HC Deb 11 December 1902 vol 116 cc959-72

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]

Clause 1:—


moved an Amendment providing that for the purpose of forming "a reserve" of the Militia and Yeomanry the Secretary of State might relax or dispense with the provisions of any enactment relating to the training of Militia and Yeomanry as they applied to men in the Reserve divisions. He said that his object was to get rid of the word "divisions," so as to constitute "a reserve" simply. It was difficult to understand what the word "divisions" in the Clause meant.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, after 'form,' to insert 'a.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'a' be there inserted."


said that there seemed to be some misunderstanding on this point. It was absolutely necessary to have the word "divisions" in the Bill. There was already a Militia reserve, but as at present constituted it was a reserve of the Army; and if it was stated in the Bill that the object was to form "a reserve" the Committee would come into conflict with the present Militia Act. The provision had been drafted in this way so as not to be confused with the Militia reserve under the Army Act of 1882.

MR. COURTENAY WARNER () Staffordshire, Lichfield

said there was a great deal to be said against the word "divisions," but the difficulty of the Secretary of State would be met by the use of the word "reserves" instead of "reserve." This was an entirely new kind of drafting, and he understood its effect would be that the reserve when formed would be divided into (a) (b) (c) and so on, as was the Army Reserve. In that way the very thing which had been condemned would be retained. It made one suspect that the War Office desired to do something other than was openly stated.

COLONEL SANDYS () Lancashire, Bootle

wanted an assurance that the Militia reserve would not be taken from the ranks of the combatant battalions. The term "reserve" was practically a misnomer as applied to our Army, because we had not a reserve in the real sense of forming a second line of defence. We had a number of men who went on furlough from the ranks of the combatant battalions, and these men deteriorated every year, and had to be re-trained for any practical military purpose in time of war. The only way out of the difficulty was to go back to the long service system. A large reserve was contrary to the feeling both of the civil and military sections of the country. He was, however, particularly anxious that nothing should be done under the term "reserve" by which the efficiency of the battalion would be impaired.

MR. PIRIE () Aberdeen, N.

said there was a great deal of ambiguity about the Bill, and the Committee ought not to give to the Secretary of State more than was absolutely necessary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


moved an Amendment to make the Clause deal with the formation of "reserves" instead of "reserve divisions" of Militia and Yeomanry. The Amendment was, he thought, perfectly harmless, so far as the Secretary of State was concerned, but it would get rid of the word "divisions" of which they were rather afraid.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 5, to leave out the words 'reserve divisions,' and insert the word 'reserves.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."


said it was impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment. It was needful to draw a distinction between the new reserve, which would be a real Militia reserve, and the existing Militia reserve, which was in the nature of an Army reserve. According to legal advice, the word "divisions" was necessary.


said he could not withdraw the Amendment. Now that the Secretary of State had given the authority on which he relied, he (the hon. Member) felt more convinced than ever that he was right in the view he took.

*COLONEL LEGGE () St. George's, Hanover Square

asked for an explanation of the word "division" in the Bill. "Division" was a military term, and a "division" in the Army was composed of two or more brigades.


said it was absolutely necessary to retain the word. "Section" also was a military term. Words with a military significance were frequently used in their ordinary sense in Acts of Parliament, and everybody knew what a division was as between one class of individuals and another.


pointed out that the word "reserves" would not stand alone, but

that the Clause would read "reserves of the Militia and Yeomanry."

MR. CALDWELL () Lanarkshire, Mid

failed to see why the word "divisions" was needed, because the Secretary of State had taken power to set a side any enactment with regard to the training of the Militia. He could split the force up into brigades, sections, or divisions, just as he liked. Why, therefore, should he limit himself by this Clause, when he was unrestricted by Act of Parliament?

COLONEL BLUNDELL () Lancashire, Ince

said that the old Militia,'reserve which was liable to serve abroad was gradually dying out. While it was dying out this particular word was intended, as he understood the meaning of it, to distinguish between the present Militia reserve and that moribund Militia reserve.


It is solely to distinguish them.

