§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (Wallsall)I do not intend to oppose the general 1190 scope of this Bill. I think it is a very good thing that the regular forces of the Crown and the Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers should all be under one and the same law. But what is very remarkable in this Bill is that it does not do that at all. In the first clause it is provided that it shall only apply to yeomen who enlist or take commissions in the Yeomanry after 1st August in the present year. The result of that will be that the Yeomanry will be under two different laws. All enlisted in the present regiments will be under one law, and will be liable to be called out for a much shorter period of training, while all who enlist from the 1st August in any regiment of the Yeomanry will remain out 1191 for a longer period. The result will be that three-fourths of a regiment may be able to disappear after eight days training, for excluding the day marching in and the day marching out, that is the number available. A subsequent clause of the Bill provides that the Yeomanry are to come out for a minimum of eighteen days. The reason why the War Office have introduced this Bill is that they did not like to induce the present yeomen to extend their term of service. I myself think it would have been better to have got all the officers and men in the present regiments to resign, and re-enlist under the new conditions. I should also like to ask if it is not a very dangerous experiment to extend the period of the training of the yeomen from eight to eighteen days. At the present moment we have only 15,000, and we have seldom been able to train more than 10,000 or 11,000 men. The number is now to be raised to 35,000, and the number of days of training is to be increased from eight to eighteen. I think that is a very dangerous experiment, and I know that in the south of England the loss of two market days will operate against enlistment. It is of capital importance that we should make things as comfortable as we can for the Yeomanry, and not give them hard terms of service; and for my part I do not believe that the payment of 5s. a day is sufficient to induce men to join under more arduous conditions than at present. The term of service for the Militia field artillery is now to be extended from sixty days to eighty-four. This is a very great extension of time, and I think it cannot fail to militate against the service.
§ SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)said that with the part of the Bill which dealt with the Militia field artillery he cordially agreed. It was what had been suggested for a considerable time by those who, like himself, were not wedded to the present system. The present action of the Government dispelled a doubt as to their intention as regarded Volunteer field artillery. He had never favoured a purely Volunteer system of field artillery. The great advantage of a Militia field artillery had apparently become 1192 clear to the Government. There was nothing about Volunteer artillery in this Bill, and they might therefore take it that the feeling of the Government at present was that the prospect of obtaining a large force of Volunteer field artillery was not great, and they therefore only intended to maintain a few batteries here and there for the purpose of show, rather than anything else, and that the Militia field artillery would be the main force upon which the country would rely for the home army. His right hon. friend had suggested whether the time for training was not too long; the Swiss had been successful in making a magnificent Militia field artillery, and their period of training was a short one; but then a larger proportion of the Swiss population were more used to out-door life and more used to judging distance on their mountains than any people this country could obtain, and therefore, in his opinion, the time of training suggested that the Militia field artillery was not in any way too long. But while he cordially approved of that part of the Bill, he had the greatest possible doubt with regard to the Yeomanry part of the Bill. His right hon. friend had used an expression which showed the danger against which the Government had to guard; he used the expression that the Government would not get the men unless they made it comfortable for them; but these were the cavalry upon which the Government were relying, and the mounted infantry as well, and it was impossible to get either cavalry or mounted infantry worthy of the name without proper and adequate training. Whilst he believed thoroughly in the civilian soldier for the purposes of war so far as the infantry private was concerned, and that they could be trained very quickly, he altogether disbelieved that an efficient cavalry soldier or mounted infantry man could be made without considerable training. The cutting down of the training of these men was a mere delusion—dust cast in the eyes of the nation. It would not make cavalry or mounted infantry, it would not make efficient troops. The Government had the rooted fallacy fixed in their minds—that they could make cavalry or mounted infantry out of men and horses, whether the men had 1193 ever seen the horses or not. The levies sent out to South Africa in the winter and spring were, as they heard now from officers at the front, not fit to cope with the mounted forces of the Boers, although they had been there six months. Yet the Government were going to continue, apparently, in the firm belief that they could make cavalry from these Imperial yeomen with a slight amount of training. Efficient cavalry could not be made in this manner. It was a delusion, for which the country would have to pay heavily in the future. With regard to the Yeomanry portion of the Bill, he doubted whether the Government would be able to get the increased number of men they required from the same class that these men were now drawn from. A good deal might be done in a few days for a crack Yeomanry regiment; the recruits drawn would be persons of some intellect and education, and they would learn a good deal in a few days, but the largely increased number of men that the Government required must be drawn from other classes. As a matter of fact, the Government were trying to get their cavalry on the cheap, and the result would be that the men obtained would not be cavalry, and would not be mounted infantry, and they would not be efficient, except that small portion who would continue to be drawn from the class which recruited the crack Yeomanry regiments.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.)said that this Bill was of sufficient importance to have had some explanation given of it by the Secretary of State for War. Last year 8,600 Yeomanry, out of an enrolled strength of over 10,000, went out to training. The number was 1,866 under the strength of their establishment, and in face of that deficiency in their numbers the Government came forward with a proposal to increase the nominal strength of a new mounted force up to 35,000 men. It followed that the composition of the new force as far as personnel was concerned must be radically different from the personnel of the old Yeomanry cavalry. That force had hitherto been recruited mainly from tenant farmers and country gentlemen, but the numbers being so increased it would be impossible to 1194 recruit entirely from that class in the future. The new Yeomanry must be drawn from other classes, tradesmen of the country towns or else those of the middle classes who had the leisure to devote to service of this kind. It would follow that the non-commissioned officers and privates, being themselves employers of labour, and able to devote a consecutive fortnight to the service, would be largely replaced by persons not employers of labour but employees, and it was extremely improbable that employers would be able to let off a sufficient number of young men who would be able at the same time to give fourteen days consecutive service to the Yeomanry. It was for that reason he deprecated the hard and fast line laid down by the Bill of a period of fourteen days for the training of the Yeomanry. This Bill was really part of an ambitious scheme, and what was necessary in providing an increased force of mounted men was that the Secretary of State should create some regiments of regular mounted infantry.
§ COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire Ince),who was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that he thought the additional Yeomanry would be an admirable adjunct to the Army, but all the new Yeomanry should be required to serve in the field if they were wanted. We could not afford to spend this enormous sum upon troops of this kind unless they could be sent into the field if required.
§ MR. LAMBERT (Devonshire, South Molton)said he noticed the word "Imperial" had been left out of the Bill, and unless these men were required on occasion to serve abroad, that word would have to be left out. If, as the right hon. Member had said, the numbers had declined with only five to six days service in the year, how much more would it be so with the extra and onerous duty of serving from fourteen to eighteen days? The agricultural classes could very ill afford the time necessary to serve fourteen to eighteen days, and yet if they did not obtain recruits from the agricultural classes and from those who were used to horses, it was of no use having Yeomanry at all. His own idea was 1195 that, if they wanted men to take care of horses, they must have men recruited from the agricultural classes. It could not be denied that it was of the utmost Importance to have men who knew how to take care of horses, because such men would get a horse to do three times as much work as the animal would do under a town-bred man who had hardly ever seen a horse in his life. What he was afraid of was that the right hon. Gentleman would not get his 25,000 extra yeomen. Was it necessary to get them for home defence? Was it supposed that an enemy would land, and that then we should want these Yeomanry? If an enemy landed, he thought the Militia would be a far better force with which to meet it. He also feared that the Bill might have the effect of destroying the already depleted Militia, whilst at the same time a sufficient Yeomanry force would not be raised to justify the expenditure. He had not the slightest doubt that many men would be drawn from the Militia to the Yeomanry, because the length of service was shorter, and the treatment of the Militia in South Africa had not been such as to encourage enlistment in that force. Although the Militia had been under no more compulsion to go abroad than had the Yeomanry, the Militia had received no send-off or welcome home, and in South Africa had been placed on the lines of communication. Personally, he was rather inclined to think that if they wanted to have useful soldiers they must have professional soldiers. He was not altogether a lover of an amateur soldier, because everybody knew that if one wished to be successful in a trade he must learn it. His own advice to the right hon. Gentleman was that if he really wished to carry out a scheme of Army reform he should content himself with a present reform of ths War Office, and postpone other reforms until the war in South Africa had ended, and he knew how many men were coming home and would join the Yeomanry.
§ SIR ELLIOTT LEES (Birkenhead)said the remarks of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean were to a certain extent justified, but the Yeomanry as at present constituted had not, so far as he could see, 1196 attracted the full number of men well able to ride in our country districts. In the squadron of Imperial Yeomanry which he commanded, which was 120 strong, only forty came from the county Yeomanry. Another forty was composed of farmers, who were just as good riders as the forty which came from the county Yeomanry, and about twenty were small tradesmen from the country towns, who were also good horsemen and quite competent to do their work. The remainder of his squadron were chiefly grooms, who were all at home on horseback, and men who trained very quickly into efficient mounted soldiers. He pointed out that all the mounted troops in South Africa were improvised troops in regard to the duties which they had to perform, and had to do work for which they had not been in any way trained. The cavalry, for instance, might have done two or three days scouting at home, but had never been trained to fight as dismounted men, and although the mounted infantry had been trained to do what were considered the duties of mounted infantry at that time, these were not really the duties which they had to perform in South Africa. He did not think it would be impossible to improvise quickly men of this stamp, provided the staff was in existence, and competent officers and senior non-commissioned officers, and provided also that they were careful to recruit only from men who could ride or who then would have time to learn to ride. He agreed that they must have men who could pass a fair examination in riding, and then he thought he should get a good force, although he believed it would be difficult to raise the number required. As to the value of the scheme he had no doubt. With regard to what had been said about the new Yeomanry being no use in South Africa, though they had been there six months, he might say, although he was not there to defend the new Yeomanry, that body had only been out there three months, and that also the mounted infantry raised in South Africa were at first quite as difficult to handle as the new Yeomanry which had been sent out. For his part, while not perhaps agreeing to all the details of the scheme, he wished it every success.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)If I take a somewhat pessimistic view of this scheme. I hope it will not be thought that, as an ex-cavalry officer, I wish in any way to make little of the Yeomanry. Nobody realises more than I do the admirable work which has been done by the Yeomanry who went out to South Africa. But it is a pity that we should not have had from the Treasury Bench some exposition of the scheme, at all events with reference to the Yeomanry and Militia artillery. This is a scheme—to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean—for producing cavalry "on the cheap." If it is the intention to form a real cavalry from a force to be embodied for fourteen or eighteen days in the year, I say the scheme is a fraud and an impossibility. If, on the other hand, it is for the purpose of producing a force to be utilised in the event of invasion as an auxiliary to the other arms at home, I say again that it will not be effective. Three of the army corps which form the larger scheme of the right hon. Gentleman are to be supplied with no other cavalry than those furnished by this force. Can it be held for a moment that these men are suitable for the purpose? In the first place, it is admitted that we have not a sufficient number of men of the yeoman class in the country. The force would, therefore, be drawn from other classes "more or less accustomed to horses," as a previous speaker has said. That is a very wide expression. If a man unaccustomed to horses is put on horseback, and used as a cavalryman or a yeoman, the horse is very soon rendered useless for military purposes. Reference has been made to what the Swiss have done as regards artillery. But the youth of Switzerland are trained from earliest boyhood in the use of arms in the elementary schools, and they have special training in shooting every year. It may be possible in a mountainous country and amongst people who have special facilities to train men as artillery, but it is absolutely impossible to train cavalrymen under these conditions. Every nation in Europe, even after selecting men of the best class—for by means of conscription they have the pick of the population, and they choose for cavalrymen those accustomed to horses and country life—are 1198 unable to produce efficient cavalry in less than three or four years. Some years ago I was sent on a mission to Italy to report on the Italian cavalry, and there I found that, although they had neglected to consider what I may call "special cavalry," they had expended an immense amount of time on mounted infantry work, and notwithstanding the fact that their cavalry were very efficient, as mounted infantry it took them four years to train those troops. Therefore I say that if this force is intended to be a cavalry force it will undoubtedly break down.
