Commons Sitting of 12 March 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
THE CHAIRMAN OK WAYS AND MEANS.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE HILL BUSINESS.
  CROYDON AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC TRAMWAYS BILL.
  "To authorise the British Electric Traction Company (Limited) to construct further tramways in the counties of London, Surrey, and Kent; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
WIGAN CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL.
"To confer further powers upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Wigan in regard to the construction of tramways and street improvements; and for other purposes,"; read the first time; to be read a second time.

HARROW ROAD AND PADDINGTON TRAMWAYS RILL.
"To empower the Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Company to con-
558
struct new tramways; to work their tramways by mechanical power; to lease their undertaking to the Metropolitan Electric Tramways, Limited; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
"To confer further powers on the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Sheffield with respect to their water undertaking and their electrical undertaking; to authorise the construction of additional lines of tramways, and the execution of various street widenings and other works in the city; to consolidate into one township certain townships in the city; to make further and better provision for the improvement, health, and good government of the city: and for other purposes," read the first time; to be read a second time.
LANARKSHIRE AND DUMBARTONSHIRE RAILWAY BILL.
"To authorise the Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway Company to raise further moneys; to enable the Caledonian Railway Company to subscribe for additional shares or stock; to sanction certain existing railways; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
"To empower the Metropolitan District Railway Company to deviate the railway authorised by The Metropolitan, District Railway Act, 1897, and to construct other railways; to acquire lands; to lay down electric cables; to raise further capital; to acquire the Hounslow and Metropolitan Railway; and for other purposes," read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Hull; and Kent; to lie upon the Table.
DETENTION OK POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petitions in favour: from Selkirk; and Lethnot; to lie upon the Table.
LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Petition from Glasgow, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Petitions against: from Stockton; Wickham; and Blaydon; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 2942 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE AND DIVOUCH (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) (MISCELLANEOUS, No. 1, 1903).
  Copy presented, of Reports on the laws on marriage and divorce in foreign countries (in continuation of Mis-

  Year.

  Expedition.

  Troops employed.

  Duration.

  Cost.

  British.

  Native.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure the following fifteen Members in respect of the Incest Bill:—Colonel Blundell, Sir John Brunner, Mr. Burt, Mr. Charles Douglas, Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Joseph Howard, Sir John Kennaway, Colonel Lockwood Mr. Nussey, Mr. Perks, Mr. Pym, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Tritton, Mr. George White, and Mr. Henry Joseph Wilson.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Traction Engines—Accidents in London Streets.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents have been reported to him by the police
  560
  cellaneous, No. 2, 1894) [by Command] to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House—
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancashire), further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson] to be printed [No. 72].

  RAILWAYS, ETC., BILLS.
  Return ordered, "of Report by the Board of Trade upon all the Railway, Canal, Tramway, Harbour and Tidal Waters, Electricity, Gas, and Water Bills, and Provisional Orders of Session 1903."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

  MILITARY EXPEDITIONS.
  Address for "Return of all Military Expeditions in which British or Native troops have been employed during the last ten years, in the following form:—
  as caused by the traction engines and wagons employed by the contractor to the Great Northern, Brampton, and Piccadilly Electric Railway, now in course of construction; what is the nature of the accidents, and at what hour of the day did they occur; do the police report upon the absence of any man with a red danger flag going before these traction engines to give warning.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) Three accidents are reported to me as having been caused by horses taking fright at the traction engine in question. In one case, which occurred at 11.30 a.m., a hackney carriage was overturned, and the driver's arm and the hands of a gentleman in the cab were injured. In the second, which occurred at 6.15 p.m., a. van collided with the engine, and the driver of the van was cut about the head and sustained concussion of the brain. In the third case, which occurred at 1.30 p.m., a brougham collided with a hackney

  561
  carriage, and the driver of the brougham was thrown into the roadway and died of his injuries. Reports also show that in three other instances the engine skidded or collided with an electric wire post and an electric tramcar. In one case a man employed with the engine was injured. There is no statutory requirement that a man should carry a red flag in front of such engines. I may add that I am informed that the use of the traction engine has been discontinued by the contractor.

  Eights of Property in India—Religious Disabilities.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to a decision of the Chief Court of Mysore, in the case of Dasappa v. Chikkamma, in which a convert to Christianity was, by reason of his change of faith, deprived of the right of guardianship over his children and of other civil rights; whether the Durbar intimated their readiness to remove by legislation these disabilities so far as they relate to rights of property; and whether any steps have been taken with respect to this legislation.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I am aware of the case referred to by my right hon. friend, which occurred in 1895, but my attention has not been called to any cases of similar hardship as having arisen since then. The Mysore Government have recognised that some action towards reducing the disabilities of converts from Hinduism is both equitable and necessary, but have added that "the exact point at which legislation ought to stop, and to what conditions and limitations the rules of inheritance of the Hindu Law when relaxed should be subjected, so as to prevent coparceners remaining in the religion of their birth from avoidable and vexatious interference and annoyance, requires most careful consideration." The Durbar, I understand, has the question still under consideration. Having regard to the views which they have expressed and to the fact that the Maharaja has only recently succeeded to administrative
  562
  powers, I think that the matter may be left to the Mysore Government. I may add that the" India Act XXI. of 1850 has been applied to the station at Bangalore.

  Allied Forces in China—International Medal.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the project of granting an international decoration to the troops of the various nations who took part in the operations in China is still under consideration, and when a decision is likely to be arrived at.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) His Majesty's Government had at one time under their consideration, in consultation with other Powers, the question of bestowing an international medal upon those who took part in the defence of the Legations at Pekin. This medal was not in any way to take the place of such medals or decorations as each State might think well to confer upon its own nationals. In consequence, however, of an absence of unanimity among the Powers concerned, it was finally decided to abandon the proposal.

  Excise Duties on Indian Cotton.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will take into consideration the question of repealing the Excise duties on the production of Indian cotton mills, together with the corresponding import duties, as soon as the state of the Indian Exchequer will warrant his doing so.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) I cannot hold out any hope at present of reducing the Customs duties now in force in India.

  Elementary School at Mydrim, Carmarthenshire—Payment of Grant.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that no Government grant has been paid in respect of the elementary school at Mydrim, Carmarthenshire, since last May, and that the school is only kept

  563
  open by the teachers on their own responsibility; and whether he will state what steps should be taken in order to secure the annual Government grant.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the managers of the Mydrim School declared that they were unable to continue the school after 30th May last, and it was accordingly removed from the Annual Grant List. The Board understand that since that date the school has been conducted as a private adventure school by the headmaster. The trustees, or any other responsible body of managers, are at liberty to re-open the school as a public elementary school, and to make applications for its being again placed on the Annual Grant List. But the conditions of the Code as sanctioned by Parliament make it impossible for the Board of Education to pay grants in respect of a school carried on as a private adventure school.

  Cleaning of the Serpentine.
  MR. BULL: To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, having regard to the fact that the Serpentine has not been cleaned out since 1871, he will consider the desirability of having this done at an early date in the interest of bathers and swimmers.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) His Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to give any assurance in this matter; the task of cleaning out the Serpentine would be very costly and would occupy a very long time. There have been no complaints from bathers.

  Improved Postal Facilities at Devonport.
  MR. KEARLEY: TO ask the Postmaster-General whether he is now able to announce his decision as to the request of the inhabitants for improved telegraph facilities in the Keyham Barton district of Devonport.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I wrote to the hon. Member on the day before his Question appeared in the Paper and explained to him the reasons why I did not feel justified in establishing a telegraph office at Keyham Barton.

  Liverpool Post Office—Salaries of Female Staff.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the maximum salary of the female supervisors at the counter offices in Liverpool, who occupy positions involving heavy responsibilities, is £30 less than the maximum salary of the ordinary male counter clerks, and that the female counter staff in Liverpool, whose duties include monetary responsibilities and consequent risk of loss, are paid upon the same scale as officers who are employed entirely in the telegraph department and have no such responsibilities and risks; and will he say whether he proposes to take any, and if so what, steps to remedy this alleged grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) As I informed the hon. Member in this House in December, † it has repeatedly been decided by my predecessors that the salary of the female supervising officers is sufficient for the duties performed, and I have not yet been able to come to a conclusion on the reconsideration of the matter which I then promised. I hope, however, shortly to be in a position to announce my decision to the officers concerned.

  Members of Parliament and Postal Servants.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the members of the postal telegraph service are permitted to approach Members of Parliament with reference to matters affecting their conditions of service; whether the men or their representatives have the right to place copies of the correspondence between the aggrieved persons and their official heads in the hands of Members of Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The rule applicable to this matter is as follows:—" A postmaster is to address to his surveyor, and a subordinate officer is to address to the postmaster (who will forward it to his surveyor), any application from himself having reference to his duties or pay, or any communication he may desire to make relating to official matters; and if the applicant is dissatisfied
  † See (4) Debates, exv.,839.

  565
  with the result he may appeal direct to the Post master-General. But it is strictly forbidden to make any such application or other communication through the public, or to procure one to be made by Members of Parliament or others; and, should an irregular application he received, the officer on whose behalf it is made will be subject to censure or punishment proportionate to the extent of his participation in the violation of the rule "But it has been my practice to treat the rule as applying only to applications so made in the first instance, and I have raised no objection to an officer who had appealed to me, and was dissatisfied with my decision, applying subsequently to a Member of Parliament. But official correspondence between officers of the Department must not be made public without the Post master-General's assent being first asked and obtained.

  Sunday Delivery of Letters in Kilkenny.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the service of letters between Johnstown, Galmoy, Crosspatrick, and Garry baun districts of thy county Kilkenny is not supplied on Sundays; and whether, in view of the convenience to the trading interests of these places, and seeing that there is a letter carrier engaged for six days of the week conveying the mails to and from the existing sub-offices at Galmoy and Crosspatrick, he can arrange that one delivery and one collection shall also he made on Sunday.
  (Answered, by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will make inquiry as to the possibility of providing a Sunday delivery and collection of letters at the places in county Kilkenny referred to by the hon. Member; and f will communicate the result to him as soon as possible.

  International Conference on Fishing Rights.
  MR. CROMBIE: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Dutch Government some four years ago brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government certain resolutions passed by the Institute of International Law, and confirmed by the International Law Association, of which the Lord Chief
  566
  Justice is president, and proposed to call a conference of European Powers to reconsider the existing rules applicable to the limits of territorial waters for fishing purposes, and, seeing it was owing to the refusal of His Majesty's Government to take part in it that the conference fell through, whether he will now reconsider the advisability of promoting this conference.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) No such proposals were made at the time mentioned. But in 1895 the Dutch Government consulted Great Britain and other maritime Powers on the expediency of calling together a conference for the purpose of determining in a uniform manner for all nations the distance of the limit of territorial waters from the shore. The limit was to be discussed only with reference to fisheries. His Majesty's Government, and, we believe, other Governments concerned, were of opinion that no advantage would be gained by opening such a discussion, and, as far as I am aware, nothing has since occurred to modify that opinion.

  Surveyors of Taxes—Clerical Assistance.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will consider the possibility of placing some of the clerks to the surveyors of taxes at the disposal of the chief inspector of taxes in England for temporary assistance in the offices of surveyors where there is a pressure of work, having regard to the fact that the inspectors of taxes in Scotland and Ireland have at their disposal for emergencies experienced clerks of this character, while the relief given in England is by the temporary engagement of inexperienced men who can render no real assistance.
  (Answered by Mr. Hayes Fisher.) Incases where expert assistance is required: to meet temporary pressure of work in a surveyor's office, such assistance is provided by sending out a surveyor from the head office staff It is not considered either necessary or desirable to adopt the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member. It is not the fact that such an arrangement exists in Scotland or Ireland.

  Assistant Teachers in Ireland—Teaching of Irish.
  MR. CREAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, if an assistant teacher give instruction in Irish during the year, his or her name must necessarily be returned at the end of the year, i.e., at the annual examination, as having taught such subject; and whether the Commissioners will insist on the name of every teacher who gives instruction in any extra subject in a national school being returned on the yearly returns as having taught such subjects during the year.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed that the name of every teacher who gives instruction in a national school must be submitted to the Commissioners for approval, and should appear on the yearly returns from each school. There is a special form of report for extra subjects showing the name of the person or persons giving the instruction, and of the pupils receiving instruction.

  Erection of Labourers' Cottages in the Listowel Union.
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have sanctioned in 1901 the erection of six labourers' cottages in the Tarbert electoral division of the Listowel Union; and, if so, will he explain why those cottages have not been built or the plots of land given to the labourers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Local Government Board by Provisional Order dated 10th May, 1901, authorised the District Council to erect one cottage and to provide seven additional half-acre plots for cottages already built in this electoral division. The arbitrator's award fixing the compensation to be paid for the lands 'was completed in June last. The carrying into execution of the scheme sanctioned by the Board and of putting the labourers into possession of the plots is entirely a matter for the District Council.

  Ireland—Local Government Audits—St. Patrick's Day.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Local Government Board auditors have sent notices of audit to the Killarney Urban Council, the Kanturk Rural Council, and other places, for St. Patrick's Day; and if he will give instructions to have all audits fixed for this day postponed.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It is not proposed to hold any audits on the date mentioned.

  Labourers' (Ireland) Act—Return.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to grant the Return in reference to the Labourers' Acts standing on the Paper.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am quite prepared to grant a Return. In its present form, however, it is open to improvement. The alterations that I suggest, and which I have communicated to the hon. Member, will, I think, commend themselves to his colleague in whose name the Return stands.

  Military Education—Promotion of Noncommissioned Officers to Commissioned Rank.
  MR. RANDLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in drawing up regulations dealing with the future education of officers in His Majesty's Army, he will consider the possibility of including a provision by which a non-commissioned officer who qualifies himself may attain commissioned rank.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The promotion of non-commissioned officers to commissioned rank is already fully provided for in the regulations. The question of the relation between the future education of officers and the qualifications necessary for promotion from the ranks will not be lost sight of,

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Mock Courts-Martial in the Grenadier Guards.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will agree to the appointment of a Committee of this House to inquire into the practices which have obtained in the Grenadier Guards in respect to mock Courts-martial by and on officers, and the punishments inflicted, with a view to elucidate what officers have been responsible for such practices; and whether anything of a like nature has existed in other regiments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,: The matters referred to have been dealt with by the Commander-in-Chief, and I cannot for a moment consent to interfere with his authority in the direction suggested by the hon. Member. I have no information in regard to mock Courts-martial in other regiments, with the exception of one case, which is now the subject of investigation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he will not agree to give this Committee, lay on the Table of the House the evidence before the Court of Inquiry, which he promised to do if he were asked for it? I ask for it.
  MR. BRODRICK: I went as far as to say that of course I should lay on the Table of the House, in any case, the evidence of Colonel Kinloch, which I quoted last night. I also said I would, if I were pressed for it, lay the whole of the evidence on the Table. But, at the same time, I would strongly appeal to the House not to insist on this very unusual course. I believe there is no precedent for laying on the Table the evidence of a regimental inquiry of this character; and, unless there is a belief that substantial injustice has been done, I do not think the House will press for it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the Prime Minister tell me whether he can give me a day to press the Secretary of State for War?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E): The hon.
  570
  Gentleman can, of course, resort to the ballot in the ordinary way.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis): On a point of order I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a Minister, having quoted from a document as to which he is not prepared to say it would be contrary to the public interest to lay it upon the Table of the House, is not bound, at the request of any hon. Member, to lay it on the Table.
  MR. BRODRICK: On the point of order, I would submit to you, Sir, that I have proposed to, and shall, lay on the Table the document to which my hon. friend alludes—namely, the evidence which I quoted.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I have nothing to add to what I stated in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich yesterday evening. That was, I believe, a correct statement.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the rule when a correspondence is referred to, to lay on the Table the whole of the correspondence. Are there not precedents which govern that the document from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted was part and parcel of the correspondence?
  *MR. SPEAKER: There have been cases; and it is perfectly correct to say that when a Minister does quote part of a document he may be called upon to lay on the Table the whole of that document. I also stated last night that that was subject to this provision—that if the Minister stated that it was contrary to the public interest that the Paper should be disclosed, he is at liberty to say so, and he takes the responsibility upon himself.
  MR. PIRIE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the grave injury which will ensue to military discipline from the publication of the documents, he will reconsider his decision not to grant a Court-martial in this case?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On the point of order, Sir, am I to understand that when you said document you meant

  571
  the whole of the correspondence germane to the question, and not merely a single document?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I never said anything so vague as that.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that he declines to lay on the Table the whole of this evidence on the, ground that it is contrary to the public interest?
  MR. BRODRICK: I cannot actually say that it will be contrary to the public interest, but I say it is contrary to precedent, that, in my opinion, it is also entirely subversive of the interests of discipline to lay details of discipline cases before the House. May I be allowed to explain '? My point is this. Nobody alleges that there was intention on the part of the Command;; r-in-Chief either not to protect these subalterns or to prevent the recurrence of the same chain of circumstances. Under these circumstances the mere revelation of a number of names and incidents, to which a great deal too much importance has been attached, would be, I think, highly undesirable. I have not the slightest desire to conceal anything. So far as the War Office is concerned there is nothing which cannot be published to-morrow; but I would appeal to the hon. Member and to the House not to press for a course which would be very unusual. In reply to the hon. Member for North Aberdeen I can assure him that, the Commander-in-Chief having dealt with this matter of discipline fully, and no doubt effectively as an example to all, I shall certainly not accept the idea of a Court-martial.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have to ask you, Sir, whether, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War says he is not prepared to say that it is contrary to the public interest that this evidence should be submitted to the House, he is not bound, by your explanation of the rule, to lay it before the House?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I hardly understood precisely what the right hon. Gentleman
  572
  did say on that point. I understood him to say he considered it would be subversive of military discipline: but whether he considers, in saying that, that it would not be in the public interest I do not know. The responsibility of whether it is contrary to the public interest or not must be on him and not on me.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would call your attention to the fact that, unless I am very much mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman himself said that he could not say that it was contrary to the public interest.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I did not gather that those were his words. Of course, if that is so, I think he is bound to lay the document on the Table.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I not right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman said he could not say that it was not in the public interest?
  MR. BRODRICK: I certainly drew a distinction between what might be considered in the public interest and the interests of the discipline of the Army. I certainly think that anything which tends to interfere with the authority of the Commander-in Chief is contrary to the discipline of the Army, and in that sense, of course, t is contrary to the public interest. May I be allowed to say that the publication of the evidence of one officer, whose conduct has been brought before the House, does in no sense involve the publication of the evidence of a number of other officers whose conduct has not been brought before the House? It would be only similar to what has been done in many other cases—namely, to publish an individual letter or despatch without publishing the whole of the correspondence relating to it.