(5.30.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 107; Noes, 34. (Division List No. 632.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Dickson, Charles Scott Lawson, John Grant
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Dimsdale. Rt.Hon. Sir JosephC. Lecky, Rt.Hon.WilliamEdw.H.
Allhusen,AugustusH'nryEden Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Anson. Sir William Reynell Dixon-Hartland,SirFredDixon Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Arkwright, John Stanhope Doulgas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers- Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham)
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Durning-Lawrence,Sir Edwin Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.
Atkinson, Rt.Hon. John Egerton,Hon. A. de Tatton Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bain, Colonel James Robert Elliot,Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Balcarres, Lord Fergusson, Rt.Hn. SirJ.(Manc'r Macdona,John Cumming
Balfour.RtHnGeraldW. (Leeds Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne M'Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)
Bignold, Arthur Fisher, William Hayes More,Robt,Jasper(Shropshire)
Blundell, Colonel Henry Flannery, Sir Fortescue Murray, RtHn. A. Graham (Bute
Bond, Edward Flower, Ernest Nicol, Donald Ninian
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Forster, Henry William Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Bousfield, William Rubert Gardner, Ernest Plummer, Walter R.
Brodrick, Rt.Hon. St. John Gibbs,HnA.G.H.(CityofLond. Pretyman, Ernest George
Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gibbs,Hon.Vicary(St.Albans) Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire Gore,Hon.S.F.Ormsby(Line.) Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Goulding, Edward Alfred Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Chamberlain, RtHn J.A. (Worc. Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Rigg, Richard
Chapman, Edward Greene,HenryD.(Shrewsbury) Ritchie, Rt.Hon.Chas.Thomson
Clive, Captain Percy A. Hambro, Charles Eric Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hamilton, RtHn LordG(Midd'x Rolleston, Sir John F.L.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Higginbottom, S. W. Sackville, Col. S.G.Stopford-
Collings. Rt.Hon. Jesse Hogg, Lindsay Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hozier,Hon.James HenryCecil Saunderson, Rt.Hn. Col.Edw.J.
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Johnstone, Heywood Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge Kemp, George Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight
Cranborne, Viscount Kenyon,Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh) Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Cripps, Charles Alfred Kimber, Henry Spear, John Ward
Crossley, Sir Savile Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Dalrymple, Sir Charles Lawrence,SirJoseph(Monm'th Thornton, Percy M.
Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. Wilson, A. Stanley(york, E. R.) Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George
Tritton, Charles Ernest Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Fellowes.
Valentia, Viscount Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Walrond, Rt.Hn. SirWilliamH. Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale- Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Burns, John Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D. Strachey, Sir Edward
Burt, Thomas M'Kenna, Reginald Thomas, David alfred (Merthyr
Calflwell, James Paulton, James Mellor Thomas, F Freeman-(Hastings)
Causton, Richard Knight Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Tully, Jasper
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Pirie, Duncan V. Wallace, Robert
Crombie, John William Robson, William Snowdon Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Weir, James Galloway
Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles Schwann, Charles E.
Faber, George Denison (York) Shackleton, David James
Fenwick, Charles Shaw, Charles Edw (Stafford) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Warner and Colonel Sandys.
Fuller, J. M. F. Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John Soames, Arthur Wellesley


and moved to omit from the Clause the word "regulations" and insert "by Order in Council," the explanation being that the Bill gave the Secretary of State power by his own regulation to alter an Act of Parliament, whereas he held that that ought only to be done by Order in Council. There was great objection to allowing the Secretary of State by simple Regulation to alter an Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the procedure by Order in Council as rather cumbrous, but he did not hear anything from him to show that the power which the Clause was to confer could not be obtained equally well by Order in Council.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word ' regulations' and insert the words ' by Order in Council.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)

Question proposed, "That the word ' regulations ' stand part of the Clause."


hoped that the Secretary of State for 'War would be able to accept the Amendment. It was practically conceded that he should have the power proposed to bo given by the Clause, and it was a mere matter of machinery how it was to be given. It was unusual to give the Secretary of one of the Departments power to set aside any enactment. Such a proceeding should only take place on the corporate responsibility of the Cabinet, and the constitutional method of carrying it into effect was by Order in Council.