Moreover, it will be a very expensive force, seeing that out of the 35,000 only a very limited number will be suitable, after considerable training, to do the work which the entire force ought to be able to perform. Doubt has been expressed as to whether the Government will get the large number of men they ask for. I firmly believe they will, but not from the class that is wanted. They will be obtained at the expense of a certain number of the best militiamen and of the cream of the Volunteers. The title of "Imperial Yeomanry," which I presume they will be allowed to bear, coupled with the fact of their being cavalry soldiers, will induce all who can to join the Yeomanry rather than the Volunteers. That bears out my view with regard to the whole scheme—that, admirable as it might be, no portion can be carried out without robbing some other portion. A great deal has been said about events in South Africa having tended to show that shock-tactics are not required. But in countries where shock-tactics are not necessary you require far more competent scouting, and it takes much longer to train a man to scout than to perform any other duty. I full agree that the regiments that went to South Africa were lamentably deficient, and it is simply because the amount of time, patience, and training required to enable a cavalry regiment to scout thoroughly well can be obtained only at the expense of parade movements and shock-tactics. It is emphatically true that inexperienced men can be taught only under highly trained officers, commissioned and non-commissioned. But where are the officers to come from who will be capable of training com- 1199 paratively undisciplined men in scouting duties? It is extremely doubtful whether one-half of the regular cavalry officers at the present day would be competent for such work. Are we to presume that, because there have been no shock-tactics in South Africa, there would be none in any other country? We all know that the whole of North Europe, with the exception of one little patch—the Hertz Mountains—is one great plain. As a matter of fact, there must be times when shock-tactics will be adopted—especially, as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean reminds me, against bad mounted infantry. It would be the delight of foreign officers to find opposed to them inefficient cavalry and mounted infantry, because highly trained cavalry in small numbers could sweep away any number of semi-trained troops. A cavalry man only partly trained is worse than useless.
Cheap labour is bad labour, whether it applies to the factory, the mine, or soldiering. The man who is underpaid is not the best class of man. Those who obtain high wages in the labour market will, as a rule, make the best soldiers. If you do not offer sufficient incentives to the better class of men to join, your force will necessarily be composed of men whom it will be practically impossible to train. The men will be practically of the same type as now join the Volunteers. How long are they likely to remain? A Volunteer enlists at the age of sixteen or seventeen years, and generally serves three or four years. If that is applied to the Yeomanry, seeing that the amount of work to be put upon them is far larger than in the case of the Volunteers, it is certain that the men will not remain in the force for more than four or five years. That, again, will lead to our having an incompetent force. I do not share the view of the hon. Member who thought the Government would not be able to obtain the horses. In my opinion the horses will be forthcoming, but the requisite care of them will be lacking. With reference to Clause 2 of the Bill, I ask whether the Government still seriously think that they will obtain the right class of men for this work if they are to be employed for only three months in the year, and have to provide for themselves 1200 during the remaining nine months? There are very few men in the country who could enlist under such conditions I may be told that the intention is to raise this large force for home defence with a view to obtaining from it a force of 5,000 or 6,000 men of the right class to send abroad in case of necessity. That may be feasible, but it will be at an enormous cost to the country. The suggestion of a few battalions of highly trained mounted infantry which could be used as a school for other mounted infantry would give much better value for the money. As to employing any of these mounted men in this country, the idea is preposterous. There is no country on the face of the earth less suitable for the operations of cavalry. A cavalryman would be confined absolutely to the roads, and the best horseman mounted on the finest weight-carrying hunter, if sent to carry despatches or to scout between two points ten miles apart, would be beaten easily by any ordinary cyclist. If the Government want a force for the purposes of scouting in this country, let them provide a force of cyclists, who would be far more valuable in that direction, and a comparativly small force of mounted infantry, trained by highly competent officers, and they will be doing much better for the country.
As to musketry, what can these new levies learn about musketry in fourteen or eighteen days? They would have to spend a vast amount of time on the rifle ranges. Is it to be supposed that you will get 35,000 men, accustomed to horseflesh, who are prepared to give these fourteen or eighteen days, and who in addition would have to spend a large amount of time in acquiring that knowledge of musketry which is essential if they are to be of any value as mounted infantry? I think not. The right hon. Gentleman boasted that he obtained 15,000 Yeomanry. He obtained 15,000 men whom he was pleased to call Yeomanry, but who, for the most part, were I will not say the sweepings of London, but men drawn from all sorts of classes, and with reference to whom I have had all sorts of reports. We hear by every mail that they are worse than useless, although they have been trained for six months in the face of the enemy. It 1201 may be all very well to train these men in the face of the enemy when they are in a country half as large as Europe, and opposed by only 13,000 or 15,000 men, but if men of that quality were put in the field against a European force they would very soon be swept away. The right hon. Gentleman said he could have obtained another 15,000 men. It is a great pity he did not do so, and send them to Aldershot to be trained, so that he could have picked out a certain number when they had reached a certain state of efficiency and sent them to South Africa. With reference to the schools, in my opinion it would be far better, instead of spending £300,000 in keeping up a force which will be neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red herring, to devote the money to forming a school at Aldershot where you could teach the duties of mounted rifles to the most suitable men in the different infantry battalions until you had by degrees raised a force which would be of some definite value in any war in which you might be engaged outside this country. I have no desire to oppose the Bill, because I know it has for its object the making of what I may call a gallant attempt to do something to remedy the wretched state in which our forces are. But in my belief, if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in raising this force, he will raise a nondescript and costly force, thereby defeating the object we have in view—namely, the reform of the Army on the basis of giving the people of this country value for their money.