  The Flogging of Two Drummer Boys.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in reference to his statement last night as to a breach of the King's Regulations, in the flogging of two drummer boys, he will place on the Table

  573
  of the House the evidence in regard to that transaction.
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, I have given my own statement as to a matter of fact, and I see no reason whatever for laying the Papers on the Table of the House.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant me the return as to flogging which I have put on the Paper?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, Sir, I cannot in its present form.

  Boer Prisoners of War Colonial Control.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War under what authority, statutory or otherwise, have Boers taken prisoner in the late war, who have been deported to India, Ceylon, or Bermuda, been detained in imprisonment, and in many instances treated as common criminals, for nearly a twelvemonth after the conclusion of the peace.
  The hon. Member had the following Questions down on the same subject:
  To ask the. Secretary of State for War how many Boer prisoners of war are at present detained in Bermuda, and under what circumstances are they now detained, and when will they be sent back to South Africa.
  To ask the Secretary of State for War at what stations in India are Boers, who have been taken prisoners in the late war, imprisoned at the pre cent time, and what are the numbers of the Boers detained at each station; by whose authority, and on whose responsibility, was a communication made to Boers thus imprisoned that default in taking the oath of allegiance would prolong their stay in the hotter districts, whereas the taking by them of that oath would secure their removal to cool hill stations; and what course does the War Office intend to take with reference to these prisoners.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E. for MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer these Questions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, Sir, I will not.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Then do I understand it is not the intention of the hon. Member to put these questions?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, Sir, I put them to the Secretary for War. This is a matter for personal explanation. The Postmaster General is no doubt willing to answer, but I decline to allow him because I have received, and I have in my possession, a letter from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War promising me that he would answer these three, questions to-day.
  MR. BRODRICK: My reply is that the whole matter was handed over to the Colonial Office in June last, and, therefore, the hon. Member must address his Questions to my right hon. friend.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why did you send me a letter saying that you would answer these questions to-day?
  MR. BRODRICK: I said I was willing to give an answer to a question you asked me, that question being whether I would reply to these questions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: And now you decline to reply to them.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these are matters for the Colonial Office, and, therefore, the hon. Member must address them to that Department.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Now I want to ask the Secretary for War a question, of which I have given him private notice. It is: Whether the control and treatment of the Boers who were taken prisoners in the late war, and who have been deported to India, Ceylon, and the Bermudas, and detained there notwithstanding the conclusion of the war and the proclamation of peace,

  575
  are within the purview of the War Office, and within his sphere as Minister for War.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is merely carrying on a debate as to whether these questions should be dealt with by the War Office or the Colonial Office. He has been told that the Colonial Office deals with them, and I think he is now carrying the privilege of putting supplementary questions too far. If he wishes to make any more inquiries he must put his question down.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I can only say that I put my question to the right hon. Gentleman in accordance with a request which he made to me. The hon. Member proposed to address the questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, but he had left the House.

  Somaliland Campaign.
  MR. CHARLES HORHOUSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that an object of the movements in Somaliland is to give a prominent share in the campaign to the Somali levies, who are stated to be without courage, and who require the severest disciplinary measures; and what further information he can give on the subject.
  MR. BRODRICK: There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the Somali levies are to be given a prominent share in the campaign. There are none employed in General Manning's column. The only Somalis now employed belong to the permanent local battalion of King's African Rifles, and have been left under the orders of the officer commanding the lines of communication in the Protectorate.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what this war is all about?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: They cannot.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  The Lancers—Prizes for Lance Practice.
  *COLONEL LEGGE (St. George's, Hanover Square): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the prizes for good lance practice now awarded annually to the non-commissioned officers and men of Lancer regiments are to be discontinued.
  MR. BRODRICK: At the time when the extra service pay of sixpence a day was sanctioned it was determined to treat twopence of this pay as the reward of increased efficiency in shooting, gunnery, or skill in lance practice, etc.; consequently special prizes will not be given for these services.

  Lance v. Sword.
  *COLONEL LEGGE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the question of regiments of Lancers, Dragoon Guards, and Dragoons retaining the lance for active service and ceasing to carry the sword.
  MR. BRODRICK: This question has been very thoroughly considered by the military authorities, and it would be impossible for me to reopen the decision come to entirely on military grounds.
  MAJOR WYNDHAM QUINwas understood to ask if the Order had been issued with the approval of the new Inspector-General of Cavalry.
  Mr. BRODRICK: It is most unusual to ask in this House as to what special officer has been cognisant of a particular Order; and I may say, in reply to my hon. and gallant friend, that an entirely erroneous impression was produced on the House the other day by a statement to that effect with regard to the Inspector-General of Auxiliary forces. I have not the sightest doubt that the Inspector-General of Cavalry was fully consulted in this matter.

  Marine Engineering Committee.
  MR. GIBSON, BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he state the names of the members of the Committee of the highest recognised authorities in the country appointed to assist the Board of

  577
  Admiralty in dealing with the problems of marine engineering; in what respect does the equipment of the Board require strengthening for this purpose; and how will the exercise of its functions by this Committee affect the action and the responsibility of the Engineer-in-Chief.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The Committee to which my hon. friend refers has not yet been appointed, and no steps will be taken to constitute it until the present Boiler Committee has completed its inquiries. It is believed that it will be an advantage to the Admiralty to obtain the advice of a Committee composed of the highest engineering authorities in the country on such questions as may be referred to it. It is hoped that the Committee will render to the engineering branch of the Navy services similar to those which have been rendered with great advantage by Sir Frederick Bramwell and Sir Benjamin Baker to the Ordnance Branch. The appointment of the Committee will not in any way diminish the responsibility of the Engineer-in-Chief.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Committee will be appointed?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, I cannot.

  Lord Goschen's Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the steps which the Board of Admiralty have already taken to remedy the absence from the Flag List of a due proportion of younger officers; hare these steps been taken in pursuance of the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Lord Goschen; and will he either lay upon the Table the Report of that Committee or the recommendations embodied therein; if so, will he do this before the discussion on the Navy Estimates.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Report of Lord Goschen's Committee has not yet been fully considered by the Board of Admiralty. It is not, however, proposed to lay the Report upon the
  578
  Table. Steps have already been taken by the Admiralty to remedy the absenc from the Flag List of a due proportion of younger officers. A certain number of young officers have been added both to the captains' and commanders' lists, and will thus reach flag rank at an earlier age than has lately been usual.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I to understand that steps have been taken before the Report of the Committee has been fully considered?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Steps have been taken, but that does not preclude any further steps being taken if it is thought desirable.

  Increase of the Fleet—Committee.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, will he state names of the members of the Committee which reported, in 1902, on the increase of the Fleet in commission and reserve in home waters and the consequent congestion of accommodation: and will he lay their Report on the Table, or state its purport before the discussion on the Navy Estimates; and was the selection of the Firth of Forth for the establishment of a Naval base and depot recommended by that Committee in preference to other available sites.
  *THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood-bridge): The Committee consisted of Sir William Wharton (hydrographer), Sir James Williamson (Director of Dockyards), Captain G. Patey, R.N. (Assistant Director of Naval Intelligence), Colonel E. Raban (Director of Works), and myself. The Report, which contains other matter than that referred to in the Question, much of which is of a confidential nature, cannot in any case be laid upon the Table of the House before the discussion on the Navy Estimates. Before the introduction of the Naval Works Bill a decision will be arrived at whether this can be done, but no pledge can be given on the subject. The answer to the second paragraph of the Question is "Yes."

  Conveyance of Stores to South Africa—Wages of Sailors and Firemen.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that His Majesty's Governments negotiating contracts for the conveyance of stores to South Africa by vessels owned by companies that are. paying wages below the standard rate for sailors and firemen; and whether, in view of the Fair Wages Resolution of this House, and of the fact that numbers of British seamen who rendered service during the recent war in South Africa are unable to obtain employment on British ships, he can take any steps to secure that such men should receive employment in preference to foreigners.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member refers to shipments by His Majesty's Government this Question should be addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Admiralty; but if he alludes, as I presume be does, to the shipment of stores for the Governments of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony and for the Central South African Railways, I would point out that any contracts which the Crown agents for the colonies might take for these purposes would not come within the scope of the Resolution of this House to which he refers, and I regret that it is not possible, in the arrangements to which the hon. Member refers, to secure the objects which he has in view.

  Labour Ordinances in the Transvaal.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, as representing the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the various ordinances of the late Boer Government in respect to black and white labour in the Transvaal, all changes and new regulations that have been made in these ordinances since the annexation of the Transvaal, and all correspondence on the subject between the Transvaal Government and the Johannesburg Chamber of Mines, or any other persons purporting to be the representatives of the mine owners.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN (for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): Several of the more important enactments have already been included in the Parliamentary Papers Command 714 and Command 904. I could not undertake to lay all the various Papers asked for, but the laws and proclamations of the Transvaal have been placed in the Library. I have no knowledge of any correspondence of the nature referred to.
  In reply to a further Question by Mr. LABOUCHERE,
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN said he believed the Command Papers referred to contained all the more important ordinances.

  India—Water Storage and Irrigation Commission.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Commission, of which Sir C. Scott-Moncrieff is Chairman, appointed by Lord Curzon in 1901 to investigate projects for water storage and irrigation throughout India, began its labours in the latter part of that year, and that evidence was given before it in that year in Northern Guzerat describing several projects for water storage in that province; whether any of these works have yet been put in band; and, if not, whether the Bombay Government can be empowered to undertake them forthwith, so that the rains and surplus floods of the next monsoon may be saved during the current year; and whether any communications that may have been received from Lord Northcote's Government on this subject will be placed before the House at an early date.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Middlesex, Ealing): The Irrigation Commission, of which Sir Colin Scott-Moncrieff is Chairman, has not yet reported, but the members have stated that "they are very sensible that the question of the extension of irrigation in India, in any large and systematic manner, cannot be treated piecemeal; "and I hold the same view. I have not received any communication from the Government of Bombay as to projects for water storage in Northern Guzerat.

  Indian Currency.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether information has been obtained from India enabling him to state in round numbers how many sovereigns have been paid into the Indian Treasuries for Land Revenue, Customs, or other fiscal payments, since gold coin was made legal tender at the rate of fifteen rupees; also, for the same period, what number of sovereigns have been paid out at the same rate by the departments for the local purchases of materials, stores, salaries, interest, and other State obligations.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Since gold was made legal tender in India £25,282,000 has been received in gold by the Government of India, and £18,825,000 has been issued—viz., £7,000,000 shipped to England and £11,825,000 issued to the public. I am not able to give figures showing the nature of the several transactions in which gold has been used; but I will inquire of the Government of India whether any record has been kept from which any classification of the nature that the hon. Member desires could be prepared.

  Concessions in East Africa.
  MR. MALCOLM: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will agree to give the Return respecting East Africa, &c. (Concessions), notice for which stands on today's Paper.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, (Lord CRANBORNE, Rochester): We are expecting despatches from Africa in the course of a few days, and will then be in a better position to judge whether this Return can be granted.

  The Prosecution of Mr. Whitaker Wright.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in view of Mr. Justice Buckley's decision to direct the Official Receiver, as liquidator of the London and Globe Finance Corporation, to institute proceedings against Mr. Whitaker Wright at the expense of the
  582
  creditors on the ground that a prima facie case of fraud has been shown, he will now reconsider his decision not to direct the Public Prosecutor to institute the necessary proceedings at the public expense.
  MR. NORMAN: May I at the same time ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of Mr. Justice Buckley's decision, he still proposes to introduce new legislation to facilitate the prosecution of persons charged with the publication of a fraudulent balance-sheet.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): The answer to the Question of my hon. friend is in the negative. I think the control of these proceedings should remain in the hands of the Official Receiver and of the solicitors and counsel instructed by him. The Government will, of course, take all steps that will be necessary for the purpose of bringing the accused back. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, I think an amendment of the law in this matter is wanted. A Bill is being drafted, and I trust I shall be in a position at an early period to introduce it.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Home Secretary, in accordance with notice which I have given privately, why directions were not given, in accordance with practice, to the police to watch the movements of Mr. Whitaker Wright immediately after the preliminary steps; had been taken for the institution of criminal proceedings against him, for the purpose of guarding against any evasion of justice on his part. Why was Mr. Whitaker Wright permitted to leave the country without any attempt by the police to obtain information as to his destination?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The private notice of the hon. Member I found when I came to the House just now, I do not think this is a Question which should be asked without notice. The question of the directions given in this case and the knowledge of the police in search of a fugitive are certainly not matters which can be made public in the interests of justice at the present moment. I am prepared to tell the House what I know,

  583
  but I cannot prejudice the interests of justice by giving answers likely to defeat the very object we have in view. I stated last night that a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Whitaker Wright was granted at the Guildhall Police-court yesterday morning. It is now in the hands of the City Police for execution. The Metropolitan Police are cooperating with the City Police, and I have satisfied myself that all possible steps have been taken by the two forces to effect arrest. I would repeat that the Government will use every means to that end. The police inform me that Mr. Whitaker Wright has not been at his home since 21st February. The judgment of Mr. Justice Buckley was not given until 10th March, and the prosecution did not apply for a warrant till 11th March.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, after the statement made by the Attorney General that there was no case against him, Mr. Whitaker Wright said, "I think I will go away to Egypt for a time?"

  Court of Session—Edinburgh
  MR. URE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the present accommodation in the Court of Session is inadequate for the public requirements; and whether, seeing that plans showing the requisite additions were prepared by officials in the Board of Works Office nearly twenty years ago, the Government propose to take any immediate steps to remedy the existing deficiency of accommodation.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The question of the additions required to provide for proper accommodation in the Court of Session has been receiving the attention of the Board of Works, and I am hopeful that progress will be made in the matter at no distant date.

  Death Certificates in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, in view of the opinions expressed in regard to death certificates in the Report of the Cremation Committee recently issued, will the Secretary for Scotland consider
  584
  the expediency of introducing legislation at an early date relative to death certificates in Scotland, especially having regard to the fact that the last published Returns show, that out of 6,620 deaths in the Highland Crofting Counties in one year, no less than 1,479 were uncertified.
  *MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The Secretary for Scotland cannot at present undertake to introduce legislation on this subject.

  High Pavement School Nottingham.
  MR. M'KENNA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether at the time when the Board suggested that the children in the intermediate department of the High Pavement School, Nottingham, should be sent to All Saints' National School, his attention had been called to the fact that the High Pavement School is more than a mile from All Saints' School, that the bulk of the children proposed to be transferred live on the side of the High Pavement School away from All Saints' School, that the space between the schools is open land, unoccupied and unprotected, and that, owing to the assaults that have taken place on this land, children have been forbidden to. play there. And, whether, in view of the danger the children living on the far side of this unoccupied land may run. in, going to and from All Saints' School, he will reconsider his refusal to allow the School Board to continue, for the purposes of the intermediate school, the temporary use of the rooms which have been so used since August 1892.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): From reports in their possession the Board of Education understand that the distance between the High Pavement School and the All Saints' School is not more than half-a-mile, and they have no reason to think that the space between them, though open, is dangerous. As I said on Tuesday,* the All Saints' School was not the only school suggested, though it was especially mentioned by name, as it was known to have a large number of
  *See page 266

  585
  vacant places. The Carrington Road Board School is also only half-a-mile distant, and the Scotholme Board School is sufficiently near for the children of that school to use the laundry of the High Pavement School. There are, I believe, vacant places in both these schools. The Board of Education, as at present advised, see no reason to alter their decision with regard to the laundry and gymnasium of the High Pavement School, the use of which does not affect that school only. But they will, of course, he prepared to consider carefully any representations which may be made to them on the subject. I may point out that the date at the end of the Question should be August 1902, not August 1892.
  MR. M'KENNA: Will the hon. Gentleman further inquire as to the distance and nature of the ground between the two schools?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Yes, but I may say I have here information which does not correspond with the description given by the hon. Member.