said he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill had been before the House for some weeks, but the Amendment had been sprung upon him at a moment's notice. The words "Secretary of State" already stood part of the Clause, and consequently it was impossible to put in "by Order in Council." The Militia Act was full of instances in which the Secretary of State made regulations in pursuance of certain sections of the Militia Act. All the Secretary of State could do under this Bill was to make regulations relaxing or dispensing with any enactments relating to the training of the Militia. It was desirable that that should be done by Regulation, and not by Order in Council. He trusted the Amendment would not be pressed.


asked the Secretary of State for War whether, if the Amendment could not be accepted, the right hon. Gentleman would promise to look into the matter and make a statement on the Report stage. Whatever was to be done in the way of forming reserve divisions of the Militia, it would have to be done bv classes, and these different classes would have to be dealt with in different ways. He thought that the Regulations could be made just as well by an Order in Council as by the War Office.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.


said he wished to move as an Amendment to leave out the words "any enactment relating to the training of Militia and Yeomanry," in order to insert "the enactments specified in the schedule of this Act." His object was to make the Bill less vague. As it stood, the Clause gave an unlimited power to the Secretary for War of doing a way withe the funcion and privileges of this House. His Amendment would rectify that, by compelling the right hon. Gentleman to specify definitely the enactment which he proposed to curtail by the Bill. The Bill had been drawn in an extraordinarily slovenly way.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 7, to leave out the words 'any enactment relationg to the training of Militia and Yeomanry,' in order to insert the words ' the enactments specified in the schedule of theis Act.'"—(Mr. Pirie.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."


said he could not accept the Amendment, as the only enactments affected were enactments relating to the period and the method of training, and there was no necessity to set out their titles in the schedule.


said that the powers for which the Secretary for War was seeking should not extend to future Acts of Parliament. He therefore suggested the insertion, after the world "enactment." of the words "any existing Act of Parliament."


said he would withdraw his Amendment, and move that suggested by the hon. Member for MidLanark.


said he had no objection to the insertion of these words.


Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn, and the words suggested by MR. CALDWELL were inserted.


moved to leave out from "and", in line 9, to the end of the Clause. He moved this Amendment in order to bring back the Bill to what was the original intention of the Secretary for War at the beginning of the session, when that right hon. Gentleman stated that he wished to create a Militia Reserve. He contended that the Committee was quite unable to discuss a measure of this far-reaching description without further information being given to them. He had already complained of the refusal of the Secretary for War to give any information in regard to the strength of the First and Second Army Corps, and the reasons put forward by that information were childish in the extreme.


said he not see how the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were applicable to the Amendment which he had proposed.


said he had ventured to make the remark because they had scarcely been able to discuss military matters this session. He would not, however, pursue the point. The powers proposed to be given by the Clause as it stood would constitute a complete revolution of the old constitutional force of the Militia, and would most seriously interfere with the recruiting. As regarded the Yeomanry, this was a proposition on which the committee had no information whatever. He hoped that the Secretary for War would agree to postpone his demand for these fresh powers until next session, when the House and the country would be more fully aware of the full effect of what the right hon. Gentleman actually proposed.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 9, to leave out the words from the word 'and,' to the end of the Clause."—(Mr. Pirie.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'any man in' stand part of the Clause."


said that he had not the slightest desire to transfer men from one regiment to another, unless it was absolutely necessary in the interest of the public service. But there would be a number of men who had served in various Line battalions who would be eligible to serve in the Militia Reserve in case it was called out, that one battalion might contain 2, 000 men, and another only 600 men, and all that was contemplated by the Clause was to enable the military authorities to bring up the deficient battalion to its proper strength by transferring to it men from the over-manned battalion. The military authorities must have the power, on occasions of emergency, of placing men where they were most needed. In the case of the Yeomanry regiments, which were also very unequal, the enrolment of these men would remain with the commanding officer. He did not think that any patriotic officer would complain if, in a moment of national emergency, a hundred men were transferred from his regiment to another which was a hundred men short.