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said that the criticisms which had been made in the course of this debate—
Attention called to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted, and forty Members being found present—
§ MR. O'MARA (continuing)said the Government did not need so many Yeomanry, because they were simply for scouting, and when an enemy invaded this country scouting would not be necessary. The criticisms which had been passed by experts in that House upon this measure confirmed the truth of 1202 what Napoleon said when he called England a nation of shopkeepers. The criticisms which had been made were too ridiculous and absurd to need a reply from the Secretary of State for War, and they were too absurd to occupy the time of the House. A second Bill had been substituted for a Bill previously issued, and he presumed that they were now dealing with the second Bill. To withdraw one Bill and substitute another on an important matter of this kind after only a few weeks consideration pointed to great carelessness in the War Office. The difference between these two Bills was that the War Office in the first Bill appeared to be in doubt whether the officers of the Yeomanry would be included.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford)The draughtsman was under the impression that the first Bill would include the officers, but this was found not to be the case.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid that every man in the street knew that officers did not enlist. The Yeomanry recently recruited would be perfectly useless as a military force. The fact that officers were omitted from the first Bill, and only by an afterthought included in the second Bill, showed the state of chaos the War Office had got into. To his mind, it was an example of the slipshod manner in which the business of the country was being done. The Estimates had been presented in the same way.
§ MR. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the Bill before the House.
§ MR. O'MARAYes, Sir, but it has to do with the manner in which the War Office has presented the Bill.
§ MR. SPEAKERIt has nothing to do with the Bill.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid he did not want to wander from the point. This was only an example of the way in which the present Government had anticipated Bills 1203 that were to come before Parliament. In the Education Vote—
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! The hon. Member must have some regard to the Bill before the House.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid he wished to point out that the Government had anticipated this Bill. It was the outcome of the Army reorganisation scheme, about which a great furore had been raised. They were told during the General Election that if the present Government were returned to office they would immediately set about the reorganising of the Army, but so far as he could see, this Bill had been absolutely the sole outcome of the energy and the sublime genius of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. In the resolution brought before the House at an earlier part of the session it was proposed that the establishment of the Yeomanry should be raised to 35,000, and that they should be apportioned to three army corps which were part of the Army reorganisation scheme. It was a well-known fact that before the war broke out the Yeomanry nearly amounted to the nominal strength of the establishment. He submitted that if the Army was to be continued on the voluntary system, increased inducements should have been offered to the Yeomanry to enlist in larger numbers. Instead of bringing in a Bill with that object, the right hon. Gentleman introduced a measure which took away certain distinct advantages the Yeomanry at present possessed. The Bill proposed to make it compulsory for the men to spend between fourteen and eighteen days under canvas every year. If they made the Militia laws applicable to the Yeomanry, they would certainly interfere with the recruiting of the Yeomanry when the war was over. The right hon. Gentleman could never hope to recruit 35,000 men under the voluntary system when the war fever died down. A great wave of patriotic fervour and foolishness had passed over the country, and, in his opinion, a number of foolish men had enlisted in the Yeomanry and gone to South Africa. He had carefully read the accounts in regard to that body. The Yeomanry, especially the later contin- 1204 gents, collected from the slums of the large cities, were perfectly useless as a military force. It was stated in this House that three to six months active warfare had not been sufficient to turn these men into soldiers. There had been constant examples of the Yeomanry surrendering. Everybody in the House knew what an utterly useless and humbugging force this was, and it was proposed to spend more money giving them more training.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot discuss the action of the Yeomanry in South Africa.
§ MR. O'MARAsaid he would pass away from that subject with the remark that if three to six months service did not make them capable soldiers, he did not think the fourteen days training proposed by the Bill would do it. It was proposed that the Bill should come into operation immediately after 1st August. Those who enlisted in the Yeomanry after that date would not know that there had been a change in the law, and they would suddenly find that the conditions of enlistment were different from those which they expected. Before the stringent regulations proposed were put in force a notice should be put in the papers, and the public should be informed that the Yeomanry would no longer be a purely volunteer body. He would do his best to prevent the Bill passing into law, unless some provision was made for giving due notice to all classes of people who would come under it that the changes in the conditions of service had taken place.
§ MR. BRODRICKThose who have listened to the hon. Member for South Kilkenny will see that his speech needs no reply from me. Members in that part of the House usually address the House with great point and humour on the subjects which they understand, but the hon. Member has chosen a field which he obviously does not understand, and has spoken of a Bill which he has not even taken the pains to master. I deeply regret that he has made an attack on the Yeomanry in 1205 South Africa, which is absolutely uncalled for, and consists only in his own imagination. Having said that, I dismiss the speech, which differs from other speeches in that it has not a practical character, and was not calculated in any way to influence the judgment of the House.