  Charleville Licensing Case.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a licensing case against Mr. Edmond O'Flaherty at the Charleville Petty Sessions on the 2nd instant., and to the evidence and conduct of Acting Sergeant Hourihane: is he aware that the case was dismissed by the unanimous decision of the magistrates; and, in view of the terms in which this policeman alluded to certain traders of the town, will notice be taken of his conduct by the constabulary authorities. I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the attention of the constabulary authorities has been called to the conduct, on recent occasions, of Acting Sergeant Hourihane, now stationed in Charleville, County Cork; is he aware that this policeman committed an assault on Mrs. James Martell of that town in the month of February, which was duly reported to the district inspector, Royal Irish Constabulary; has his attention been directed to the statements of this constable to a respectable merchant, Mr. Biggane, on his leaving Charleville Petty Sessions
  586
  Court on the 2nd inst.; and will he say what steps do the constabulary authorities intend to take in regard to this police officer.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): The hon. Member has been good enough to send me a newspaper report of the proceedings in this case. Charges have been preferred against the Acting Sergeant (three of them at the suit of Mr. O'Flaherty), which will be investigated by the magistrates in Petty Sessions on Monday next. For the present, therefore, I am debarred from discussing the action of the acting sergeant.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to whether this constable assaulted Mrs. Martell?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes; but as judicial proceedings are pending, I feel debarred from expressing any opinion on the matter.

  Irish National School Teachers—Grade Regulations.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state when the National Board of Education intend to place teachers in their respective grades according to the new regulations; and will each teacher be placed in the grade not lower than the class he now holds under the old rules.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that all teachers in the service prior to the 1st April, 1900, came under the new system of gradation in accordance with the terms of Rule 200 (e) and (f), and have been graded accordingly. Classification Las been abolished for all future teachers, and in the case of teachers in the service prior to 1st April, 1900, there is no necessary correspondence between their former classes and their present grades.

  Irish Teachers' Increments.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether trained teachers will be awarded increments in the case of schools where the general proficiency of the pupils at the annual inspection is

  587
  described by the inspector as fair, but which suffer from irregular attendance.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The course adopted by the Commissioners in this respect is defined by Rule 200 (b) of the Code. Awards of good service salary will also be contingent on the actual incomes of individual teachers, the average attendance at their schools, and other considerations. Each case will be judged on its merits, subject to the general rules governing all cases.

  Technical Instruction at Monivea, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a resolution of the Tuam Technical Instruction Committee in December last requesting the County Galway Technical Instruction Committee to allow a sum of £10 a year for rent of a house for technical instruction at Monivea, County Galway; and whether, seeing that this sum was voted by the County Technical Instruction Committee on the 11th December, 1902, will the Department of Technical Instruction raise any objection to the County Committee paying over the sum of £10 to the local Committee.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Provision for the payment of the sum mentioned was not made in the County Technical Instruction Scheme for the year ending July next, which has been approved by the Department. There is no power, there fore, to approve of payment now, but the matter can be adjusted when the scheme for next year is Under consideration.

  Fishing Season in County Down.
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Upper Bann River, County Down, the fishing season closes every year by order of the Coleraine Board of Conservators on 30th September, while in the other County Down rivers the season is open till 31st October by order of the Dundalk Board of Conservators; and whether, in view of the inconvenience caused by the
  588
  enforcement of the earlier date to the Upper Bann fishermen, and of the refusal of the Coleraine Board of Conservators to accede to the request of the Belfast Anglers' Association to recommend the extension of the time on the Upper Bann, he will arrange for an inquiry to be instituted locally with a view to the extension of the season, or to the transfer of the control from the Coleraine Board to the Dundalk Board.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are correctly stated in the first part of the Question. With respect to the holding of a local inquiry a legal disability exists which the Bill introduced by me last year, but which failed to become law, was intended to remove. The inquiry cannot, therefore, be held until the new Department is empowered by legislation to deal with such questions.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Docs the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce the Bill?
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, if there is any prospect of it passing; but we already have a very heavy legislative programme.

  Castletown Postmistress.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the wife of a policeman stationed in the village of Castletown, Queen's County, has been appointed postmistress there; and, in view of the inconvenience of the premises, whether he will state who recommended this postmistress, and lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the memorial from the inhabitants of Castletown and district recommending Mrs. Murphy for the appointment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I appointed Mrs. Quinn on condition that she became tenant of suitable premises, and that her husband retired from the constabulary, as I considered her to be the candidate most suitable for the appointment. I cannot comply with the request contained in the latter part of the hon. Member's question.
  MR. DELANY: Had the husband resigned about the time of the appointment of his wife?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The post was offered to the wife on the condition that her husband did resign.

  The Ex-Banbridge Postmaster
  MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the official who was forced to resign the postmaster-ship of Banbridge, County Down, has been restored to the public service; and, if so, will he state what appointment he now holds, and under what circumstances he has been reinstated.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The officer in question has been appointed Postmaster of Coupar Angus, as I considered that although he had failed in his management of the Banbridge Post Office he might safely be entrusted with the charge of a smaller office.
  MR. MACVEAGH: And this is the only Irish postmasterappointed to aScotch office (luring the last ten years!

  THE IRISH LAND KILL.
  MR. MALCOLM: Can the Prime Minister state when it is likely that the Irish Land Bill will be introduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I have already indicated to the House that the Bill is ready, and that we are anxious to introduce it at the earliest possible moment. On the other hand, as the House knows, there are obligations thrown upon the House by the law which obliges us to get through a certain amount of important financial work before the end of the financial year. As soon as that financial work is disposed of I propose that the Irish Land Bill shall be the first business.

NEW BILLS.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To abolish Dealers' or Grocers' Licences in Scotland," presented by Sir John Leng; supported by Mr. Crombie, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Pirie, and Mr. Hunter Craig; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th May. and to be printed. [Bill 95]
  COUNTY COURTS BILL.
  "To extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts, and to amend the Acts relating or giving jurisdiction thereto," presented by Sir William Holland; supported by Mr. Crombie, Sir Alfred Hickman, Mr. M'Kenna, Mr. Parkes, and Mr. Schwann; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]
  LICENSING ACTS CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To consolidate the Laws relating to Licensing in Scotland," presented by The Lord Advocate; supported by Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland and Mr. Anstruther; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]
  BERWICKSHIRE COUNTY TOWN BILL.
  "To constitute the Town of Duns to be the Head Burgh or County Town of Berwickshire," presented by the Lord Advocate; supported by the solicitor General for Scotland; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in counties of Scotland; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Maxwell; supported by Mr. Nicol, Mr. Eugene Wason, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Hozier, and Sir Charles Renshaw; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To provide for Superannuation Allowances to Poor Law Officers and Servants in Scotland; and for contributions towards such allowances by such officers and servants; and to make other relative provisions," presented by Mr. Maxwell; supported by Sir William Arrol, Mr. Nicol, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Cross, Colonel Denny, Mr. Ure, and Sir Charles Renshaw; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 100.]
  REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
  "For the Registration of Firms and Persons carrying on Business under Trade Names," presented by Mr. Emmott; supported by Mr. James Heath, Sir Alfred Hickman, Sir William Holland, and Mr. Walter Palmer; to be read a second time upon Friday, 8th May, and to be printed [Bill 101.]

  SUPPLY [1st ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee).

MR. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the chair.

  ARMY ESTIMATES 1903–4
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,647,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge for the pay, allowances and other charges of His Majesty's Army at home and abroad (exclusive of India) (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that so far as these debates on the Army question had proceeded the Committee would not differ from him when he said that they had been marked with great good humour and by the absence of personalities, the only exception being the debate on the preceding night, which every Member of the House would no doubt regard with regret. The Government on their part had Accorded those who differed from them on this question of the Army the greatest facility for laying their case before the House and the country, and they were very sensible that the right hon. Gentlemen, the Prime Minister and the Secretary for War, had not desired on any account whatever to prevent these questions being most thoroughly and carefully discussed. He would venture to express the hope that, if the present debate should come to a conclusion that evening, the Prime Minister would afford them another day for discussing the Report Stage. He wished to emphasise, the fact that they were not criticising the action of the Secretary for War; they were criticising his policy,
  592
  and the right hon. Gentleman would admit that if in the recent reconstruction of the Ministry he had had the fortune, good or bad, to go to the Treasury, he would at this very moment be regarding those whose action he was no doubt, under existing circumstances, strongly disapproving, as praiseworthy, admirable, and proper Members of the Conservative Party. Had any other Minister occupied the position the right hon. Gentleman now did, and were he pursuing the same policy, he would have met with the same hostile criticism. This was a Vote for money, and it brought home with great force the increasing cost of the British Army. If the hon. Gentleman would look back only five or six years he would see that to-day we were spending upon our armaments double the sum which was then thought necessary. We had built up great fortifications; we had organised new regiments; we had purchased all manner of cannon and all means of protection, and what was the result? No one looking at the question as an impartial man could say that we felt to-day more secure than five years ago, or that we had less cause of apprehension from the other nations of the world. The hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow told them in debate two nights ago that if it were desired to reduce the expenditure the last item to be touched should be the Army. Surely that was not a proper consideration. If any hon. Gentleman could show the same extravagance to exist in other Departments as undoubtedly existed in the Army, he was sure there would be no lack of Members in that House to draw attention to the fact. The view which had been put forward on that side of the House that those who opposed expenditure upon armaments were necessarily unpatriotic could only be compared with the opinion held on the other side of the House that all who supported [the expenditure on education—whether wise or unwise, whether economical or the reverse—were what he might term obscurantists. Such questions must be dealt with on their merits, and there was no reason why those who approached the question of Army expenditure from the point of view of efficiency should be mistrusted because possibly in their

  593
  hearts they nourished some love of economy. After all economy and efficiency, so far from being antagonistic, were twin sisters.
  He wished to draw attention to a few facts which a careful study of the Army Estimates could not fail to bring to the attention of hon. Members who cared to spare the time. The first was the fact of the increasing cost of the Army and the diminishing return proportionately for that increasing cost. He would give a couple of instances taken at random from items of expenditure which fell within the scope of that Vote.
  The Secretary of State for War talked the other day about too little being said regarding the Militia. He would take the case of the Militia now. In the year 1898–9 there were in this country 103,000 Militia, and Lord Lansdowne estimated the cost for that year at £553,000. In the present year, according to the returns presented to Parliament, it was estimated that there were 102,000 Militia, and they were to cost £903,000. It was quite fair and necessary to say that they must deduct £150,000 for what the Prime Minister had called the Great Militia Reserve—the Great Militia Reserve which every hon. Gentleman, according to his right hon. friend, had omitted to thank the Government forcreating, and which wasat present, of course, absolutely non-existent. But £150,000 was taken in the Votes last year for the formation of this Reserve. But, of course, because it was not in existence it was not necessary to utilise that sum. Putting aside the £150,000 for this valuable force, there remained this fact, which he invited the Committee to consider with attention: the Secretary of State for War had invested £200,000 of public money in the Militia, and as the result of this extra investment he produced 1,000 Militiamen less than he had in the days when Lord Lansdowne administered the War Department. That was one instance illustrating the point he was endeavouring to establish—the increasing cost and the diminishing return. There was another point, namely, the expenditure on the War (Mice General Staff. Of course, when they approached this item in the Estimates they did so with a feeling of hope, because they knew that the great scheme of decentralisation had lately been carried into effect, and that, of course, it must produce pro-
  594
  portionate economy at Headquarters. His right hon. friend the other afternoon said—
  "Scarcely a day passes that we do not transfer work and responsibility from Headquarters to the new Army Corps staff, which are created in the country."
  Let the Committee look at the first fruits of this policy of devolution and decentralisation. In 1898–9 the cost of the War Office was £215,000; in the present year it was estimated to cost £301,000. That was air increase of £28,000 on last year's Estimates, and an increase of £56,000 or 20 per cent. on the last normal year. He reminded the Committee that this was after a very liberal reduction had been made of £30,000 allowed for the extra expenses incidental to the South African campaign. Of course "the labourer is worthy of his hire," but he ventured to think that the Committee would be of opinion that an increase of 20 per cent. in the clerical staff of the War Office was a wholly inadequate reward even for the great exertions and achievements of that Department during the last few years. When he discovered in the Estimates, which he had examined carefully, this increase of £28,000, he was led at first to believe, indeed, to hope, that it was due to an increase in the Intelligence Department, but when he looked at the Army Estimates he found that the estimated cost of the Intelligence Department, after all the agitation, and in response to the demand that the brain of the Army should not be starved, was £27,428 as against £27,721 in the last year. This great and desirable economy had been effected, he observed from a close examination of the Estimates, fry abolishing one lithographic draughtsman and one superintending clerk, and by substituting two ordinary military clerks.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire, Westhoughton): And also doing away with the Permit Office, which is no longer required.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL said he was very anxious to obtain information. Was that not allowed for in the extra expenditure due to the South African War?
  LORD STANLEY: I will answer the hon. Gentleman later on.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL said he would await with great interest a statement showing what increases had been made in the Intelligence Department. Unless the noble Lora said that the adding of the Mobilisation Department to the Intelligence Department had caused the increase, he did not know how it could be explained. While on this branch of the subject he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, when he, alluded to district officers, he alluded to that class of officers who used to be known as A.Q.M.G., and who, under the new Army Scheme were known as D.A.A.G.B. If be was right in his inference it was a very strong order, because they had only half the duties in connection with the different districts with which they were connected. Any accretion to the Intelligence Department attributed to the position of these officers was very illusory, and it ought not to delude the House of Commons in considering this question. He had one more point illustrating his argument of the diminishing return. If the Secretary of State for War and others would refer to the Army Estimates at page 12, they would find under "Total Force" a very useful statement which could be easily understood. From that statement it was easy to make a comparison with similar items in the Estimates of 1898–9. In 1898–9 Lord Lansdowne asked the House of Commons to take upon the establishment of the Regular Army 171,000 regular soldiers, and 83,000 Army Reserve, making a total of 254,000 men. For that total force he asked Estimates of £18,000,000 approximately. In the present year my right hon. friend asked the House of Commons to take on the establishment 197,000 Regular soldiers, and 70,000 Army Reserves, making a total of 267,000 men. The right hon. Gentleman would be the last to dispute that the Army Reserve and the Regular Army were the preponderating and most important part of the Estimates. These figures showed that while he obtained an increase of 13,000 men, there was an increase of £9,500,000 of money on the Army Estimates. That was to say, for an increase of 8 per cent. in the number of men he had caused an increase in the expenditure of 35 per cent.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): What year?
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL said the comparison was with the year 1898–9, which, as the right hon. Gentleman would recollect, was the last normal year before the war.
  *MR. BRODRICK: I wish to explain to the Committee that when numbers are voted by the House they are included in the Estimates, but everybody knows that an addition, a very large addition, was made in the year 1898. I think the number was 17,000 men, and it was mentioned at the time that we could not expect to raise all these Regulars in the same year. The amount voted was the money necessary for the men that we expected to raise, and that was included in the Estimates.
  Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL said he would endeavour to be fair, and he had no doubt that some drawback should be considered under that head. The Estimates of this year amounted to £27,500,000, and the Committee had heard of such things as Supplementary Estimates. It was quite possible that the cost of the Army this year would exceed the somewhat optimistic Estimates set forward in these Estimates. But that was not all. Let him remind the House what this £27,500,000 included and what it excluded. The £27,500,000 included the expenditure in regard to South Africa, some of which might continue—his right hon. friend would not deny that it might continue—for two or three years ahead. It excluded all reference to expenditure under the Mowatt programme—a very important item. It excluded practically the whole of the increased pay. In these Estimates there was an item of £495,000 for the increase paid, which fell due this, year. There was also a windfall in respect to the deferred pay of nearly £430,000, which might fairly be written off against that. It excluded all the extra provision for barracks. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee some idea of the extra cost they must pay with regard" to barracks. Of course it would be an extension of the Military Loans Act of

