutely at the disposal of the Ministry without any constitutional check such as they had under the Reserve Forces Act seemed to him to be illogical, inconsistent, and unconstitutional. If the Volunteers were to be called out simply for filling up the ranks of the Regular Army, why not say so? He disputed altogether the advisability of placing such a force without any constitutional check at the disposal of the Ministers of the Crown. This was a very serious constitutional question, and he must say that he did not think it had been disposed of by the arguments of the Under Secretary for War. If the hon. Gentleman considered 239 that point and the vast importance of treating the Volunteers as an organised army for home defence, and not a mere feeding ground for the Regular Army, he would see that it was necessary that we should have some constitutional check with regard to this matter, such as was provided in the case of the Reserve forces.
§ *MR. JONATHAN SAMUEL (Stockton)
I wish to interpose with a few words in support of this Amendment. I think this proposal is a very reasonable one, and one which ought to be accepted by the Government. The change in the words of the Act of 1863 in reference to the calling out of the Volunteers from "actual or apprehended invasion" to "imminent national danger or great emergency" is a great change, and one which the House of Commons is entitled, as the representatives of the people, to know the reason why. There is a remarkable change going on in public opinion in reference to the question of war, and upon the question whether Parliament has any control whatever over the declaration of war or over the policy of the Government. I have here a very eminent authority which I wish to quote, because in former years it was considered by some Members of the House that Parliament should have some knowledge or should be consulted before even a declaration of war took place. We all know that that is a power given to the Crown upon the advice of the Ministers, and Parliament is not even consulted when war is declared. In 1878 I find that when the Afghan War took place the Opposition at that time took a very strong line of action against that war, and the official section of the Liberal party put up Mr. Whitbread to move a resolution in condemnation of that war; and what do I find? I find in reading this debate † that no less an authority than the present Colonial Secretary moved an Amendment or put down an Amendment to that motion which was moved by Mr. Whitbread. It was quite in harmony with the Amendment now moved by the lion. Member for Leigh. We all know that the Colonial Secretary changes his views so often that to quote them will not have much influence with the House of Com-† See The Parliamentary Debates [Third Series], Vol. ccxlix., p. 176.240 mons. The Amendment moved by Colonial Secretary was—That this House regrets that in the present instance the consent of the nation through its representatives in this House was not obtained before war was declared.That was the Amendment moved by the Colonial Secretary to the official Amendment condemning the policy of the war which led up to the outbreak of war in Afghanistan in 1878. The official motion was not strong enough for the Colonial Secretary, and ho put down this Amendment, which, I am sorry to say, was ruled out of order, but it showed the intention of the Colonial Secretary, and anyone who reads his speech will find that it was a strong condemnation of the Government for declaring war in 1878 without the consent of Parliament and without their knowledge. I think hon. Members are quite justified in asking that before the Volunteers are called out Parliament should be summoned, and that we should understand the policy of the Government. I thought it right to call attention to the remarkable declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary in 1878, because what was his policy then in this matter should be his policy now. I strongly support my hon. friend.
§ CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (Forfarshire)
said the Government wore applying to the Volunteer force the same conditions as were applied to the Militia and the Reserve forces. The wording was identical, and it was only rational for the outside observer to suppose that if these conditions were applied to what was the third line of defence, the same precautions would be adopted with regard to a force which would only be required on certain occasions of grave emergency. Since October the Reserves had been called out and the embodiment of the Militia hail been enforced, and if during the recess circumstances arose which necessitated the calling up of the Volunteers it was not unreasonable to suggest that Parliament should insist upon the same precautions being taken with regard to them as had been taken with regard to the other forces. He could not see that that would unduly fetter the action of the Executive which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was so jealous to guard.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 58; Noes, 109. (Division List No. 253.)201
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (Cy of Lond.||More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Godson, Sir A. Frederick||Morrison, James A. (Wilts.,S.)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo.'s||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Goulding, Edward Alfred||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorrell||Halsey, Thomas Frederick||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Beach, Rt. Hn.Sir M. H. (Bristol||Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.||Pollock, Harry Frederick|
|Bethell, Commander||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.||Purvis, Robert|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Rasch, Major Frederick Carne|
|Bigwood, James||Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)|
|Bond, Edward||Hill, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Staffs.)||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Brassey, Albert||Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon St. John||Howard, Joseph||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Bullard, Sir Harry||Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.||Round, James|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Seely, Charles Hilton|
|Cayzer, Sir Charles William||Lafone, Alfred||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Sidebottom, W. (Derbyshire)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(Corn||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Chamberlain, J Austen(Worc'r||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'e||Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.||Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier|
|Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd||Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Crilly, Daniel||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)||Lowe, Francis William||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Curzon, Viscount||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)||Lucas-Shadwell, William||Usborne, Thomas|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Macaleese, Daniel||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Drage, Geoffrey||Macdona, John Gumming||Welby,Lt. -Col. A. C E(Taunt'n|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Wharton, Rt. Hon.JohnLloyd|
|Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-under-L.|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.||M'Killop, James||Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r||Malcolm, Ian||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Finch, George H.||Marks, Henry Hananel||Wylie, Alexander|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir Herbert E.||Wyndham, George|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Flower, Ernest||Middlemore, John T.|
|Fox, Dr. Francis Joseph||Molloy, Bernard Charles||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Garfit, William||Monckton, Edward Philip||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Gedge, Sydney||Monk, Charles James|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Fenwick, Charles|
|Asquith, Rt Hon Herbert Henry||Burt, Thomas||Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Buxton, Sydney Charles||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Caldwell, James||Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley|
|Baker, Sir John||Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Haldane, Richard Burdon|
|Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.||Channing, Francis Allston||Harwood, George|
|Billson, Alfred||Colville, John||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-|
|Birrell, Augustine||Dewar, Arthur||Hazell, Walter|
|Blake, Edward||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Hedderwick, Thomas Chas. H.|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn||Donelan, Captain A.||Hogan, James Francis|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||Doogan, P. C.||Holland, William Henry|
|Brigg, John||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||Horniman, Frederick John|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Duckworth, James||Jameson, Major J. Eustace|
|Jones,(Carnarvonshire.)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Spicer, Albert|
|Labouchere, Henry||O'Dowd, John||Strachey, Edward|
|Langley, Batty||O'Malley, William||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham||Tennant, Harold John|
|Lloyd-George, David||Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)||Wallace, Robert|
|M'Arthur, Willaim (Cornwall||Pickard, Benjamin||Walton, J. Lawson, (Leeds, S.)|
|M'Ewan, William||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim||Power, Patrick Joseph||Whiteley, George (Stockport)|
|M'Kenna, Reginald||Price, Robert John||Wills, Sir William Henry|
|Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe||Priestley, Briggs||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh||Wilson, John (Govan)|
|Morgan, W Pritcbard (Merthyr||Reid, Sir Robert Threshie||Woodhouse, Sir J.T (Hud'rsf'ld|
|Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)||Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)||Woods, Samuel|
|Moss, Samuel||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Moulton, John Fletcher||Scott, Chas. Prestwich(Leigh)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire||Mr. Herbert Gladstone and Mr. Causton.|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)||O'Malley, William|
|Asher, Alexander||Duckworth, James||Pickersgill, Edware Hare|
|Atherley-Jones, L.||Emmott, Alfred||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)||Fenwick, Charles||Provand, Andrew Dryburgh|