§ MB. O'MARAMr. Speaker—
§ MR. BRODRICKI do not propose to give way to the hon. Member. As regards the other speeches which have been made, I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean and one or two others painted the picture a little too black. The propositions of the Bill are two-fold. In the first place, we desire to bring the new Yeomanry under the Army Act. Lord Roberts believes in the Auxiliary forces. Although we must insist on such an amount of training as will make them fit for the work they have to perform, still to ask men to come up for a third week when employers can only afford to allow two weeks is a demand which we may not find it easy to carry out. In any reasonable way we are prepared to meet the requirements of those who can only give a certain amount of service. A great deal has been said with regard to the fact that this is the only proposal the Government has made for meeting the lack of cavalry with our Auxiliary forces in this country. It is an entire mistake to suppose that if three Army corps leave this country fully equipped with cavalry brigades we should have entirely to rely on the Yeomanry for the cavalry of the remaining corps. We keep two cavalry brigades in England, and we shall have this very large body of Yeomanry in addition to all the reserve squadrons of the cavalry which has gone out. I would beg the House to notice this, that although there is no man in the House who understands more than I do the difference between the trained cavalry soldier and the man who has joined the Yeomanry and done fourteen days in the year, still I accept fully what has fallen from my hon. friend the Member for Birkenhead, who has seen service in 1206 South Africa, that, given good officers and men trained to ride and shoot, a very short training makes them a very useful body of men. That is what we aim at in regard to this body of Yeomanry, whom we ask the authority of the House to place under the Army Act. That will force the men to come out for the period of training they have undertaken to go through. We want them trained as long as they are to be trained, because that is the amount of training which in the opinion of the Commander-in-Chief will make them an effective force for the work they have to do. At a time when we have a great strain upon us for South Africa, it is a very encouraging feature to find that every week brings us a fresh regiment of Yeomanry, and I am quite certain that those who have seen the Yeomanry who are now being formed, and who will be trained shortly, will think that Parliament has not spent money badly in making so valuable an acquisition to our defensive forces. I should be out of order if I went into the question at this moment, but we should not blind ourselves to the necessity of having a sufficient Regular mounted infantry. I am fully alive to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean in this respect, although I must take leave to say that his speeches have one great note of similarity in them—that he invariably begins to complain of the expense which we incur, and ends by proposing that we should have a much larger body of Regular forces. We cannot in this country expect to keep the enormous body of Regular mounted troops which are necessary to provide mounted forces for all our Auxiliary forces. We must rely to a considerable extent on Auxiliary mounted forces. This is the principle which has been laid down in the Estimates of the year. That also is the principle which we ask Parliament to support by giving us the power to see that the men who have undertaken to train shall do so under the provisions of the Army Act. Then one word as to the Militia artillery. We have asked for power to train the Militia artillery for eighty-four days. Every Militia battery of field artillery makes it unnecessary to keep a battery of 1207 Regular artillery at home. We have—and I give full credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Forest of Dean for the persistency with which he has urged the necessity of increasing the artillery—raised a very large number of batteries of Regular artillery in the last two years, but to complete the six army corps we are obliged to add a certain number of Volunteer and Militia artillery. The experience of our inspecting officers in regard to the experiments already made has been that in the case of those batteries that have been tried of Militia artillery, excellent results have been obtained. Of course, during the present year we are able to embody Militia artillery for such a period as is required, because the Militia is embodied. In a subsequent year we could not keep them out beyond fifty-six days without the special authority of Parliament. We do not propose to bring any man under this liability who has not voluntarily undertaken it. It may be that we shall have in some way to offer special terms to those who do undertake it, but we mean to have field artillery somehow, and we believe that the Militia affords the best means of getting it, except in the case of some isolated batteries of Volunteers. I ask the House to give us the Second Reading of this Bill, which is a modest measure, which asks no one to undertake anything unless he desires to do so, but gives you facilities for the training of men which the Commander-in-Chief considers necessary, and which carries out the wish of this House that we should, so long as we can, avoid resorting to compulsion for the defence of this country, and which at the same time endeavours to give us forces that will be efficient; and I ask the House not to nullify the Votes which it has given previously for defensive purposes by depriving us of the strength in the arms of artillery and cavalry of which we have need.
§ MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said there were one or two points he would like to know about. There were, no doubt, good points in the Bill, and they thoroughly recognised the efforts made to provide artillery and cavalry for the Auxiliary 1208 forces, which had never been made up to the present time. With regard to the use of the word "Imperial," he would like to add his voice to those of the gentlemen who had already spoken, and to say that it should not be given to any corps whose services are restricted to the British Isles. There was no doubt that the Yeomanry and Militia were restricted to the British Isles if they did not volunteer for service abroad. He had always thought that we should have done better if one battery where there were four batteries had been enlisted for Imperial service—in other words, service anywhere within the Imperial dominions of the King. It would have saved an immense deal of money and an immense deal of trouble on the outbreak of war. He hoped that next year a Bill would be introduced to allow special corps of Yeomanry and Militia to be recruited which might be ordered abroad on the outbreak of war. He was sorry that such a provision was not in this Bill. It had been said that scouting was easier to learn than barrack square drill. That was a mistake; it was infinitely more difficult to learn, as had been shown in South Africa; and if the cavalry had devoted more time to that kind of work and less to barrack square drill they would have been much more efficient. It was quite true that the Yeomanry corps, in spite of their deficient training, had done splendid escort work. But it must be remembered that our troops in South Africa had never had regular cavalry against them. Though the Boers were very good mounted infantry, it would have been very much worse for our troops had they had regular cavalry. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman in raising the Yeomanry would not take officers and men from the Militia, where they were too scarce at present, and that a little more would be done to encourage the Militia than had been done in the past.