  597
  1891, but it would be a great convenience to the Committee if they were able to calculate in regard to barracks the probable ultimate cost of the Army Scheme of 1901. It excluded all expenditure with regard to the new rifle, which his hon. friend the Member for Plymouth referred to the other day. That was not considerable. It consisted in the cost of cutting a number of inches off the barrel of the rifle—a somewhat doubtful advantage some experts considered. It excluded certain artillery expenditure which was likely to become an important item in future. They had been told that the Volunteers had been entirely re-armed with modern guns. Forty-four batteries of Volunteer artillery had been partially re-armed, and eighty-one batteries remained armed entirely with obsolete weapons, and he said that they ought to be given modern weapons or disbanded.
  There were other items which would make themselves felt more and more in the future. The Reserve was to be brought up to 140,000. The Committee could calculate what that would cost at £9 per man. The Yeomanry, at present strength, numbered 22,000; they were to be increased to 29,000, and, if possible, to 45,000; that meant an additional £20 per man, but it was a much more desirable increase than under the head of skeleton and immature recruits. There was to be an increase of the Militia from 100,000 to 150,000 at about £16 per man.
  *MR. BRODRICK*MR. BRODRICK said that the Militia was not increased from 100,000 to 150,000. The proposal was that on mobilisation the Militia should be raised to 150,000 by the addition of the Reserve.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Then the increase was on the Militia Reserve, which would cost £G per man. He was anxious to bring home to the Committee and the country what the ultimate cost of this Army Scheme would be, to which they were committing themselves by associating themselves with this policy. They had had lately a promise of economy in the future, when the Reserve was filed up, which, he thought, was very encouraging, but of which they would never have heard but for the desirable
  598
  or undesirable signs of revolt which had made themselves felt below the Gangway. How did the Committee imagine the Reserve was to be filled up? The Line battalions were to be kept in a state of efficiency. They were inefficient cadres at 750 but efficient at 800 ! There was very little margin there. But the whole strength of the case, as presented by the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister, was that this was the irreducible minimum of men necessary for the defence of the Empire. Let them not delude themselves in this matter. The Reserve was only a shadow of the men with the Colours. The proportion of the men with the Colours was the proportion of the men who would be in the Reserve. The moment the men with the Colours were reduced in order to effect the promised economy, the Reserve which was being piled up would begin to be reduced. It would be doing what the right hon. Gentleman the previous night accused the Liberal Government of doing—living on accumulated stores.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid they could not tell exactly the strength to which the Reserve would grow, because they did not know how many men would join for three years service with the Colours and nine in the Reserve, or for four years with the Colours and eight in the Reserve. Every man who joined for three years' service with the Colours would strengthen the Reserve. If there was a reduction of strength with the Colours, as hinted at the other day, the reduction of the Reserve would, of course, be of some magnitude.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that the process of the reduction of the Reserve might be slow, but it must come. Another point was, what was the quality of the new Reserve as compared with; the old? Three years was not a very long time in which to train a soldier, and in a few years after passing into the Reserve he would lose much of his acquired habits of discipline and training. He would point out that this Reserve would be on the same level as the conscripts in France and: Germany, with this difference, that whereas the conscripts were taken from

  599
  the whole of the population, including a considerable proportion drawn from the superior classes, unfortunately our Regular soldiers were drawn from the poorest and least favourably circumstanced of all His Majesty's subjects. He would ask the Committee to look back on the inconsistent and contradictory proposals which had characterised the military policy of the Government for two or three years past.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War came down to the House and proposed the system of five years with the Colours and seven in the Reserve: he would have nothing to say to the three and nine years' system. Last year he adopted the latter system. Then, three years ago, the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that no increase of pay which the House of Commons was likely to grant would result in any very satisfactory increase in the number of recruits for the Army; but last year his right hon. friend, in a most eloquent and convincing speech, insisted that an increase of pay would be of great advantage to the recruiting for the Army. Last autumn a Bill was passed, one part of which proposed to create an Auxiliary force out of the men who had served with the Colours, and another part proposed to create a Reserve from men who had served in the Yeomanry. It might be quite, right to strengthen the Auxiliary forces at the expense of the Regular Army; and it might also be perfectly right to strengthen the Regular Army at the expense of the Auxiliary forces—he did not think so but they should have the two systems at one and the same time. They were told by the most distinguished military advisers, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, that every single man asked for was required—that that was the irreducible minimum, but it might be worth while to consider whether, besides being necessary, it was also possible.
  That brought him to the question of recruiting for the Army, for which the country was paying so much. What kind of an Army was it going to be? The right hon. Gentleman set great store on the Report of the Inspector-General for Recruiting, which was his main stall in all these debates. In
  600
  that Report it was stated that in the present year 50,753 recruits had been netted, as against 47,039 in the preceding year. That was the greatest number of recruits netted in one year under the short service system. Now, 50,000 recruits was the minimum number with which the right hon. Gentleman could manage his scheme, which only left a margin of 750. If the recruiting did not come up to the right hon. Gentleman's estimates, hopes, and beliefs, then his scheme, however necessary or desirable, was going to fail, and he would have to come down to the House of Commons to make fresh proposals. And if it was going to fail, all this unnecessary increased expenditure should not be gone into. The right hon. Gentleman had got to prove to the Committee that the increased pay asked for would increase the number of recruits and improve their quality. Increased pay operated in two ways. It operated immediately when the people of the country read these debates and read the advertisements of the recruiting agencies. There was another circumstance from which the right hon. Gentleman might get some advantage in the course of two or three years, and that was when it was known that the soldier had more money in his pocket than before, and that the Army was a better place to live in. But these influences had not had time to work. It was the immediate influence which they had to deal with. What was the result of the increase of pay? In paragraph 55 of the Report of the inspector-General of Recruiting it was stated that "recruiting was unsatisfactory for nine months." That was for six months after the right hon. Gentleman made his statement as to increase of pay. But during the last three months of the year, the Report went on to say, "there was a vast improvement." The increase of pay and the increase of recruiting did not synchronise. Increase of recruiting was due to the pressure of want, the approach of winter, and the reservists who had come home from South Africa having been thrown on the labour market. Everybody was trying to give these reservists every advantage in the way of employment, and consequently the avenues to the employment of young men

  601
  were blocked. The latter had therefore found their way into the Army. It was no exaggeration to say that last year was an exceptional one for recruiting According to his hon. friend's contention the increase of pay would not stimulate recruiting.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEsaid he merely stated that the prospect of increased pay was not sufficient to attract recruits. They wanted the actual pay.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid that that was entirely his point, which was that there was an accretion of men, not in consequence of the increased pay, but because of the pressure of want and winter. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had got his recruits; but let the Committee look at the altered condition under which he had got them. In 1901 34,000 recruits enlisted for seven years with the Colours. In 1902 only 9,000 enlisted for seven years. In 1901 8,000 recruits enlisted for three years, and in 1902 38,000 enlisted. That was an exact transposition of the men who enlisted for seven years and for three years. That, of course, was contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, and was part of his scheme. But let the Committee observe what it meant. In order to compare the recruiting volumes which had been secured during the years 1901 and 1902, he had made a calculation multiplying the number of men who joined by the period for which they enlisted each year. He multiplied one set of men by three years and another set of men by seven years, and the result was that in such a phenomenal and exceptional year of recruiting as 1902 was, they only obtained 208,000 years of service, as against 290,000 years of service in 1901, or a difference of 80,000 years of service. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman expected to be able to induce the men who had enlisted to extend their service. That was a vital question which they had to consider with reference to the sums they were asked to sanction. What would be the alternative before a recruit when he was asked to extend his service. On the one hand, he saw the prospect of going into the Reserve for nine years, during which
  602
  period he would get 3d. per day for doing nothing, a great advantage in the labour market. On the other hand, he would get 6d. a day extra if he stayed in the Army and went to India. That was a proposition which a young man would think it worth his time to consider very carefully. He would, however, have to decide at the very period when discipline had become a burden, and had not yet become a habit. Many of his friends were returning to civil life; he himself, perhaps, wanted to marry, and was looking forward to life in an English manufacturing town with 3d. a day on which he could count. He would have to decide when to remain in the regiment would involve a change of scene and association, and of everything that would make it desirable for a man to remain in the Army. Would the right hon. Gentleman get a sufficient number of re engagements to make up the deficiency of 80.000 years of service. The figures up to the present were not very encouraging; only 13 per cent. had re-engaged, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman required 50 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman failed to make up the deficiency, he would be forced to increase the £27,500,000 sterling, of which he had spoken, by a very large additional bounty to induce the men to make it worth their while to extend their service.
  There was another point that he wished to submit to the Committee. Short service in the Army, however excellent, affected the Militia. The more the conditions of the Army approximated to the conditions of the Militia, the more recruits would be taken from the Militia for the Army. That was borne out by the figures, which showed that the number of men who joined the Regular Army from the Militia had increased. The right hon. Gentleman, he believed, was less prejudiced against recruits joining the Regular Army through the Militia than recruits joining the Regular Army direct, because, under certain circumstances, it did not impair the appearance of the recruiting returns, as such men, although there was no desire to falsify the returns, must necessarily be counted twice over. If the quantity of the recruits was doubtful, he would ask the Committee to examine, for a

  603
  moment, their quality. The right hon. Gentleman stated that only 16· 2 per cent. of "specials" had been enlisted, as against 33 per cent. in 1898, and 34 per cent. in 1899. That was one of the figures which, more than anything else, influenced the House during the debate on the Address; and since the debate it appeared that? no more "specials" were to be enlisted. They were absolutely abolished, ruled out of existence by a stroke of the pen; there were no more "specials" in England; they belonged to the dark ages. That was very encouraging. But what was the cause of the abolition of "specials?" The Inspector-General of Recruiting was evidently a man of great ability, with, a certain pleasing ingenuousness of character which made itself felt between the lines of his Report. He stated—
  "Owing to the introduction of the new system of medical examination, the number of men specially enlisted has considerably decreased."
  Nothing could be plainer. They were not in a position to judge the medical test. He believed the new test was a very elastic one; it meant the inflation of the recruit's chest, and the difference in measurement when his lungs were full of air and when they were not. No doubt that was a very up to-date and a very suitable test. There was only one point in connection with it that was vital. Was the new test as severe as the old test? If it was not, then, of course, all comparison, all statistics, all the rosy accounts in the Report were absolutely valueless. Was it likely that the test was more severe, or even as severe, as it was before?
  He would ask the Committee to consider one or two things in this connection. First of all, supposing the test was not so severe. His hon. friend made a very excellent speech yesterday, but he regretted that he did not carry it to its logical conclusion in the Division Lobby. His hon. friend told the Committee that 106 "specials" out of 180 men were enlisted in one depot, although they were not specified as "specials" in their attestation papers. That would show that the new test was not as severe as the old test. Let the Committee remember the position in which
  604
  the right hon. Gentleman was. No one was more concerned in the supply of recruits than the right hon. Gentleman was. The whole of the scheme which he had put forward with so much courage and enthusiasm depended on the supply of recruits. He had an urgent need for men, and was making a larger demand on the same class of the population. They were informed by the Inspector-General of Recruiting that an unpleasant feature of his Report was the gradual deterioration among the working classes, particularly in the towns. That was the class on which the right hon. Gentleman was making a larger demand; yet the percentage of rejections in that class, which was deteriorating, was less than in the previous year. The percentage was 32"22 as against 35. The Inspector-General added that well-educated recruits showed a marked falling off. It was perfectly evident that one of two things must have happened. Either by a stroke of the pen, or by some marvellous feat of legerdemain, the physique of the nation had been universally improved; or, on the other hand, the test by which the nation was being judged at the recruiting offices was easier. He would leave hon. Gentlemen to form their own opinion. He was not in the least convinced by the returns which had been presented, either that the number of men would be attained, or that their quality would be maintained. Nothing in the facts or figures proved that; and unless the right hon. Gentleman was able to prove it, he had better make up his mind, while there was yet time, to' reconsider his Army policy de novo, and rely, as he believed he could rely, on the generosity of the House of Commons, in retracing his steps. If he would abandon, the policy to which he was committed, he would encounter no further opposition, but only silent support, even in the very quarters where he must, otherwise, expect the most relentless, uncompromising opposition and criticism.
  They had advanced a long way in the consideration of the question, during the debates they had had on the subject. He would like to refresh the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to the various positions which had been successively abandoned. He would not refer to the minor positions. First of

  605
  all, there was the question of a great Regular Army for home defence. They did not hear much about that now. Then there was the historic phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used at the Colonial Conference against "pitting" the British Army against European troops. "Pitting" was a curious word; and he looked it up, and found that it meant to pit one against the other, as cocks were matched. The idea of "pitting" a small British Army against European troops had now apparently been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman was so pleased with it, that he used that particular phrase no less than four times in eleven lines. Then they were told of commitments in three continents, two of which had now been disposed of, because after the visit of the Colonial Secretary to South Africa and his effort at conciliation, it would be disrespectful to suggest we should ever again need three Army Corps for South Africa. There remained, therefore, but the Indian continent, but during the course of the debate on the previous night the Prime Minister had considerably whittled down the facts that 120,000 men were needed for the defence of India. Some, no doubt, would be sent to India, and others would be sent to skirmish in other places not specifically defined.
  He had noticed lately that whenever a division took place on this Army question it was always in its result hailed with loud. Ministerial cheers; but they did not rely on mere numbers, they relied on arguments. It was unfortunately one of the conditions of debate that the divisions were taken by a large number of hon. Gentlemen who had not listened to the debate but, who came in at the last moment and who very often, if the Army policy was ten times as costly and ten times as foolish as the present, would vote for it with equal equanimity, and would most mistakenly encourage the Government to get deeper into the mire. He believed in the arguments used both in the House and through the country, which would build up an enlightened public opinion on the question of Imperial defence, and he believed most of all in the force of circumstances which would make themselves known to the right hon. Gentle-
  606
  man through the agency of the recruiting officers; circumstances which in the course of a year or two would make the British public regard this scheme with the greatest distrust and disfavour, and place the Government in a position from which they would not be able to extricate themselves without a considerable loss of credit.
  *COLONEL WELBYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had dealt with the financial and economical conditions of the Army Corps. That was a matter in which he did not now propose to follow, but as be might have to go into technical questions he hoped he would not weary the House. He had entered his reduction on the Notice Paper at this particular time, because it was the first place in the Army Estimates in which the words Army Corps were mentioned. It was not to be found anywhere in tin; previous Vote, nor in the index, and only once in the body of this Vote, all other references being in the appendices. He urged upon the House that if these Army Corps were really to be genuine Army Corps, all the Estimates relating to numbers, pay, trains, and services should be reframed, and the amounts divided up among the different Army Corps, so that hon. Members might be able 10 know what the expenditure of these Army Corps really was, and judge for themselves. In the Vote under discussion there was a vote for general staff's, but those staffs were not split up into the divisions in which they were to be placed in the Army Corps; they were ail lumped together in such a way as to make it impossible to separate the items. After a very careful consideration of this system, extending over two years, he believed, from a military point of view, it was unworkable, and utterly unsuited to the needs of this country, and, from a Parliamentary point of view, it was a scheme possibly fraught with grave danger to the Constitution. These were no doubt strong opinions to put forward at this time, and hon. Members might well ask why they were not put forward two years ago, when this scheme was introduced, but it would be remembered that on that occasion the Resolution was, after considerable discussion.