MR. FULLER () Wiltshire, Westbury

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was to be understood as saying that the enrolment of the Yeomanry Reserve was to be left entirely to the discretion of the commanding officer. If that were so, he had nothing more to say. But if there was to be an enrolment of the Reserve, the right hon. Gentleman ought to tell the Committee what the Reserve was for, what it was to do, whether it was to go out, and, if so, fur how long, for annual training, and if it was or was not to receive pay. Generally, the Committee ought to be given fuller information as to the objects of the right hon. Gentleman.


said it appeared to him rather a painful sort of thing to remove a man from one regiment to another. Nothing could be more unsettling.


said that that would only be done in cases of emergency.


said that, in that case, his criticism fell to the ground. He did not, however, think that any system which contemplated the transference of men from one regiment to another, whether in the Militia or the Yeomanry. as a permanent part of the administration of the army, would commend itself to experienced soldiers. He hoped, therefore, the matter would be further considered before it was finally adopted. He was glad to have heard what the Secretary of State said with reference to the Reserve. He had always held that one of the great necessities of the military system was that every regiment should have its Reserve battalion, both of officers and men, regularly constituted and trained at stated periods; and he was glad that the Secretary of State had adumbrated such a very desirable military reform. If a regiment were 2,000 strong it might be divided; but the point they should keep before their minds was that men and officers who had served together with the same regiment, who were known to each other, and who trusted each other, should not be separated and sent to other regiments, but should be kept together.


said that the Secretary of State had made a most able statement as to the advisability of keeping the battalions in fairly equal numbers, but the Clause before the Committee would not do that in the least. It was only a Clause to make the Reserve battalions equal as regarded numbers. Men would not go into a strange regiment in the Reserve any more than they would go into a strange regiment with the colours. A man would know the officers and the non-commissioned officers with whom ho had served with the colours, and would wish to go into the Reserve battalion belonging to that regiment. The Clause would give the Secretary of State power to transfer men whether they liked it or not; but the right hon. Gentleman stated that the colonels would have power to refuse to enlist those men in the Yeomanry. That was quite a new thing; and he was glad to have heard the Secretary of State put it forward; but he himself heard only the other day from the commander of a Yeomanry regiment that he had no power to refuse man, as long as the regiment was below strength. Was there to be a fixed standard for the Reserve, and, if so, would the regiments be compelled to take men when they were below the standard? The regiments would have to be filled, and if the colonel could not get the men he wanted, would he be compelled to take the men that were sent to him.


was understood to dissent.


said he was very glad to hear that. He thought, however, that the Clause might be postponed until the Yeomanry part of the Bill was introduced next Session. They did not want to transfer men from one regiment to a notlier against their will; though, of course, if men consented no difficulty would arise. If they compelled men, however, Yeomanry and Militia regiments would lose their esprit de corps, which was the very thing which held them together, and which should not be destroyed because of some imaginary danger.


said he was a very strong advocate of the regimental system, but he did not think there was any reason why, if the exigencies of the service required it, men should not be transferred from one regiment to another. But he would like to press on his right hon. friend that this liability should be clearly explained to the men when they enlisted.


Hear, hear !


said that there was no plea of urgency as regarded the Bill, and if there were, it was a plea damaging to the Government. The Bill would not have

been introduced at all were it not for the prolonged debates on the Education Bill. The real reason for the Bill was the fact that the centres of population had shifted, which accounted for the enormous discrepancy in the numbers of the Militia battalions. A great scheme of Imperial defence would be introduced in a few months, arid he strongly urged the postponement of the matter until then.


asked whether he was right in understanding that the Yeomanry Reserve was to be raised at the option of the Yeomanry colonels.


said Yeomanry colonels would have the option of accepting men for the Reserve or refusing them if thev did not consider them eligible. It was likely that some of the men who had served in South Africa would come forward for the Yeomanry Reserve, and it was his desire to obtain their services in case of mobilisation for the weaker regiments.

(6.15.) Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes, 110; Noes, 41. (Division List, No. 633.)