§ MR. YOUNGER (Lincolnshire, Stamford)said he wanted to say a few words on that part of the Bill which dealt with the time of the Yeomanry training. Last year when he was out training there were hard and fast regulations in regard to periods of leave. That had proved rather a drawback in many cases, 1209 and he would press on the right hon. Gentleman to grant a little more elasticity to commanding and squadron officers in granting leave, which was a matter of great importance to their very best men. They were as a rule large farmers, they had weekly bills to pay, and it was absolutely necessary for them to have the privilege to go home at the end of the week, to look after their business, and to pay their men. These were the men they were anxious to keep in the regiment, but they would find it difficult to do so unless they had such leave. He was sure that the discretion of the commanding and squadron officers in regard to leave would not be abused. His experience of the Yeomanry was that they could not do more than fourteen days training. In his own squadron he had men who lived in towns, clerks and shop assistants, who could not possibly get away for more than fourteen days. In fact, that was the whole of their holiday, and it was to their credit that they devoted the whole of their holiday to acquiring military training. All were agreed that it was most essential that the Yeomanry officers should know their duties, and whatever facilities the Government could give to these Yeomanry officers to acquire more knowledge would be very much welcomed. He understood that it was the intention to re-open the old schools of instruction, but he thought greater facilities should be given to the Yeomanry officers to attend the autumn manœuvres, which would be a great advantage to them. As a matter of fact, the Yeomanry officer had quite as much to learn as a Regular cavalry officer. Some recognition should be given to those who showed special aptitude for their work, or who passed a certain standard of efficiency.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)said that to propose to grant leave to officers and men to attend to their private business was a rather inconsistent way of setting up a grand new force for the defence of the country. The Irish representatives were quite as much entitled to express their opinion on the proposals of the Government as any other section of the House, and when they did so, even although their opinions might not be palatable to the representatives of the 1210 Government, it was not exactly creditable to the members of the Government to dismiss their comments in the way the Secretary for War had done. Such tactics on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, he could assure him, did not tend to shut their mouths. They did not care a pin whether the right hon. Gentleman was pleased with their comments or not, but they intended to express them all the same. He presumed that this Bill was introduced by the Government as one part of their great scheme of Army reform. This had been a war session in every sense of the word. They had had discussions on all the phases of the war, and they had had promises of the most elaborate character as to the complete reform of the Army service, and the complete clearing out of the War Office. Was it in fulfilment of these promises that the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward this modest Bill? The parent of a measure was always anxious to describe it in the best way he could for the consideration of the House, but as an Irish Member there were certain features of this Bill in regard to which they were entitled to express their opinion, and to criticise the effects of the measure on the country which they represented. He did not propose to go into the question of the Yeomanry, although the English Yeomanry were identified with the very worst forms of oppression in Ireland, and their name was detested by the Irish people to this day, since they were used to scourge the Irish people in 1798. He was glad to know that the Yeomanry corps were not to be extended to Ireland. The only so-called Yeomanry which had been sent out from their country to South Africa had been gathered together by Lord Longford, and they had distinguished themselves by the most disgraceful proceedings. What he was concerned about in this Bill was the second clause, which proposed to extend from the 1st August in the present year the period of Militia artillery training to a period not exceeding eighty-four days. He was no admirer of the Militia system in Ireland. He thought it was a vicious system. It took the Irish agricultural labourers away from their work into camps, some to the Curragh, some to county Kerry, and some to county Donegal, where neither their capabilities for 1211 work nor their moral and physical training was improved. These men were, for the most part, uneducated agricultural labourers, who did not know the conditions of their enlistment, and they were no great credit to their country; but the effects of the system were to deteriorate them, and they returned to their homes worse men than when they went away, even only after twenty-eight days training. For that reason he objected very strongly to increasing the period of training. The right hon. Gentleman had dealt at considerable length with the voluntary system of enlistment in the Army, and said that as long as this country confined itself to the voluntary system, some such steps as were proposed by the Bill would have to be given effect to. That might be true, and if he would confine the operation of the Bill to England and Scotland, and exclude Ireland from its scope, and also exclude Ireland from paying any portion of the cost, then the criticism of the Irish Members would not be as pointed as the right hon. Gentleman might find it to be during the course of the passage of the Bill. The Militia system, they contended, was unfair in two ways; it took the men away from their natural occupations—and he was glad to know that they got fewer and fewer every year—and it sent them back to their homes worse men than when they went away to camp. If this was part of the great scheme of Army reform, which had been introduced with so many grandiloquent phrases, it illustrated the truth of the old Latin fable, Parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus—the mountain laboured, and there came forth a little mouse! The Government had startled the whole country with their glowing periods as to the way they were going to reform the Army system, and here was a miserable little attempt at the fag end of the session which had nothing to commend it to the sensible views of the House of Commons, except the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, in his anxiety to give some apparent effect to his promises, had produced a Bill which would not accomplish that which he desired, but only still further prove that the management of the War Office and of the Army was, as at present constituted, a huge and screaming farce.
§ COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's,) Hanover Squaresaid that although this was a very short, it was a very important Bill, because it changed the whole status of the Yeomanry. Hitherto the Yeomanry were enlisted under the Act of George III. for a period of three years. But they were now to be brought under the Militia Act of 1882. The terms of service would be the same as that of the Militia—namely, six years—with two modifications. The first was that whereas the preliminary training of the Militia recruits was for a period of six months, that provision was not to apply to the Yeomanry. The second modification was that the period of annual training of the Yeomanry was to be for not less than fourteen days and not more than eighteen days. Practically, in fact, the Yeomanry would be mounted Militia. He had had considerable experience in the training of both infantry and cavalry officers and men, and knew very well that it took very much longer to make a cavalry soldier than an infantry soldier, yet in the Bill it was proposed that Yeomanry, or mounted Militia, were to receive no preliminary training whatever, and only from fourteen to eighteen days annual training, while a good many Yeomanry officers said that that was more time than the men could give. He wished that the Secretary of State for War would explain how he proposed to render these mounted men efficient with such a limited amount of training. It would take the Yeomanry twenty-six years to get the same amount of training as the Militia received in six years.
§ MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)said that, speaking from thirty-five years experience of the Yeomanry, he thought that it was possible to make a cavalry soldier with fourteen days annual training. It was an undoubted fact that officers of the Regular Army, from the Commander-in-Chief downwards, came down to see the Cheshire Yeomanry, and without exception they expressed an unqualified approval of that corps and their astonishment at the efficiency which had been attained in the limited time of training. It was to be remem- 1213 bered that the greater proportion of the Yeomanry came out year after year, and although they did not always commence their week's training at the same point, their intelligence and enthusiasm produced extraordinary results. Their riding was first class, their shooting at all points good, and they formed an efficient force, available for regular duty when called upon. Inasmuch as under the proposed regulations they should have at least fourteen days in camp, he had a still better opinion of what the efficiency of the force would be. Experience of the last two years out in camp, with their horses picketed in wild, open country, instead of in the county town, which gave them admirable opportunities for learning outpost duty and reconnaisance, convinced him that the system proposed by the Bill, if carried out and adhered to, would achieve the most satisfactory results. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln, that any relaxation in the matter of leave should be given in time of training. It was the looseness of the training and the case with which farmers got away on leave which had been one of the direct drawbacks to efficiency in the past, and made them to some extent only a force on paper. This Bill would bring every man under the same strict regulations in the future. It might increase the difficulty of obtaining recruits, but it would make them a real force.
§ GENERAL LAURIE (Pembroke and Haverfordwest)This Bill practically remodels one branch of our forces, and actually creates another. Years ago I had considerable experience in doing practically the same work, namely, in assisting in remodelling the cavalry of the Canadian Militia, and in the organising of the field batteries of that Militia for the first time. Our experience was that it was a great advantage to put the men into camp, where they could devote themselves to their work far better than in billets. We went even further, and we treated the men in every way as soldiers on active service. There were no marquees and no caterers, but ordinary military messing, and the result was that the men were very efficient when they were required. With regard to artillery, eighty-four days are 1214 laid down. I cannot help thinking that that number is either too small or too great; it will not be a success with horses hired haphazard. Our experience was that where a man brought in his horses, which he knew he could drive and formed with two comrades a gun team, they worked together very soon. But I am satisfied that the average artillery officer will tell you that you cannot get three men picked haphazard and six horses and make them into a gun team in eighty-four days. On the other hand, the Canadian artillery went into camp for sixteen days, and at the end of that time were able to do their work. They might not of course have been fit for the Horse Guards parade, but they were fit for practical work. Who relieved Mafeking? Three batteries of the Canadian artillery were among the leading troops into Mafeking, and were found most efficient. If a man brings in his own horses he will not take eighty-four days to learn the work; if he does not bring in his own horses he cannot become efficient in that time. Non-commissioned officers No. 1 of guns require a longer training, and a much shorter training will turn out a field gunner. I think it will be found necessary to differentiate, and give a certain proportion of the men a longer training than others; to establish schools for non-commissioned officers, and to induce the men to bring their own horses. Our experience in Canada was that that was the way to obtain an effective Militia field artillery, and that is what is wanted.
§ MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)said that hon. Members opposite objected to Irish Members speaking on such a Bill, but they did not object to making Ireland pay part of the expense. The hon. and gallant Gentleman described it as a Bill to set up one branch of the service and to do away with another.
§ GENERAL LAURIETo remodel one branch and to organise another.
§ MR. TULLYsaid that that was not the impression which the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement conveyed to him. The object of the Bill was to put the Yeomanry under the same conditions as the Militia; but if that were done they 1215 would neither have cavalry nor mounted infantry. In his opinion the 35,000 men to be enrolled under the Bill at 5s. a day were simply 35,000 voters for the Tory party, and that being one of the objects of the Bill, he would oppose it as far as he could. The Secretary of State for War said that the Army should be composed of professional men, and that experts were what were required. The Boers were all experts with the rifle, and consequently a small army of 25,000 men were able to hang up a British army of 300,000 men who were not experts. The right hon. Gentleman would not get an army of experts by enrolling tinselled things like the Yeomanry and Volunteers. He was only creating new swarms of inefficient men, after the manner of the Chinese, and when the time came to test them they would prove to be of no use. The motto of the Irish Yeomanry in Ireland was "No surrender," but in South Africa they changed it to "No surrender except to the Boers." The Bill had not been justified by any argument he had heard from any of the military experts. It was quite ridiculous to imagine that by paying the Yeomanry 5s. a day, and taking them out for a period of ten days every year, they could be converted into any kind of fighting material. The money would be simply wasted. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite referred to the relief of Mafeking. He thought that that had been played out, and that nobody now believed in that bogus siege and Barnum
§ business. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the House to adopt the Bill on the ground that the Canadian Militia helped to relieve Mafeking. He thought that was drawing too much on the credulity of hon. Members. Another point was that Yeomanry were not permitted in Ireland, although he was not very anxious about that, but Nationalists would not be allowed to be trained to the use of the rifle. Of course the Solicitor General for England would not listen to any such suggestion as that. Volunteers would also not be permitted in Ireland, and the only privilege given to that country was the privilege of contributing to the expense. He thought that was a point which deserved consideration. If Ireland had to pay, it ought to receive some advantage; if Ireland received no advantage, why should Ireland pay? An hon. Gentleman opposite described the wonderful Yeomanry to be set up under the Bill as gentleman who went home for a week-end to pay their labourers. That to his mind was merely pic-nicing and going on a kind of "beano." If English farmers were to have "beanos" he thought England ought to pay for them. On those grounds he would oppose the Bill at every step.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 347.)