  607
  closured, and the main question put; had it only been closured far enough to admit of Amendments he would have moved to change these six Army Corps into three or four military commands, and have taken the sense of the House upon it. The history of this scheme showed that it was the child of panic, and when the returns and the Army List were examined it would be found that these Army Corps were nothing more nor less than the grouping together of district commands. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had commenced his Army reform from the top instead of the bottom: he had started at the roof instead of the foundations. What he ought to have done was to group the units together in brigades, arid to have grouped the brigades in divisions, and in this way have arrived at divisions properly organised, and that having boon done, it probably would have been found advisable not to proceed further with the scheme of organisation. He did not deny that with careful organisation it would be possible to have real Army Corps in these districts, but it would be a task of extraordinary difficulty, rendered greater by the re-organisation having begun at the top instead of the bottom. But suppose these Army Corps had been successfully organised; upon that subject he would like to ask two questions. Assuming the Army Corps to be organised, were the district commands to remain much the same as the old district commands, or were they to be thoroughly le-orgauised both as to area and as to the troops, so as to form true divisions of an Army Corps system? Then, according to the White Paper, there were a certain number of battalions belonging to the Army Corps still abroad. Suppose one of these battalions returned home, and with ten or twelve years to serve in the United Kingdom before going abroad again, would that battalion spend the whole of that period in the particular Army Corps command in which it was located on its return, or would it be shifted, according to the requirements of the home Army, from one command to another? If the latter, it would be totally destructive of an) 'reality in the Army Corps system. That this matter had possibly not been thought out was shown by the Return
  608
  of the Army Corps, in which the units were scattered about, some belonging to one command being stationed in another, many units not yet returned, and there being absolutely no mention whatever of trains, services, or any of the accessories which made up the reality and mobility of an Army Corps. If the Secretary of State had really understood what an Army Corps was, he could not possibly have furnished such a Return to Parliament. The House of Commons ought to insist, in future, whenever there was a Return of an Army Corps command, that it should 'be a real, and not merely a paper Return. If a board of directors advertised a universal railway in the United Kingdom, and it was then found that they had scattered groups of rolling stock dotted about the kingdom, but no locomotives or permanent way, would it not be thought that those directors were absolutely ignorant of the duties they had to perform? These Army Corps were very much in that position. The units were dotted about the country in groups, but there was no permanent way—which, in the case of an Army Corps, was the trains and services—or locomotives, there being no commissariat in the Return, and an Army, as all knew, marched on its. stomach. What did the right hon. Gentleman look forward to in case of war when these Army Corps had been mobilised and sent away? The problem was much simpler in Germany. There no man was called up for military service until he was twenty years of age. He then served three years with the Colours and four years with the Reserve, followed by thirteen years in the landwehr, from which he was drafted into the landsturm. Hence in peace time there were men of three different years with the Colours, so that on mobilisation two-thirds were available for war, and only one-third had to be replaced. In the Reserve there were soldiers of four different years, or one-third more than the peace establishment with the Colours, so that the Reserve filled up the fighting units to overflowing. Behind that was the land,-wehr, which was more than double the fighting force of the field army. The German system was built on that one foundation. Every man went through the same drill, and therefore took his

  609
  place with the fighting unit with the same experience behind him. How could that system be compared with our mixed system of Regulars. Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers. It was absolutely impossible for it to be so adapted as in any way to approach the perfection of the German system. When the three Army Corps of Regulars, filled up with Reservists, were mobilised, the men would be taken from the parts most exposed to invasion, and the Committee ought to know how they were to be replaced. Supposing the Army Corps had been in existence, in what way should we have been more ready for the wars of the past? How should we have been in a better position on the outbreak of the South African War? The ranks could only be filled up by mobilisation, for under this scheme he did not see how there was to be an efficient fighting force which could be instantly sent abroad. An Army Corps was a complete little army in itself, and to have mobilised one when affairs were so strained in the Transvaal would have been tantamount to a declaration of war. The only force of any use would have been some brigades, which could have been quietly shifted into the garrisons on the frontier without attracting more than ordinary attention. Before the Committee permanently undertook this great responsibility, the practical advantage that was to accrue ought to be proved. It was assumed that the number of the auxiliary Army Corps would remain at three. If there was to be a real and complete organisation of our Auxiliary forces, there would have to be, not three, but twelve or thirteen Army Corps, for a mixed system, composed partly of Army Corps, could not be efficient. Such an organisation, he believed, would be a dangerous military machine in this country. It was sometimes said that those who opposed the scheme were disappointed military critics, or men with fads of their own, but he ventured to say that they had behind them a constantly growing body of public opinion, founded not upon professional criticism, but upon a distrust of a standing Army and militarism. The people of the country, looking forward to the time when there would be
  610
  these highly-organised military units, saw in them a possible danger to their constitutional liberties. Let one too powerful subject arise, and he might use this great organisation to seize supreme power. Two years ago the House adopted the Army Corps system without understanding it, but it was not yet too late to turn back. The House was a strong one; strong men ac knowledged their errors; only the weak and effeminate were afraid to do so. Before it was too late, and before they burdened the nation with this ever-increasing expenditure, he earnestly urged upon the Committee to turn back now, and declare that instead of having these Army Corps they would have an extension of the old constitutional system. In Ireland there was a Commander-in-Chief responsible for the troops there; let this be extended to the United Kingdom and two other such military commands created, and let there be within them Brigades and Divisions organised as highly as possible, but have nothing greater than a Division, and in such a system he was sure they would find constitutional safety, and an organisation which would be best fitted for the needs of the whole Army.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER,said he wished to move a reduction upon this item. There was an enormous increase in the expenditure under this new system, and it would go on year after year, becauseas these Army Corps developed the efficiency of the Army would have to be developed as well, and consequently the whole of the expenses would increase. The Reserves would increase, and so would the staffs and stores which would be necessary to make up these real Army Corps. The reaction against this expenditure had already begun, and if the Government went on increasing their expenditure, in spite of the feeling in the country, there was not the slightest doubt that the day would come when this reaction would be so strong that not only would these large items for Army Corps be put down, but the expenses of the Army would be largely reduced to a dangerous extent, and possibly the same thing would apply to the Navy. He was sure that all who had the welfare of the Empire at heart would like to avoid such a result. The hon. Member for Oldham had pointed

  611
  out a good many things that were not included in the Estimates, and he wished to point out that the ranges had not been provided for. If they continued increasing this expenditure reaction was sure to come, unless they could show that they were making economies in other directions. A reduction could be made on the staff as it existed, but instead of this they were proceeding to greatly increase the staff.
  He noticed on page 7 of the Estimates a permanent increase of £5,000 a year. But what ought to have been done in this case was to decrease the expenditure by at least four times that amount. It might be said that all these large staffs were not required except for the purpose of giving instruction to the men. A man did not get instruction in commanding troops, and he did not learn the art of war by being the general in command at Gibraltar or Malta. Therefore, these were not the men they wanted to teach the work of generals. They wanted to teach the young men these duties, and not the young men who had earned their laurels. The men of the future were those they wanted to teach. One of the great advantages put forward for this new system of having an extra staff for' this division was that the men should get accustomed to the officers in command. He thought the men would see very little of the general in charge of their Army Corps, but the people they wanted to get accustomed to were the brigadiers. Under this new system, however, they could never make a brigadier a permanent brigadier, for they would be continually changed. If they had all the brigadiers appointed to the different brigades they would not get the men permanently accustomed to them.
  The really important point which ought to have been observed in the formation of these Army Corps was to form permanent brigades of troops, and send out the drafts in brigades instead of battalions. Then they could train their brigadiers and men regularly together. The new system of Army Corps had also another defect. Under the old system they had before them a much better scheme, because this country had very often to send from one to six battalions abroad at once. An Army
  612
  Corps would not help them to do this. Under the old system at Aldershot the regiments were ready to go to India, and they always had a certain number of troops up to war strength. Under this new Army Corps system the Regulars would be distributed in the various Army Corps, and they would not be under the same brigadiers as would be sent abroad. The men would be selected from the different commands and they would not be together as under the old system at Aldershot. He believed this item was the one upon which a reduction could most easily be carried out in the least time, and with the least injury to the Army. By this reduction they would not take away one efficient man. With regard to the officers and the staff he thought it had been shown in South Africa that the men who had had the most training had continually failed, and the men who had had little training had been successful over and over again. If it had been shown that this new scheme would improve the staff and teach them the actual art of war, he thought there would have been a great claim for not reducing this Vote. He thought a reduction was absolutely necessary, and he begged leave to move the Motion standing in his name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Pay, etc., of General Staff, be reduced by £60,000."—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
  *COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid that in his opinion it was unfortunate that the words "Army Corps" had been used in connection with the schemeinstead of the word "Commands" He thought it would have been better to have included in the Divisions, Cavalry Brigades, Artillery and Engineer commands all troops, whether Regular, Militia, or Volunteers, and to merely indicate those of the Army Corps associated with the command by an asterisk or in some other way. He had no doubt, however, that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, would come all right. He only hoped that the staff would be cut down to whatever was necessary for the duties they had to perform.
  *SIR A. HAYTEKthought those who were opposed to the system of Army Corps ought to support the Amendment for the reduction of this Vote. He wished to call attention to three increases which were of the same character, and amounting in all to about £20,000. It was essential that the Committee should be aware how the increase in the expenditure arose, because, as the hon. Member for Oldham had pointed out, by the adoption of the Army Corps system they were not at the end, but the beginning, of a very large expense. There were now four more major generals, the number being increased from twenty-eight to thirty two, the increase on the Estimates being £4,470; there were thirteen additional colonels on the staff—forty-nine against; thirty-six—increasing the Estimates by nearly £10,000; and there were thirteen additional deputy assistant quartermaster generals—forty-one against twenty-four—increasing the Estimates by £6,658. These additions to the charge for "Pay, etc., of General Staff" were consequent upon the additional officers required under the Army Corps system. Of course, having adopted the Army Corps system, they must look to the fact that a great many more general officers would be employed.
  One of the reasons why the Secretary of State for War asked Parliament to adopt the system was that it would mean a policy of decentralisation. He was the last person to object to any policy of decentralisation which could possibly be carried out. The light hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to the larger powers which had been given to commanding officers, but such powers, he thought, might have been conferred on the Generals formerly commanding Districts. What was the difficulty in entrusting Generals of Districts with powers to enter into contracts for forage, for repairs, for transport, or matters of that kind? If such powers had been conferred on them it would not have been necessary to have this enormous increase in the pay of the General Staff. There was one point on which he desired an answer with respect to the financial department, and that was whether any arrangement had been made whereby the innumerable returns sent to she War Office to be audited would be
  614
  dispensed with in future. Ho understood that it was intended to submit pay lists to a financial officer in the district, who would be able to give them a final audit. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the Committee that the audit in the division would be the final audit.
  On the general question of the Army Corps system, he agreed with those who thought it was not suited for this country. One of the great objects which the right hon. Gentleman had in view, namely, that the men should become accustomed to their commanders, could not be carried out under a system in which they brought out the regiments only by employing lie serve men. Of the wars in which this country engaged, 99 out of 100 were wars in which only a small force was employed. If they sent a brigade to Ashanti, or a division to South Africa, that was as much as they could possibly want. But to do so, is to break up the Army Corps system. Was the Army Corps system suited to times of peace? In times of peace they had to send out continual drafts of troops to the colonies, and for that reason the integral units could not be kept up at all. Again, as to the Militia and Volunteers. Up to the present time our system for the Auxiliary forces had been a county system, and he was very doubtful, indeed, whether the new system of Army Corps was suited to the wants of the Militia Volunteers. He believed it would be a dangerous and expensive one, and he was very glad that the hon. Member for Lichfield had taken this opportunity of pointing out that there would be a very great increase for the cost of the staff, and for the building of barracks.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he desired at once to disclaim any right to address the Committee on the Army Estimates from the expert point of view. He did not pretend or claim to have behind him any of those authorities to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had referred. He did wish, however, to ask his right hon. friend a very plain and simple question, and one on which he hoped he would be able to give an equally plain answer. When the hon. Member for Whit by moved an Amendment to the Address, condemning the whole Army

  615
  system, he voted against him, because, according to immemorial practice, an Amendment to the Address was regarded as involving a question of confidence in the Government. He had no desire to replace the Secretary of State for War and the Financial Secretary to the War Office by any of the Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite. Though hedisagreed with some of the suggestions that had been made by the Secretary of State for War, he was quite certain that he had done the work in a much more complete and efficient manner than the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench opposite would have done. As to the whole question of the Army Corps system, whether it was to be continued in the future or not, and whether the cost of the system was to be reduced or not, the First Lord of the Treasury pointed out that it would be folly to reduce the numbers of the Army at a time when our Reserves were very low.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Member must confine his remarks to Vote A.
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid he was sorry he had transgressed the ruling of the Deputy-Chairman, but he had understood that he could discuss the whole question of the Army Corps system on this Vote. He would reserve his remarks to another occasion.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that there was a great deal of information, more than had yet been given, which should be supplied to the Committee to enable hon. Members to form a correct judgment on the question before them. For instance, he entirely failed to see the effect on the new Army Corps of our financial system. For instance, on page 125, the details of the general staff for home service were given:—" Commanding Army Corps, six generals." Three of them, the generals commanding the First, Second, and Third Army Corps were full generals, and the other three were lieutenant-generals. The pay of the first three generals was £2,928 each per annum, with, he presumed, house accommodation and allowances, and that of the three lieutenant-generals was £2,013 per
  616
  annum. He wanted to know if that pay included all the money these generals received from the country?
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid that the generals of the first three Army Corps would be paid as generals, with certain allowances as well. The officers who might be appointed to command the other three Army Corps would be paid as lieutenant-generals. In point of fact these were not all new appointments.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONESsaid that his next question was a practical one. When he looked at the Army List he found that the staff of the Army Corps at Aldershot had been fully constituted. General French was the Commanding Officer, with twenty-one officers on his staff, and two additional officers detached from the War Office. Now that was a much larger staff than existed at Aldershot under the previous system. Was it intended that, under the new system, there should be this large permanent staff at Aldershot? It looked to him as if they were going to have as large a staff at Aldershot as if the Army Corps there were going on a war expedition on the morrow. Was it absolutely necessary that such a large staff should be maintained in time of peace? He was not for a single moment suggesting that the salaries of the generals were excessive.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said that the discussions on the Estimates were mainly useful, not for the purpose of turning out the Government, but of obtaining information from them, and for that purpose he had risen. Tins Vote for the pay of the General Staff included the Vote for the pay of the Inspector-General of Remounts. Major General Truman, he believed, was that officer's name. Now, that general and his conduct had been very considerably canvassed in this House some time last year; and a strong disposition had been manifested on the part of the House to hold that general responsible for the tremendous mistakes he had made in the conduct of the Remount Department. As a consequence of these remarks in this House, the Commander-in-Chief sent for the Inspector-General of Remounts

  617
  and told him, as was known officially, that he was an incompetent officer, and dismissed him. After that, General Truman was granted a court of inquiry. As to what that court of inquiry had done, or the conclusion it arrived at, the Committee had no information whatever. He believed he was right in saying that the inspector-General of Remounts who figured in this Vote was General, or a sort of General, Truman, and he wished the Secretary of State for War to tell the Committee, if he could, under what circumstances General Truman was dismissed by the Commander-in-Chief, and had been allowed to remain in this employment, and whether it was proposed to maintain him in this employment?
  Then he wanted to ask a question in regard to the Military Attaches. There were ten of them, at £800 a year each. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee where each of these Military Attaches was now placed, and specially, he would like to know whether the Military Attache at Vienna was the same as was at that post for the last year or two; because he was the man who had suffered a stigma at the hands of General Truman when he offered to advise him in regard to Austrian and Hungarian horses, and whom General Truman refused to consult? Then there were six aides-de-camp to the King, at 10s. 6d. a day each. On what grounds were these aides-de-camp selected? Of course, if they were His Majesty's selection, he had nothing to say; but if not, on what sort of principle were they selected—on the ground of merit, or what other ground?
  LORD STANLEYsaid it was inconvenient to have to answer questions on one portion of a statement, which had been made so absolutely bound up with the whole general question of the Army, and therefore the Committee would excuse him if he were short in dealing with particular questions of detail. The question of the staff of the Army had been one of those most prominently brought forward, not only at the beginning, but throughout the whole of the South African War. There was a feeling that it was not only a staff ready to go abroad that was necessary, but that we
  618
  had not left behind a staff which would be able to organise the further troops required to be sent abroad. Surely their object ought to be to lay themselves out to improve the system. Under the Vote granted the previous day, they were allowed to consider that they had three Army Corps which they might send abroad, and surely they should take in the Estimates a Vote for a further staff, when the head staffs of the three Army Corps went abroad, which they would be able to call into existence and use and amplify for any future emergency that might arise ! That was the object for which this money had been taken in the Estimates. The only real criticism that had been made was as to whether this staff should be allocated in such divisions as was most likely to control efficiency, and incidentally to effect such economies as they looked and hoped for from the distribution of the various commands. The right hon. Member for Walsall asked why decentralisation only applied to the commanders of Army Corps—why not to commanders of divisions or brigades?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERsaid the words he used were "District Commanders." What he had in his mind was the generals in command at Aldershot and York under the old system.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he thought he was right when he said the right hon. Gentleman referred to generals of Division. He was against decentralising to generals of Division. He was certain that the more they decentralised from the War Office the better would it be; but the fewer hands that decentralisation was in, the better would be the result. To decentralise to the six generals in command of the six Army Corps would, to his mind, result in efficiency. It would not be cheaper, perhaps, than the present system, but it would put into the hands of commanders of Districts the power of making contracts, of buying forage, and in regard to buildings—which latter would result, he was certain, in an expenditure largely in excess of that which now existed. With regard to decentralisation, the best example he could possibly give was that of Salisbury Plain. He did not

  619
  think that anyone who had not seen the work done by Sir Evelyn Wood could realise the enormous advantages, not only of the decentralisation which had been given to him in the way of money and other matters, but also the benefit they had derived by the suggestions he had made. That showed them most clearly how very much further they might proceed, by degrees, with decentralisation.
  At the present moment, naturally, the staffs were large, both at the War Office and at the various Army Corps centres; but he had not the slightest doubt that, as the machine began to work easier—and it was working easier every day—and when the arrears of the war had been cleared off, there would be a substantial reduction, not in the expenses of the Army Corps districts, but in the staffs of the War Office, from which they proposed, as far as possible, to decentralise all matters of finance. The whole argument of his hon. and gallant friend was that it was not necessary to have this General Staff. When he thought of what his hon. and gallant friend had said, he could hardly see how his hon. and gallant friend could make his arguments square with his speech on the 13th of March, 1900. His hon. and gallant friend then said that in all questions connected with making this large force efficient, the necessity for combining all the smaller units by means of constant inspection throughout the country should be borne in mind; and that if that could not be done by the Headquarters Staff it should be done by the commander of the District. At the present time, he continued, the General Staff was divided into the number of different Districts; that was an old-fashioned arrangement; and if the Government wanted to make the Army really efficient, they should go to the very root of the matter and look into the reorganisation of the General Staff.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid his argument was that they should abolish the Army Corps, but keep the Divisions. He thought a Division was entirely compatible with what the noble Lord had just read.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that surely when his hon. and gallant friend talked of combining the smaller units, he meant combining regiment with regiment, and brigade with brigade, that they should have a staff prepared to deal with the whole of the force they might have to send abroad, and that they should not have a staff made up, so to speak, piecemeal when the time came; that they should not have a staff for 10,0) 0 men, another for 10,000 men, and a third for 10,000 men, so that when it was necessary to send 30,000 men abroad there would be a mixed-up staff which would be called a general staff.
  COLONEL WELBYsaid he thought the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood his argument. The noble Lord must be well aware that a Division consisted of brigades and regiments. The only difference was that in an Army Corps they grouped, two or three, or four Divisions. It was the Army Corps organisation he wanted to get rid of, not the Divisions. The noble Lord did not appear to know the difference between a Division and a District.
  LORD STANLEYsaid his contention was that they wanted to have an Army Corps ready as a unit to send abroad, and that when it was sent abroad they should not have what the right hon. Baronet called in 1900 a scratch staff drawn from all parts of the Kingdom, with the result, as the right hon. Baronet said, that when a number of individuals were suddenly thrown together there was certain to be friction on all hands. That was the very thing they were trying to avoid. They were endeavouring to get a staff which would be able to work, in time of war as well as in time of peace, without the inevitable friction of which the right hon. Baronet spoke. The whole secret of Army organisation was that they should have a force which could be increased in time of war by the Reserves. But there was one thing they could not have too large, and that was the staff, on whose organisation the whole success of an expedition would depend. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Lichfield Division said they could not send