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Heaton, John Henniker
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Cranborne, Viscount Higginbottom, S. W.
Allhusen,AugustusH'nryEden Cripps, Charles Alfred Hogg, Lindsay
Anson, Sir William Reynell Crossley, Sir Savile Hope, J. F. (sheffield, Brightside
Arkwright, John Stanhope Dalrymple, Sir Charles Johnstone, Heywood
Arnold-Forster, Hugh (). Dickson, Charles Scott Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Atkinson, Et. Hon. John Dimsdale, Rt Hon. Sir Joseph C. Kimber, Henry
Biailey, James (Walworth) Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)
Bain, Colonel James Robert Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers- Lawrence, Sir joseph (Monmith)
Balearres, Lord Egertor, Hon, A. de Tatton Lawson, John Grant
Balfour, Rt.Hon. A.J.(Manch'r Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.
Balfour, RtHn. Gerald W (Leeds Faber, George denison (York) Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bignold, Arthur Fergusson, RtHn. Sir J. (Manc'r Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Blundell, Colonel Henry Finlay, sir Robert Bannatyne Long, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bond, Edward Fisher, william Hayes Long, Rt. Hu. Walter (Bristol, S.
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Flannery, Sir Fortescue Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Bousfield, william Robert Flower, Ernest Macdona, John Cumming
Brodirick, Rt.Hon. St. John Forster, Henry William Maconochie, A. W.
Carson, Rt.Hon. Sir Edw. H. Gardner, Ernest M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire Gibbs, Hn A. G. H (city of Lond. Milvain, Thomas
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore. Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line. More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Chamberlayne, T. (Sthampton Goulding, Edward Alfred Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer
Chapmen, Edward Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute
Clive, Captain Percy A. Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury) Nicol, Donald Ninian
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Hall, Edward Marshall Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Cohen, Benjamin Louis Halsey, Rt.Hon. Thomas F. Percy, earl
Collings, Rt.Hon. Jesse Hambro, Charles Erie Plummer, Walter R.
Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Hamilton, RtHn Lord G (Midd'x Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Pretyman, Ernest George Scott, Sir S. (Marylrbone, W.) Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.
Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight`Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Raseh, Major Frederic Carne Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Rattigan, Sir William Henry Spear, John Ward Wortley, Rt.Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Ritehe, Rt Hn. Chas. Thomson Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Wyndham, Rt.Hon. George
Robertson, Herbet (Hackney) Tomilnson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Robertson, Sir John F. L. Tritton, Charles Ernest TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland Hood and Mr. Fellowes.
Sackville, Col. S.G. Stopford- Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Valentia, Viscount
Allen Charles P. (Gloue., Stroud Hayter, Rt.Hon. Sir Arthur D. Strachey, Sir Edward
Atherley. Jones, L. Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Brigg, John Paulton, James Mellor Wallace, Robert
Bryee, Rt.Hon. James Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Burns, John Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries Wason,Eugene (Clackmannan
Burt, Thomas Rigg, Richard Weir, James Galloway
Caldwell, James Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Causton, Tichard Knight Robson, William Snowdon Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Roe, Sir Thomas Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Dilke, Rt.Hon. Sir Charles Schwann, charles E.
Fenwick, Charles Shackleton, David James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Pirie and Colonel Sandys.
Gladstone, RtHn. Herbert John Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) Mr. Pirie and Colonel Sandys.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Shipman, Dr. John G. Sandys.
Grant, Corrie Soames, Arthur Wellesley
Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale- Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)
MAJOR RASCH () Essex, Chelmsford

, on behalf of his hon. and gallant friend the Member for Taunton, moved tha Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 12, after 'Militiamen,' to insert 'or Yeomen.' "—(Major Rasch.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 14, after 'arm,' to insert—'(2) All regulations made in pursuance of this section shall be laid before Parliament as soon as practicabnle after they are made if he not sitting, as soon as parcticabloe after the beginning of the next Session of Parliament.' "—(Mr. Caldwell.)

Amendment agreed to.


In accordance with the pledge given I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed— In page 1, line 18, to leave out sub-Section (3)."—(Mr. Brodrick.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered Tommorrow.