|Billson, Alfred||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Bramsdon, Thomas Arthur||Griffith, Ellis J.||Runciman Walter|
|Brigg, John||Hazell, Walter||Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarsh.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Burt, Thomas||Holland, William Henry||Strachey, Edward|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Horniman, Frederick John||Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)|
|Caldwell, James||Langley, Batty||Tanner, Charles Kearns|
|Cameron, Robert (Durham)||Macaleese, Daniel||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||MacDonnell, Dr.M.A.(Q'n'sC.||Tully, Jasper|
|Cawley, Frederick||M'Hugh, Patrick A. (Leitrim)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Channing, Francis Allston||M'Kenna, Reginald||Woods, Samuel|
|Colville, John||Molloy, Bernard Charles||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Crilly, Daniel||Moss, Samuel|
|Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Dewar, Arthur||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.||Mr. Scott, and Mr. Jonathan Samuel.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Doogan, P. C.||U'Dowd, John|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gibbons, J. Lloyd||Nicol, Donal Ninian|
|Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis||Gibbs, Hon. A.G.H. (C.of Lond.||Phillpotts, Captain Arthur|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Giles, Charles Tyrrell||Purvis, Robert|
|Balcarres, Lord||Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W(Leeds||Goschen, George J. (Sussex)||Ridley, Rt. Hn. Sir Matthew W.|
|Barnes, Frederic Gorell||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson|
|Beach, Rt Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney|
|Big wood, James||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Round, James|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill||Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)|
|Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Win.||Sidebottom, William(Derbysh.|
|Butcher, John George||Haslett, Sir James Horner||Simeon, Sir Barrington|
|Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire||Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hon. J. (Birm.||Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Chamberlain. J Austen (Worc'r||Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand|
|Clare, Octavius Leigh||Jessel, Captain Herbort Merton||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Kimber, Henry||Strauss, Arthur|
|Cohen, Benjamin Louis||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Lawrence, Sir E Durning-(C'rn.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Colston, Chas. Edwd H Athole||Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)||Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray|
|Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)||Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a||Tritton, Charles Ernest|
|Cox, Irwin Edward Bain bridge||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller||Warr, Augustus Frederick|
|Curzon, Viscount||Lowe, Francis William||Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton|
|Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Whiteley, H (Ashton-under-L.|
|Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon||Lucas-Snadwell, William||Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm|
|Donkin, Richard Sim||Macdona, John Cumming||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Maclver, David (Liverpool)||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||M'Killop, James||Wrightsen, Sir Thomas|
|Drage, Geoffrey||Marks, Henry Hananel||Wylie, Alexander|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)||Wyndham, George|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r||Middlemore, John T.||Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arcy|
|Finch, George H.||Monckton, Edward Philip||Young, Commander (Berks, E.)|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||More, R. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Flower, Ernest||Muntz, Philip A.||Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Garfit, William||Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)|
was not sanguine of obtaining more favourable consideration for his Amendment than had been accorded to the one which preceded it. Still, as the first clause of the Bill imposed greater obligations on the Volunteer force, and as it had always been the practice heretofore where obligations were 242 increased to insert certain provisos, it was only right to insert one in this case. He begged to move.
In page 1, line 8, after the word 'emergency,' to insert the words, 'provided always, that nothing in this section shall apply with-
out his consent to a man enrolled in any corps of Volunteers at the passing of this Act.'"—(Captain Sinclair.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said he had urged, without success apparently, that this change laid no increased obligation upon the Volunteers. Of course it was a matter of opinion, but that was the opinion which he had formed. At the first blush there was a case for the Amendment, and he confessed that at one time he was in favour of some such provision as that proposed. The suggestion was, however, very carefully considered during the drafting of the Bill, and upon the whole it was felt that the objections to it outweighed the arguments in its favour. There was one fatal objection to the Amendment—namely, that it would divide, possibly for ten, fifteen, or eighteen years, the Volunteers into two sections.
§ MR. C. P. SCOTT
thought it was perfectly obvious, in spite of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, that this change did increase the obligations of the Volunteer force. The whole difficulty might be got over by obtaining the consent of the men themselves, which would be obtained to the extent of ninety-nine out of every hundred. But to lay an increased obligation upon them without their consent was most reprehensible.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
In accordance with the promise I gave on a former occasion, I propose to move this Amendment. It was argued for some time in Committee that it would never do to enumerate all the places where Volunteers might be employed, and it would not do to attempt to define the exact type of Volunteer who might be employed. The Amendment I now move will, I think, meet the case.
In page 1, line 12, after the word 'time,' to insert the words 'for the purposes of coast defence.'"—(Mr. Wyndham.)
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN
did not think the Amendment did actually all that was asked, but he confessed he could not suggest a better form.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Bill read the third time, and passed, with an Amendment.