  621
  away a trained staff because they had not got one. That was perfectly true; and it was precisely because they had not got a trained staff that they were asking for that Vote, not one penny of which he felt sure would be wasted, either in time of peace by the officers being instructed in staff duties, or in time of war by the extra efficiency that would be given to any force that would be sent abroad.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the noble Lord had not answered one of his Questions.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid he would be glad to answer his hon. friend. His hon, friend asked a Question with regard to General Truman. The account which his hon. friend gave of the proceedings when General Truman was attacked in that House was not quite accurate. What happened was that Lord Roberts impressed on General Truman the necessity for him to clear himself of the errors committed, and gave him an opportunity of having his action considered by a Court of Inquiry. His hon. friend was quite in error in saying that the House knew nothing about the Report of that Court of Inquiry, because it was laid before Parliament and excited considerable comment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that what he stated, and he believed he was right, was that there was a Court of Inquiry on which a debate took place in this House, and on the morrow of that debate Lord Roberts sent for General Truman, informed him he was an incompetent officer, and dismissed him. Subsequently General Truman claimed a Court of Inquiry. That Court of Inquiry was held, but they had heard nothing of it.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid his hon. friend was in error. Lord Roberts unquestionably sent for General Truman, and informed him that he had either to meet the allegations against him, or that it would be impossible for him to continue to hold his office. General Truman elected to face a Court of Inquiry, and a court was accordingly appointed. The mistake into which his hon. friend had
  622
  fallen was that he thought the Report of that court had never been laid before Parliament, but it had. With regard to military attaches, there were permanent military attaches in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburgh, Constantinople, Rome, and Pekin; and temporary military attaches in Tokio, Brussels, and Washington. His hon. friend asked a Question with regard to A.D.C's., but as those appointments were made by His Majesty be did not propose to offer any remarks with regard to them. With regard to the question of the staff, he would undertake to say that nobody in the past had done as much as he had, to cut down unnecessary appointments. When he first went to the War Office, sixteen or seventeen years ago, there were on the staffs of general officers a number of officers for whom proper employment could not be found. There was nothing more difficult in his experience—and he believed it was the experience of every Department—than to cut down existing appointments. He remembered the first year he was at the War Office they cut down £20,000 worth of unnecessary appointments, such as a general officer having two military secretaries, who could not possibly find work. What they had now done was totally different. As he explained two years ago, and he did not think there was a dissentient voice regarding it then, they had taken £60,000 for a staff; but it was a staff for the organisation of the Army whether at home or ready to take the field. The sum for the staff for the organisation of the Army at home and abroad included a number of services as to which there had been no question before. He quite understood that hon. Members who voted last night to cut down 27,000 men might well say the staff must be cut down to the equivalent of the number of men who were cut down; but he was sure that hon. Members would not say that, having added 54,000 Regular troops to the Army and 11,000 colonials, they would refuse a staff to keep these men efficient.
  He was quite sure that they would admit that so long as a certain force was maintained a proper staff must be maintained. He would take one case in particular. Nobody had proposed to cut down the sixty six batteries of artillery which had been

  623
  added to the Army, and if they had sixty-six extra batteries of artillery they must have a colonel who had a certain command of artillery, and could man oeuvre these batteries in sufficient bodies, and the staff of the artillery must be considerable. He urged hon. Members also to consider the question of the better organisation of the Auxiliary forces. Up to a few years ago there was no general officer who was charged in any way with the surveillance of the organisation of the Auxiliary forces; it was a thing of quite modern growth. He would take the case of the Second Army Corps. While, on the one hand, Sir Evelyn Wood had made more savings in the course of one year than would pay for the whole of his salary and that of several of his staff officers in that district, on the other hand his staff officers were dealing during the whole of last drill season with 30,000 or 40,000 men, chiefly Volunteers and Militia, brought temporarily on to the Plain for training. The staff of the Second Army Corps would be cheap if it was only devoted to training that large number of Auxiliary forces who had now a definite peace in the Army scheme, and who, it was said on all sides, should be used to the utmost for home defence.
  With regard to the actual commanders of Army Corps, he thought they figured in the Estimates for £12,000 a year. No one should run away with the false impression that that was all in addition to the ordinary expenditure. The general officer commanding in Ireland had actually the same pay as he received before. The general officer commanding at Aldershot had an addition to his pay, because nobody at Aldershot was able to make both ends meet. The general officer commanding in Scotland had for a long period been paid as a lieutenant-general, and received the same pay now. The general officer commanding at York had always been paid as a major-general, and when the appointment was made—it was not made yet—he would be paid as a lieutenant-general. Therefore, out of the six appointments in regard to which this £12,000 a year on the Estimates was objected to, four were appointments already existing. The two new appointments were Salisbury Plain, which he hoped, quite apart from the
  624
  Army Corps scheme, he might claim to be necessary for the largely increased training of the Auxiliary forces which took place there every year, and the London command just about to be formed, which he justified above everything on the same ground, because there were sixty-five battalions of Auxiliary forces which would come under Lord Grenfell. Without such an officer it was absolutely impossible for the War Office to receive reports and to obtain the organisation of the immense number of Auxiliary units that were comprised in that command. These sixty five battalions, reaching about 50,000 men, was work enough for one man alone. For that reason he hoped, if a division was pressed on this question of the staff, it would be understood that it was by no means a development simply for these Army Corps; it was for services which, whether there were Army Corps or not, would have to be carried out; it was to enable them to provide, as they had provided, each of the districts with mobilisation officers who were engaged on work which had not hitherto been performed, but which Lord Roberts found effective in the field in the late war. That was his case, and he hoped hon. Members who desired the efficiency of the, Army would consider these points before recording their votes.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE, Bristol. E.)said he only wanted to ask one question. Upon the introduction of his scheme in 1901, the right hon. Gentleman had laid it down as a principle upon which the whole scheme rested, that the officers to whom command of the Army Corps were given should be the officers to command them in time of war. The First Army Corps was commanded by General Sir John French, who would no doubt command it in time of war, but the Second Army Corps was commanded by an officer of whom the British nation was proud, and who had made Alder-shot the seat of military instruction, but who had reached rather an advanced age. Would that officer, and the lately appointed general officer for the Fourth Army Corps, in case of an outbreak of hostilities, proceed abroad in command of their respective Army Corps? He also

  625
  wished to know whether General Truman was still serving at the War Office.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid, after the report of the Committee of Inquiry to Lord Roberts, Lord Roberts decided that the Report distinctly exonerated General Truman from any neglect in the discharge of his duties. The Committee made some criticisms on the way in which those duties were discharged, but spoke highly of the manner in which General Truman had met the call made upon him, and they more especially pointed out that he was in no way connected with a large proportion of the questions of remounts on which very serious difficulties had occurred. General Truman returned to his work, which he had only given up temporarily during illness, and his five year appointment would expire, he thought, in January next. Until that time he would hold the appointment of Inspector-General of Remounts. The hon. Member asked him whether he had kept his pledge with regard to the appointment of Army Corps commanders. Sir Evelyn Wood was now at the age of sixty-five, and his period of command at Salisbury Plain would continue until, he thought, 1st October of next year. Before he appointed Sir Evelyn Wood to that command, on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, he obtained from the Commander-in-Chief a distinct assurance that, in case of war, he considered Sir Evelyn Wood not only competent, but the most competent man to command that Army Corps in the field. What he said in regard to Sir Evelyn Wood he would say in regard to Lord Grenfell. The reason why neither of them was employed in the South African war was, of course, in the first instance, that Sir Redvers Buller was appointed Commander-in-Chief. Both Sir Redvers Buller and Sir Evelyn Wood could not be appointed, and as Sir Evelyn Wood was senior to Sir Redvers Buller, it would not have been usual for him to go out under Sir Redvers Buller. Later in the war few opportunities occurred of detached commands. Sir Evelyn Wood wished to serve in South Africa. We communicated with Lord Kitchener, who had served under Sir Evelyn Wood in Egypt, and he at once
  626
  said he was prepared to serve under Sir Evelyn Wood, but could not consent to have so distinguished a soldier serving under him. Lord Kitchener's position was such that it would certainly have seemed like a withdrawal of confidence if he had been in any way superseded. The same argument applies to Lord Grenfell. He also had commanded the Egyptian Army with Lord Kitchener under him. Lord Grenfell at the time was holding the very important appointment he is about to vacate, and it would have been extremely difficult to withdraw him. I can truly say that both these officers were considered admirably fitted to serve in South Africa, and both of them would most unquestionably command their Army Corps in the field, or, if the House refused to continue the title of "Army Corps," and they could only command Districts, they would undoubtedly be put in command in case of emergency.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GEORGE KEMP, who said he quite understood the advantage of the Army Corps system so far as decentralisation was concerned, asked whether, at the present time, the officers in command of Army Corps were receiving any training other than that they had before the introduction of the system in 1901, and whether at Aldershot they had opportunities of acquiring that special knowledge of the handling of troops that they would require in time of war by the Army Corps being used as Army Corps.
  MAJOR JAMESONcontended that as the Amendment to reduce the number of men had been defeated it would be absurd to reduce the General Staff'. A little knowledge was a dangerous thing, and he protested against the endeavour of "budding Wellingtons" and "sucking Napoleons," after three months' service in South Africa, to rule the War Office. The General commanding the Second Army Corps was the best possible man for the post, and if any reduction were carried by which his position would be affected, a gross injustice would be inflicted on the Army and on the country at large. The amount asked for was not a farthing too much. How could the generals be expected to incur the great expenditure involved by their position without

  627
  adequate pay? He hoped the military Members of the House would rally as one man in support of proper provision being made for the General Staff of the Army.
  *MAJOR SEELYsaid that so far as this Amendment was intended to reduce the expenditure on that part of the General Staff necessitated by the Army Corps system, those Members who were challenging the military policy of the Government felt bound to support it. They differed from the Government on certain fundamental principles, and, although they might be altogether wrong, they had arrived at their conclusions after long and careful consideration. These conclusions had been forced on many of them in the field of war, and were sincerely held. One was in regard to the relative expenditure of the Army and Navy. And so far as the Army Corps system involved increased expenditure they felt bound to oppose it. Another ground of objection was that there were only a certain number of recruits available, and a greater number could be obtained only by reducing the standard of physique and morale. A further contention was that greater reliance should be placed on the Volunteer force of the country. No one suggested that complete reliance should be placed on that force without giving them time to be so organised and improved as to be able to take up the burden.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that a reduction had been moved on a particular item, and that until that reduction had been disposed of the general question could not be discussed.
  *MAJOR SEELYsaid that on these general grounds they felt bound to oppose the extra expenditure on the Army Corps staff, but so far as the scheme tended towards decentralisation and the bringing in of Auxiliary forces they were simply friendly critics of the Government. As the question of individual commanders had been raised, he might say that in his judgment there was no one more fit to command the
  628
  second Army Corpsthan Sir Evelyn Wood. But that raised the question of whether the War Office could hope to carry out the principle that the men who commanded the Army Corps in time of peace should also command them in time of war. That proposition sounded very well, but it could not really be sustained in practice. In order to get officers to serve in the Army they must be given a career, possibly a long and distinguished career, and, with few exceptions, and one very brilliant exception, officers over a certain age were unable to stand the hardships of modern war. If that were so, and they laid down the principle that only those officers should command these great home districts in time of peace who would command them in time of war, the War Office would eliminate from their service the very men of experience and ability whose services they would wish to retain.
  The position with regard to the actual Army Corps was this. As to the First Army Corps, they might say that was reasonable and should stand. In the case of the Second Army Corps, which extended from Milford Haven to Dover, it; was contended that they could not expect any man, even with the wonderful energy of the present Commander, to supervise so widely an extended district.: That was a very real difficulty which he suggested might be altered and remedied by a different allocation of the Army Corps. But there also remained another difficulty. The Army Corps to which he alluded was composed entirely of Regular troops destined to go abroad at once if required. In the district from Milford Haven to Dover there was a large number of Auxiliaries, and they would have to conduct the correspondence through the Army Corps. It was plain that in the event of war the whole of the Regular troops, or what had been called the stiffening of this Army Corps, would disappear and the whole of the General Staff would also join. Consequently in such a case the Army Corps in the South of England would not only be deprived of that organisation which they had been told was so essential to efficiency, but it would also be deprived of that stiffening on which the new system so much relied. It could not be

  629
  denied that that was really the case. Those difficulties might be avoided by another method of distribution. The Army Corps in Scotland and York could retain their organisation, but surely it was not seriously proposed that in the event of war the Auxiliary troops from the North of England and Scotland would come down to take the place of the troops in the South of England? If not, what became of the principle upon which these new Army Corps were founded? He thought he had shown that in the case of the Second Army Corps there was this great drawback. In the case of the Third Army Corps, with certain modifications, that might be allowed to stand. With regard to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Army Corps they were not to be sent abroad.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is now talking upon the General Vote, and he must confine his remarks to Item A for the general staff.
  *MAJOR SEELYsaid this was a definite Motion to reduce the expenses of the General Staff, and he was endeavouring to show that the increased money asked for would not give that amount of increased efficiency to induce the Committee to sanction it. If they were to engage in war, they might be put to very hard straits. According to the new scheme, Sir Archibald Hunter and his Highlanders would be retained in this country to organise the Auxiliary troops in Scotland. He could not imagine that gallant soldier sitting on the top of Edinburgh Castle, watching the enemy's Fleet approaching these shores.
  *MR. BRODRICK: It is perfectly evident that my hon. friend has not mastered even the rudiments of this scheme. When the three Army Corps go abroad the other three will take their place at home, and if there is an invasion, they will not be placed upon the top of Edinburgh Castle, but will take the place of the troops which have been sent away.
  *MAJOR SEELYasked if he was to understand that Sir Archibald Hunter
  630
  would go down to the South of England with his Auxiliary troops in order to take the place of those who had gone abroad?
  *MR. BRODRICK: He would not take their place, because their place is in the various defensive positions and the garrisons they have to occupy. There are most important duties which must' be performed by the troops of those garrisons.
  *MAJOR SEELYsaid they must take the world as they found it. In point of fact they could not afford to retain such regiments as the Highlanders and such commanders as Sir Archibald Hunter for so unlikely an event as the defence of these Islands from invasion. These highly specialised men and officers must be sent abroad in the event of a war.
  *MR. BRODRICKpointed out that the troops in excess of the three Army Corps would remain in England, and be under the command of the same commanders as before.
  *MAJOR SEELYsaid that from the nature of things, when their three Army Corps had gone they would be bound to fall back upon these specialised men at home. Therefore, upon general principles, they felt bound to differ in regard to the Army Corps Scheme because they felt that they were fundamentally opposed to those principles, although they realised they were principles which had been carried on for many years. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had merely been continuing those principles, and in doing so had not only done this to the best of his ability, but also with the greatest ability.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLhoped he might be permitted in two or three minutes to put some reasons before the Committee why hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House would fail in their duty if they did not support the Amendment the hon. Member had moved. These Army Corps, it had been stated, were formed for foreign expeditions and home defence. He contended that in foreign expeditions it was never likely, under any circumstances, that an entire modern Army Corps would be employed in a foreign country, and on the face of it it was absurd, because such an Army Corps.

  631
  could not be transported to its proper place in ships, and could not be embarked from any of their ports.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not go into such questions. This is only a debate on the General Staff", and I think the hon. Member appears to misunderstand what is the question before the Committee.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid they objected to the General Staff because they did not think the Army Corps suggested were fit for foreign expeditions in the first place. In the second place they objected because, in regard to home defence, the Army Corps would not provide for the organisation of the Auxiliary forces, and it was absurd, on the face of it, to have a plan to move three Army Corps all the way down from Scotland to take the place of troops in the South of England. He opposed this scheme because the Army Corps system was the corner-stone of the military proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, which they believed involved a financial outlay which this country could not properly afford. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he rose to ask a question of great importance concerning the whole of these Estimates. They had been drawn up in a new and a very confusing manner. On page 7 hon. Members would see under Item A.
  "Pay, etc, of General staff.