1219| AYES | ||
| Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. | Brassey, Albert | Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Brigg, John | Craig, Robert Hunter |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Cranborne, Viscount |
| Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. | Bull, William James | Crombie, John William |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Bullard, Sir Harry | Cross Alexander (Glasgow) |
| Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John | Butcher, John George | Crossley, Sir Savile |
| Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy | Caldwell, James | Cubitt, Hon. Henry |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Dalkeith, Earl of |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.) | Dalrymple, Sir Charles |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r | Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Davenport, William Bromley- |
| Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm. | Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham) |
| Balfour,Rt.HnGeraldW.(Leeds | Chamberlain,J.Austen(Worc'r | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Charrington, Spencer | Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.) |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Churchill, Winston Spencer | Dewar, T. R. (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo. |
| Bathurst,Hon.AllenBenjamin | Clare, Octavius Leigh | Dickson, Sir Charles Scott |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol) | Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Dimsdale, Sir Joseph Cockfield |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Dorington, Sir John Edward |
| Bignold, Arthur | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Duke, Henry Edward |
| Bond, Edward | Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready | Duncan, J. Hastings |
| Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn) | Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Dunn, Sir William |
| Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Robson, William Snowdon |
| Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Ropner, Colonel Robert |
| Emmott, Alfred | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. | Round, James |
| Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward | Llewellyn, Evan Henry | Russell, T. W. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine | Seely,Capt.J.E.B.(Isleof Wight) |
| Finch, George H. | Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham | Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) |
| Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Firbank, Joseph Thomas | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Seton-Karr, Henry |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Lowe, Francis William | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Simeon, Sir Barrington |
| Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W. | Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft) | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Fuller, J. M. F. | Macdona, John Cumming | Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand |
| Gardner, Ernest | MacIver, David (Liverpool) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(City of Lond. | Maconochie, A. W. | Spear, John Ward |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) | Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick | M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Gordon,Hn.J.E.(Elgin & Nairn | M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Gordon, MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts | Majendie, James A. H. | Strachey, Edward |
| Gore,Hn.G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop | Mansfield, Horace Rendall | Stroyan, John |
| Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.) | Maple, Sir John Blundell | Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Goschen, Hon. George Joachim | Molesworth, Sir Lewis | Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.) |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Taylor, Theodore Cooke |
| Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ry S. Edm'nds | More, Robt. J. (Shropshire) | Thorburn, Sir Walter |
| Hamilton,Rt.Hn.LordG.(Midd'x | Morgan,DavidJ.(Walthamstow | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. | Morrell, George Herbert | Tomkinson, James |
| Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd | Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford) | Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray |
| Harmsworth, R. Leicester | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward |
| Harris, Frederick Leverton | Moulton, John Fletcher | Wanklyn, James Leslie |
| Haslett, Sir James Horner | Mount, William Arthur | Warde, Colonel C. E. |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D. | Muntz, Philip A. | Warr, Augustus Frederick |
| Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley) | Murray,Rt.HnA.Graham(Bute | Webb, Colonel William George |
| Heath,James(Staffords,N.W.) | Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Helder, Augustus | Newnes, Sir George | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| Henderson, Alexander | Nicholson, William Graham | Whitmore, Charles Algernon |
| Hoare, Sir Samuel (Norwich) | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Holland, William Henry | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Wills, Sir Frederick |
| Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) | Wilson, John (Falkirk) |
| Horniman, Frederick John | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wilson, John (Glasgow) |
| Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry | Pretyman, Ernest George | Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.) |
| Hoult, Joseph | Purvis, Robert | Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.) |
| Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C. | Pym, C. Guy | Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath) |
| Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.) | Quilter, Sir Cuthbert | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Randles, John S. | Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart- |
| Joicey, Sir James | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | Wylie, Alexander |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. | Reid, James (Greenock) | Younger, William |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. | Renwick, George | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Kinlock, Sir John George S. | Richards, Henry Charles | |
| Lambert, George | Rickett, J. Compton | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Law, Andrew Bonar | Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green) | |
| Lawson, John Grant | Rigg, Richard | |
| Layland-Barratt, Francis | Ritchie,Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson | |
| Lee,ArthurH.(Hants, Fareham | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Ambrose, Robert | Doogan, P. C. | Lundon, W. |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Duffy, William J. | MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. |
| Bell, Richard | Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Boland, John | Farrell, James Patrick | M'Dermott, Patrick |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Ffrench, Peter | Murphy, John |
| Broadhurst, Henry | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Burns, John | Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Gilhooly, James | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Jones, David B. (Swansea) | O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Joyce, Michael | O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) |
| Cullinan, J. | Kennedy, Patrick James | O'Dowd, John |
| Delany, William | Lloyd-George, David | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N | Redmond, William (Clare) | Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) |
| O'Malley, William | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) | Tully, Jasper |
| O'Mara, James | Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) | Young, Samuel |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel | |
| Price, Robert John | Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Patrick O'Brien and Mr. William Abraham (Cork) |
| Reddy, M. | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | |
| Redmond, JohnE.(Waterford) | Sullivan, Donal |
Bill read the third time, and passed.