  Decrease

  £348,370.

  Normal Increase

  5,530.

  Then they were told by way of explanation that this was—
  "Due to provision being made for Temporary Staff for Manoeuvres and for the pay of additional officers for the Remount Department."
  That was not a decrease but an increase. Then they gave a number of columns of what the War Office chose to call special expenditure, connected with South Africa, China, and Somaliland expeditions, and they made an estimate of what they called a sum due to these wars. That was not the way to draw up Estimates, but they should take the actual sum last year and this year. If there were any differences not stated they should be given to the Committee. With regard to the normal increase of £5,530, which was set out on page 7 of the Estimates, he could not find that sum in any part of the Estimates. Could the noble Lord, or his right hon. friend, refer him to any page in the Estimates where he could find that total, or could he give any explanation of how it arose?
  *MR. BRODRICKreplied that there appeared in the Estimates items which did not occur this year. Although the decrease was practically £348,000 in this case there a normal increase of £5,500. What the House wanted to know was not the difference between war and peace Estimates, but the difference between the amount last year and this year, and that was the sum he had stated.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the normal increase was not in any single case shown, nor on what principle it was arrived at.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 94; Noes, 226. (Division List No, 24.)

  AYES.

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardign)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Burt, Thomas

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Dunn, Sir William

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Caldwell, James

  Edwards, Frank

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Cameron, Robert

  Evans, Saml. T. (Glamorgan)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Furness Sir Christopher

  Bell, Richard

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Brigg, John

  Cremer, William Randal

  Grant, Corrie

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur, D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Tomkinson, James

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Ure, Alexander

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Price, Robert John

  Wallace, Robert

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Rea, Russell

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Jones, David B. (Swansea)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Labouchere, Henry

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shaw, Charles E. (Stafford)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Long, Sir John

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Lough, Thomas

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Woodhouse, SirJ. T. (Hud'sfi'ld)

  M'Arthur. William (Cornwall)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  M'Crae, George

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants)

  TELLERS, FOR THE AYES—

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Mr. Courtenay Warner and

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Mr. Charles Hobhouse.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Howard, Jno (Kent, Faverhm)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Davenport. William Bromley

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Denny, Colonel

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Kennaway, Rt, Hon. Sir J. H.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Dorington. Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Douglas, Rt, Hon. A. Akers

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Keswick, William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kimber, Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Knowles, Lees

  Balfour, Rt, Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Law, Andrew Bonar Glasgow

  Barry, Sir Eras. T. (Windsor)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Boulnois, Edmund

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Lockie, John

  Bousfield. William Robert

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Bowles, T. G. (Lynn Regis)

  Flower, Ernest

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bull, William James

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Butcher, John George

  Garfit, William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Cavendish, R, F. (N. Lancs.)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Gore, Hn, S. F. Ormsby (Linc)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

  Goschen, Hon. Geo. Joachim

  M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Malcolm, Ian

  Chapman, Edward

  Gretton, John

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Groves, Jamas Grimble

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hain, Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Mitchell, William

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Hamilton, Maro of (Londondy)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasq.)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Corbett. T. L. (Down, North)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Heath, Arthur H. (Hanley)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Helder, Augustus

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hoare. Sir Samuel

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute)

  Crossley. Sir Savile

  Hoult, Joseph

  Myers, William Henry

  634

  635

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot. Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'dUni)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Rutherford, (verpool)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Parkes. Ebenezer

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)

  Percy, Earl

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Williams, Rt Hn J. Powell (Birm)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Purvis, Robert

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Randles, John S.

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tynside)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Spear, John Ward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Reid, James (Gree ock)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Ridley, Hon M. W. (Stalybridqe)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Stock, James Henry

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was rejoiced at the change of the temperament of the House compared with what he had observed in the last two or three years. A very little time ago any Gentleman who proposed to increase the expenditure on the Army would have been applauded as patriotic, not only by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, but by some on his own side; and had anyone ventured to criticise such a proposal, and to say that the money was not needed, he would have been told that he was a traitor to his country. It was the irony of fate to find that hon. Gentlemen who formerly took that line were now as eager for economy in Army matters as he was himself. Yesterday they had voted on the Amendment moved to reduce the Army by 27,000 men. That Amendment was not carried, but it was very evident to those who were in the House, and to the country outside, that, if the really true opinion of the House had been consulted the Amendment would have been carried by a very large majority. In considering what should have been done under these circumstances, it was necessary to look into that Vote. The majority was ninety-one, but twenty-five Unionists voted in the minority, and there were also a con-
  636
  siderable number of abstainers. The Unionists who voted in the minority were the intellectual cream of the other side of the House. Their Irish friends abstained from voting, but it was known that they were opposed to all increases in the. Army. They had made some sort of arrangement with His Majesty's Government. He was not blaming them for that, but there was a time when hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House blamed the Liberal Party for being traitors in making an arrangement with the Irish Party. Somehow, therefore, the Irish Party did not vote. If he were an Irish Member he should look after the interests of Ireland, and in all probability do precisely the same as they had done. There was another point, that the voting on the Amendment took place under the threat on the part of the Government that if it were carried against them they would resign. It was perfectly well known that a large number of men on the other side preferred their Party to their country, and thought it would be a terrible loss to the world in general if the Government were defeated and resigned.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid that the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the Vote on the Paper.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was explaining that the Vote had been granted for the men, and that under some circumstances that might have been the opinion of the House; but his argument was that that was not the real opinion of the House. He thought it had been made pretty clear that the House and the country were thoroughly against this addition of 27,000 men, and therefore he would not pursue the subject. This was hardly a moment to waste several millions in getting these 27,000 men. They were voting this year £3,000,000 extra for the Navy. Owing to the militarism and the military expenditure of the country, trade was stagnant, Consols were on the down grade, wages were going down, and taxes were going up. The refore, they should be most careful not to incur any expenditure which was not absolutely necessary, for they had to fall back on the Income-Tax which pressed on the middle classes, and on taxes on the necessaries of life which were much felt by the lower classes. Eor years past he had protested against increased expenditure on armaments, but he had been as a man preaching in the wilderness, and the expenditure had gone up to over £80,000,000. He had been called a Little Englander, but the fact was, he was, and had always been, a consistent; follower of that eminent Conservative statesman, Sir Robert Peel. In the days of Peel, when demands were made for increased military expenditure, that statesman replied that: "We must incur certain risks; that we could not, without crippling the country, over-tax the people by a war expenditure in time of peace; that it was foolish to look round and see whether there could be any imaginable combination which would be serious or dangerous to the country. The insurance against that would be too high, and a bad, unbusiness-like proceeding." With these dicta of Sir Robert Peel, he had squared his action in denouncing and voting against every increase of expenditure. They had voted the 27,000 men but where did the; control of the House of Commons over the Executive come in? By the power of the purse. It was by that power of the purse that they got, to a certain extent, theirown way. He had previously moved
  638
  the reduction of the pay after the men had been voted, and the reply of the Government to that was: "What? You have voted the men; would you refuse to vote their pay?" That was Parliamentary nonsense. They would not get the men if they did not vote the pay. Consequently, he maintained that it was their business to act in this matter according to Constitutional usage, and to refuse to vote the money which led to useless and needless expenditure. This Vote for the pay was £8,149,600. That was for 210,000 men, which came out at £36 odd for each. He would, however, deal generously with the Government, and put it down at £30 per man, £30 multiplied by 27.000 came to £710,000. His Amendment therefore was to reduce the Vote by the sum of £710,000.
  He was a great advocate for voting in this House. They heard a great deal of talk and noble professions about economy in this House. He was no believer in Parliamentary eloquence; what the constituencies wanted to know was how their representatives voted. If they were practical men it was really time for them to step in and put an end to this wild and reckless expenditure. They had a very able member of the Government who was at the present moment on his travels. That able Gentleman was recently in the island of Teneriffe, and made a speech in which he said he hoped so to expand and enlarge the British Empire that it would reach the skies, and that he would be satisfied if he could only credit himself with having added one brick to the Empire. That one brick was £80,000,000 per annum at the present moment, and if it was to be only the first brick of our Empire reaching to the skies, Heaven alone knew what would happen. He did not think they would ever reach Heaven, or at any rate they would attain the bathos of bankruptcy before reaching the goal. It was said that the colonies were strongly in favour of our spending our money on military affairs. He did not know whether that was the case or not, but most people were strongly in favour of other people spending other people's money. He understood that the colonies had refused to have anything to do with what Sir Wilfred Laurier had called our vortex of

  639
  Imperialism. The whole of this vast expenditure for building an Empire to the skies—he did not know what that meant, although it might be the latest exposition of Birmingham Imperialism—had to come out of the pockets of British tax-payers. If hon. Gentlemen honestly believed in the Vote which they gave yesterday, that these 27,000 men were unnecessary, they should pursue the Constitutional course of voting against the money. And he would really urge those Gentlemen who voted with the Government, not on the merits of the question, but because they were Party men, to reconsider their position. He was not a strategist. An hon. Gentleman talked about "budding Napoleons" and "baby Wellingtons," but he did not know anything about that. He looked at the matter, however, from an economical point of view, and he was satisfied that they could not go on spending on the Army and Navy without soon finding out that they had touched bottom.
  The hon. Gentleman opposite said that Louis XIV. said that victory would remain with the man who had the last sovereign. France, he should then imagine, was the richest country in the world; but victory did not remain with Louis XIV. He found that foreign countries united against him, and any country that went on with the foolish game of "Beggar-my-neighbour" would find that it would be beaten in the long run. He was not opposed to the honour and glory of the Empire being maintained, but he did not believe that this expenditure, coupled with the policy on which it was based, was one that was really for the honour and glory of this country. It would spell ruin in the end, and would crush the commerce of the country. He wanted the money spent for the benefit of the people of England themselves by removing the burdens that had been placed on trade. That was the proper course to pursue, and they ought to make a beginning at once. The Government themselves admitted there was a very strong feeling, which was not confined to this side of the House, against this expenditure, and he had no doubt that if the question were left to the House to be decided on its merits
  640
  there would be a large majority against it, as ho believed there was a large majority in the country against such wild and lavish expenditure. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £8,937,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. GALLOWAYsaid that during the debate on the reduction moved by the hon, Member for the Lichfield Division, he put a question to his noble friend, and he now desired to explain that he did it, not from any hostile motive towards the Government, as he voted for the Government in the division which was taken on the Motion. He would not vote for the reduction which had been moved by the hon. Member who had just spoken. In the first place, he did not in any degree share his views; and in the second place, he believed that the hon. Member's rough and ready calculation as to the amount of money required to pay 27,000 men would, if carried out, have the effect of reducing the Army by a far greater number of men. He did not hold the same views of patriotism as were held by the hon. Member, and he did not wish to be associated with the hon. Member's views, or the means he had taken to support this country in its time of trouble. He had, however, one thing in common with the hon. Member, and that was the desire that this enormous expenditure on the Army should not be increased in the future. The First Lord of the Treasury pointed out that the time to reduce the Army was not when the Reserves were low, or when the Army was depleted in consequence of a great war. That argument entirely convinced him, and, although he was opposed to any further increase in expenditure on the Army he had voted with the Government in order to maintain the Army which the Government thought was necessary for the defence of the country. The question he wished to ask his noble friend was: Would the Government pledge themselves not to increase the normal expenditure of the Army over and above £27,500,000? He of course excluded any exceptional circumstances that might arise. He understood, for instance, that the War Office were about to provide a new rifle; and that, of course, would be abnormal expenditure. He did not wish

  641
  to bind his noble friend down to any particular sum of money in the matter, but ho wished to know whether the Government were determined that the expenditure which they now asked, and which they were thoroughly justified in asking, was to be the limit of expenditure on the Army. He believed that if they did not make some limit to expenditure, they would inevitably go on until they brought financial ruin on the country.
  The Committee should remember that, in deciding the amount of money to be spent on the Army, there were other items which would have to be met, such as expenditure on the Navy, and the land question in Ireland. He believed that it was all-important that they should have a statement from the Government on the matter. The Leader of the House taunted certain of his hon. friends with having shouted for Imperialism, and now objecting to pay for it. He was as anxious as any one to pay what was necessary for the honour and glory of the Empire, but he was also anxious that they should have, not an expensive Army, but an efficient Army, and that the money should be expended in the best possible way. He was anxious that the administration of the War Office should be an efficient administration, which he thought it was not at present; though in saying that he did not mean anything personal to his noble friend. He urged on his noble friend the necessity of arriving at a limit of expenditure; and if the Government did that, they would have nothing to fear when the) 'asked the Committee to vote money they believed to be necessary for the maintenance of the Army.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid there were certain items on the Estimates which might be withdrawn without any loss of efficiency; and he would ask the noble Lord whether he could hold out any hope that men who were ineffective should be removed from the Army Lid. He referred to two sets of men; men who were employed in garrison regiments, and "Native and Chinese regiments who were in charge of coaling stations in the East. Those garrison regiments were raised in a time of great panic, when troops were required at any cost, and they were hustled out to the Mediterranean and other places to take the place of troops who were required for active service. They were quite inefficient in
  642
  the field; and, therefore, did not fulfil the dictum of the Secretary of State that the Army, though small, should be efficient. They were a great deal more costly than ordinary troops, as, besides their pay, there was the item of the deferred pensions by which, when a man reached the age of sixty-two, he drew Is. 6d. per day. That sum had never been brought into the calculations of the Secretary of State. Then there was the great question of providing barracks for the wives and families of these reservists, which had entailed a further Vote for the barracks at Gibraltar, Malta, Halifax and elsewhere. These troops were of no use outside the limits of the garrison at which they were stationed, because they could not be moved. He thought forts defended by second rate troops were a delusion and a snare. The right hon. Gentleman, very much against his will no doubt, had entrusted the defence of our coaling stations to troops which were not of the best because they were past their prime. But whatever might be said of the troops garrisoning the Mediterranean stations, that argument oculd not be used with regard to the Indian regiments at Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements. Ten thousand native troops held the only two coaling stations we had in the Eastern seas. To a certain extent, on those stations the whole safety of the China Squadron depended, and yet the right hon Gentleman had depleted. those garrisons of white men in order to put Native regiments, whose loyalty he feared would not hold out against the blandishments of a foreign Power, in their places.
  LORD STANLEYsaid he could not help thinking that the debate to-day was more or less an echo of the question which had been decided on the previous day. The hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken with some contempt of the garrison regiments, but the hon. Member would not find many of the military authorities who had to deal with these regiments agree with him. These regiments were composed of men who, in other walks of life, would be called actually in their prime. They were not put into such a position that they might become a mobile force, but

  643
  in a position most suited to them, with the result that in Gibraltar and Malta our garrisons were composed of. the best men who had passed through the ranks of the Army. The housing question was admittedly a difficult one, but in this respect he did not think the difficulty ought to force the country in any way into reducing the number of troops who were, in his opinion, of the greatest possible advantage to the Crown. With regard to the coaling stations in the East, those were stations where the garrisons must vary from time to time. The Committee of Colonial Defence sat continuously to deal with these matters, and any recommendations which that Committee made would at once be taken into serious consideration by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State.
  With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Manchester, hon. Members knew that there must be increases in Army Votes for pay which would not come into effect until next year. Of course, every year there were different sums to be paid on the loans, the money of which had been used in the building of barracks, but against that would be set the fact that what was commonly know as the Mowat System had completed the Reserve stores, and the reduction on that side would be put against the increase on the other. The hon. Member for Oldham had stated that the Vote showed no increase for the Intelligence Department, but that was not in reality the case. The hon. Member had also spoken of the irreducible minimum of the Reserve, but with regard to that, the hon. Member could not have followed the right hon. Gentleman in his explanation, of yesterday, of how, when the Reserve got to 100,000, he might be able to economise by reducing the number of men. The hon. Member for Oldham stated that if the number to go in were limited, naturally that would limit the number going out. That was pretty obvious, but if that were done, and the same number sent into the Reserve as that which came out of the Army, the country would, in fact, have a Reserve of 150,000 or 160,000, which was too large, and so therefore if they limited the number going into the Reserve, they would limit the Reserve. In regard to increased pay, he had argued against increased pay ex-
  644
  cept with the long service, whereas this was increased pay with short service.
  MR. ARTHUR LEEasked whether it was a fact that the pay was increased only for the long service.
  LORD STANLEYsaid that that was the case. It was true, as the hon. Member for Whitby had said, that they were to a certain extent gambling on a sixpence. Time alone would show whether the extra sixpence would get the number of men they required for the Indian drafts. Those most competent to judge thought it would secure the required number, but he would prefer to wait and see what the result was. The hon. Member had spoken of the small margin in the number of recruits. It had to be remembered, however, that the effect of the increase of pay had not been felt. Everybody who knew the private soldier knew that until he got the money in his pocket he would not believe in its existence; therefore although they had several things in their favour, such as bad trade and low wages, they had not in their favour what he believed would be an important factor, viz., that in two years' time they would have men actually in receipt of the extra pay. The hon. Member had made another deduction as erroneous as some of the others. He had taken the number of men joining for three years, and by an elaborate calculation proved that the War Office were losing something like 80,000 years of service. But before the introduction of the new system they took all men, whether they liked it or not, for the long period of eight years; now they took them for the short period, and did not ask on joining whether they intended to extend their service. The only way in which a comparison could be made was to wait until after the first year of the new system, and then compare the number of men extending their time for the long service plus these who in the first instance joined for the whole service.
  As to the increased pay not having increased the number of recruits, the House should remember that for a large part of the year the War Office

  645
  were taking on a great number of men at high rates of pay for special services in South Africa, and although they could not expect to get the whole of those men into the force every year, they might at all events hope that a certain percentage of them would be encouraged by their Army life and the additional attractions that were held out to enter the service. It was also said that the medical tests were less. The Inspector-General of Recruiting had told him that his intention had been and was, to try to reduce the number of men avowedly unfit for the Army, before they reached the medical officer, by previous inspection, and by showing the recruiting officer that it would not be to their advantage but to their disadvantage to continue to send up such men. That was the principal reason for the decrease in the percentage. He had endeavoured to deal with all the points that had been raised, and he hoped the Committee would now allow them to get the Vote.
  *LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE KEMPsaid he still felt a certain amount of apprehension that the right hon. Gentleman would not get the number of recruits he required in the future, because the surplus hitherto had been in the most popular branches of the service, viz., the cavalry and the artillery, while in the infantry the difficulty had been experienced. Recruiting for the cavalry and artillery having been stopped, what probability was there that the required number of recruits without any specials would be forthcoming in the future? On this matter he desired to make a personal explanation. It appeared that a letter he had written to The Times had given rise to the impression that he imputed bad faith to the Secretary of State. He absolutely repudiated the idea; nothing was farther from his intention. He had simply desired to point out that the decision of the right hon. Gentleman had been come to only a short time before the Address, whereas, from the statement, it might be supposed that it had been in force for some time. As to the increase in the Vote for the Intelligence Department, he strongly felt that it was not at all in accordance with the require-
  646
  meats of the country. The total amount spent on the Indian Intelligence, the Naval Intelligence, and the Military Intelligence, was a small sum in comparison with the amount spent by the Germans on their Army alone—about £250,000. The country ought to be satisfied that if they were ever engaged in war again they would get the requisite information to prevent a recurrence of the South African disasters. No imputation had been cast on Sir John Ardagh and the other Intelligence officers, at any rate, in the House—
  *MR. BRODRICK: Oh yes.
  *LIEUT.-COLONEL GEORGE KEMPsaid that personally he had always contended that the Intelligence officers did their work very well, but that we did not have enough information. In opposing the Army scheme generally he, at any rate, had a clean sheet, because since its introduction in 1901 until this session, he had been out of the country. He felt very strongly against the scheme on the ground of expense, because it might be said that the requirements of the Navy had been starved in consequence of the amount spent on the Army. They knew perfectly well that with the best intentions in the world and with perfect sincerity, the right hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Admiralty had stated that the Army Corps Scheme had not affected their demand for men and ships; but statements of this kind were relative and not absolute. The present Secretary of State for India had said in 1888 that the state of the Navy was satisfactory, and then he came down, three or four months after that statement, and asked for £20,000,000. That showed that the statements made as to the actual state of the Navy could not be regarded as absolute. During the last two months they had seen two battleships of the most approved type sold to another Power. Supposing the Estimates of the Army had been £10,000,000 less, did they suppose that this would have occurred? They should remember that two battleships at that time would count four on a Division. As the House yesterday decided to vote

  647
  these men, notwithstanding all the arguments that were brought against them, he felt that he could not give a vote now to reduce their pay. As the men had been voted, they could not break faith with them, for they were in duty bound to vote the money for their pay. He thought all those who had criticised the Government policy would feel that the pay should be voted.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down was most illogical. This was the only opportunity they would have for giving a straight vote for economy. A suggestion was made that the number of men should be reduced, and now the hon. Member said he would not vote for a reduction of the money, although he opposed the vote for the men. Having stated that a smaller number of men was necessary, when it came to the test of finding the money hon. Members ought to be consistent and express the same views in the Lobby. If hon. Members opposite were convinced that too much money was being asked for by the Government, then they ought to take every opportunity of reducing the amount. At the earliest stage of this debate he took objection to the position the Secretary of State for War took up in describing these Estimates as almost normal. He had compared the Estimates of 1890 with the Vote asked for this year. The hon. Member for Cambridge University took the same view, and he took the Estimates for 1897; and to-day the hon. Member for Oldham took the year 1898. The argument about each of these three years was exactly the same, viz., that there had been a great additional extravagance. They were getting a smaller proportion of men for the extra proportion of money. The extra proportion of men was 27J per cent. and the extra proportion of money was something like 57 per cent. This was a serious point, to which not a single answer had been given, and every item had been greatly increased. One of the most astounding items was for miscellaneous regimental charges, which had been put down at £10,000, although £100 was considered sufficient three or four years ago. This showed the reckless way in which the whole of the Estimates had
  648
  been prepared. This particular Vote was the only one upon which they were free from any detail, and upon which they could express their views that too much money was being taken. He could not understand why hon. Members were content to devote only the portion of one sitting to this great Vote. The only instructive speech they had had that afternoon was that made by the hon. Member for Oldham, who treated the matter from a broad standpoint. His hon. friend the Member for Northampton had made a consistent proposal which had been supported by eloquent speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and if they did not support this motion their action would be very inconsistent.
  SIR JOHN GOESTsaid that what was objected to by hon. Members on this side of the House was not the pay, but that they objected to having so many men, and therefore yesterday they voted to reduce the number. The Committee was against them, however, by a large majority, and voted the number of men asked for. The decision of the Committee having been given in this way, it was perfectly logical to say that as the Committee had voted the men they must now pay them.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that if the Committee did not vote the money now, the Government would not be able to get the men.
  SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the Government had the authority of the Committee to raise the men, and therefore it would be unreasonable now to refuse them the pay for those men. It was on those grounds that a number of his hon. friends voted against the Motion yesterday, but they were prepared now to vote for the Government's proposal to-day.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said that this amendment gave the Committee an opportunity of changing its mind with respect to what it did last night. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] If the pay was not voted the men would not be engaged, and the object which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge

  649
  University had in view when he opposed the Vote for the men would be attained. This Vote afforded the Committee a second opportunity of deciding the same question. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite now ran away from his position the only thing to conclude was that he was wanting in political courage and was anxious to make peace with the Government.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the number of men voted was always greatly in excess of the actual numbers kept. It had almost invariably been the case that the number of men—
  *MR. BRODRICK: The number is taken from the average.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the number of men taken was not really controlled by the Vote taken yesterday, but by the Vote taken to-day. It had always been so, and the Vote being taken now was what controlled the average number of men. Those who wished to reduce the actual number of men ought therefore to vote for this Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 80 Noes, 223. (Division List No. 25.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Shackleton, David James

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Blake, Edward

  Hobhouse. C. E. H. (Bristl, E)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Brigg, John

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R (Northants)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Burns, John

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Tomkinson, James

  Burt, Thomas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cameron, Robert

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lough, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Cawley, Frederick

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Weir, James Galloway

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Crae, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Norman, Henry

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Partington, Oswald

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Mr. Labouchere and Mr.

  Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Rea, Russell

  Courtenay Warner.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Bartley. Sir George C. T.

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn)

  Aird, Sir John

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Chapman, Edward

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Bignold, Arthur

  Charrington, Spencer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bigwood, James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bousfield. William Robert

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Butcher, John George

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Balcarres, Lord

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Balfour, Capt, C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Cavendish. V C W (Derbysh.)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Barry, Sir Fras. T. (Windsor)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton))

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk, Wm.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Lockie, John

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. E. J.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Shaw-Stewart. M. H. (Renfrew)

  Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Martin. Richard Biddulph

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fison, Frederick William

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Forster, Henry William

  Mitchell, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Gardner, Ernest

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Garfit, William

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stock, James Henry

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby (Line

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon.

  Mount. William Arthur

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ)

  Gretton, John

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Myers, William Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Hain, Edward

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

  Nicol, Donald. Ninian

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Percy, Earl

  Webb, Col. William George

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Nolls).

  Helder, Augustus

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Hudson. George Biekersteth

  Randles, John S.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Kennawav, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Richards, Henry Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Keswick, William

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Kimber, Henry

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  King. Sir Henry Seymour

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Knowles, Lees

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Original Question again proposed.
  And, it being after half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
  Whereupon MR. BALFOUR Whereupon MR. BALFOUR rose in his
  place, and claimed to move. "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes 61. (Division List No. 26.)

  AYES.

  Aird, Sir John

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

  Bagot. Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gretton, John

  Pretyman. Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Hain, Edward

  Purvis Robert

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

  Randles, John S.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Hamilton, Marq. of [Londondy)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bigwood, James

  Helder, Augustus

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Henderson. Sir Alexander

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hoult, Joseph

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Houston, Robert Patersoll

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Butcher, John George

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg.)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Wore)

  Keswick, William

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Chamberlayne, T. (Southmptn)

  Kimber, Henry

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Chapman, Edward

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Charrington, Spencer

  Knowles, Lees

  Saunderson, Rt, Hn. Col. E. J.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Laurie, Lient.-General

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Seely Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lawson, John Grant

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lee, A. H. (Hants. Fareham)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lockie, John

  Spear, John Ward

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Exesham)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Long, Rt, Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Lord, Archie Kirkman

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Stock, James Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stone. Sir Benjamin

  Denny, Colonel

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Sturt, Hn.-Humphry Napier

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf. Univ.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Milvain, Thomas

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Durning-Lawrence Sir Edwin

  Mitchell. William

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Montagu. Hn. J. Scott (Hants)

  Vincent. Col. Sir C. E. H. (Sheffield)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Moon, Edward Robert Racy

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Fisher, William Haves

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fison, Frederick William

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Flannery, Sir Fortesoue

  Murray, Rt Hn AGraham (Bute)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Forster, Henry William

  Myers, William Henry

  Wilson-Todd. W. H. (Yorks.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Gardner Ernest

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Garfit William

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Wylie, Alexander

  Gibbs, Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham. Rt. Hon. George

  Gibbs, Hn Vicary (St. Albans)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Percy, Earl

  Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elain & Nrn)

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Bell, Richard

  Brigg, John

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Blake Edward

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Bolton. Thomas Dolling

  Burns, John.

  654

  655

  Burt, Thomas

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tennant, Harold John

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Cameron, Robert

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Tomkinson, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  M'Crae, George

  Wallace, Robert

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wason, E. (Clackmannan)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norman, Henry

  Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nussev, Thomas Willans

  Weir, James Galloway

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Palmer, Sir C. M. (Durham)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Grant, Corrie

  Rea, Russell

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas, H.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, N.)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shackleton, David James

  Mr. Robert Spencer and

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Mr. John Sinclair.

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Original Question put accordingly.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 202 Noes, 53. (Division List No. 27.)

  AYES.

  Aird, Sir John

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kimber, Henry

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Denny, Colonel

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Knowles, Lees

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawson, John Grant

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manr)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Lockie, John

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Bignold, Arthur

  Fison, Frederick William

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bigwood, James

  FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gardner, Ernest

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Garfit, William

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gibbs. Hn A. G. H. (City of Lond)

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

  Brown, Sir Alx. H. (Shropsh.)

  Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasg)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn

  Mitchell, William

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Gretton, John

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cecil. Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc)

  Hain, Edward

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chapman, Edward

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Myers, William Henry

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Henderson. Sir Alexander

  Newdegate, Francis A. N.

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert, T.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Hoult, Joseph

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hudson. George Bickersteth

  Percy, Earl

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glang.)

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Keswick, William

  Purvis, Robert

  Randles, John S.

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Rankin, Sir James

  Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Webb, Col. William George

  Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Smith, H. G. (North'mb. Tynside)

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)

  Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green)

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stock, James Henry

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wylie, Alexander

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Talbot, Rt Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tennant, Harold John

  Bell, Richard

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R)

  Blake, Edward

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Tomkinson, James

  Brigg, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Wallace, Robert

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

  Burns, John

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Burt, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Caldwell, James

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Weir, James Galloway

  Cameron, Robert

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Cramer, William Randal

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Rea, Russell

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Roberts, John Byyn (Eifion)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grant, Corrie

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Mr. Robert Spencer and

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Shackleton, David James

  Mr. John Sinclair.

  Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.
  BRISTOL, LONDON, AND SOUTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL (By ORDER).
  Read a second time, and committed.

  CITY AND NORTH-EAST SUBURBAN ELECTRIC RAILWAY BILL (BY ORDER).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. D. J. MORGANsaid this was not a new Bill to the House. The routes proposed were strongly recommended by the Joint Committee of this House and the House of Lords in 1901. This line would commence with the Tube Station in the City under Gracechurch Street, at or near
  658
  Eastcheap, opposite the Monument Station of the Metropolitan District and Metropolitan Railway, with which and with the City and South London Railway convenient exchanges of passengers could be secured by means of underground passages. And here he would mention that Railways 5 and 6 in the Bill would be withdrawn; they were deposited to provide a short extension from the Monument to the Mansion House. The line would then proceed under Grace-church Street and Bishopsgate Street to the City boundary. Two other City stations, making three in all, would be provided at (1) Cornhill, where a site has been chosen 300 yards from the Royal Exchange, and (2) at Liverpool Street, where excellent exchange arrangements could be made with the Metropolitan Railway at their Bishopsgate Station (and with the Central London Railway when their proposed '" extension to Liverpool

  659
  Street" was complete at their Liverpool Street Station). The line then passed under High Street, Shoreditch, stations being placed at Shoreditch, opposite the Bishopsgate Station of the Great Eastern Railway, and at the junction of Hackney Road and High Street. Here the main line is divided into two, one line running due north to Tottenham and Chequer's Green, and the other in a north-easterly direction to Ley ton, Walthamstow, Chingford, and Waltham Abbey for Epping Forest. This point of divergence was about 1⅛ miles from the commencement of the main line. The Tottenham line would run in tube under public streets through the boroughs of Shore-ditch, Hackney, Stoke Newington, and the urban district of Tottenham to a point 4¾ miles from Hackney Road, where it passed into the open and thence to its termination at Chequer's Green.
  Stations would be provided on the railway in the tube at Kingsland Road, Stamford Road, Areola Street, Stoke Newington, Cazenove Road, Stamford Hill, Seven Sisters Road, and on the railway in the open at the Avenue, Tottenham, Lordship Lane, White Hart Lane and Chequer's Green. At Lordship Lane and White Hart Lane the Hue would conveniently tap the building estate of the London County Council, upon which 18,000 people of the artizan classes were to be housed. The total distance from the Monument to Chequer's Creen would be about seven and three quarter miles. The Waltham Abbey hine from its point of divergence passed in tube through the boroughs of Bethnal Green, Hackney, mostly under public streets, but partly under the Victoria Park, to a point about two and three quarter miles from its commencement, where it became an open air railway, and passed through the Urban Districts of Leyton, Walthamstow, Chingford, and Walthamstow, Holy Cross, terminating at Waltham Abbey. Length of line in open being about thirteen miles. In the tube four stations would be provided, at Haggerston, Cambridge Road, Victoria Park, Hackney, whilst in the open twelve stations would be provided at Temple Mills (where the Great Eastern works were), Leyton, Brewster Road, Lea Bridge Road, Walthamstow, Forest
  660
  Road, Higham Hill, Chingford Hall, Chingford Green, Gillwell Park, Royal Oak, High Beech and Waltham Abbey. This line thus passed through the territory of twelve local authorities outside the City, all of which had passed resolutions in favour of its being constructed as promptly as possible, because it would greatly help the districts of Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, Shoreditch, Hackney, and Spitalfields, where congestion of population rendered easier means of getting the people out of London a most pressing question. Many hon. Members of this House knew what this state of overcrowding meant. There were many places where there were three families living in one room, and there were many other instances of an enormous number of tenements which were occupied by more than one family. It would be allowed by everybody that there was immense need for relieving this overcrowding by giving these people facilities to come out into the country and so enable them to live under healthier and better conditions.
  Another reason why this railway should not be delayed was because the present railway accommodation at Walthamstow and Leyton and Tottenham was quite inadequate at the time when a large portion of the working population—and in Walthamstow and Leyton alone the population amounts to over 200,000 people required to be carried to and from its work in the morning and evening. The Urban District Councils of Walthamstow and Leyton most earnestly requested by resolution that the House will let this Bill go through with all speed, because the new colony of 48,000 people who will inhabit the buildings near Lordship Lane and White Hart Lane, which will be erected for the London County Council, will want additional facilities to get to and from their work owing to the inadequate means adopted by the Great Eastern Railway. This he did not think the hon. Member for Battersea would deny. Between Walthamstow and Waltham Abbey from 9,000 to 11,000 acres of splendid building land, on ground backed by Epping Forest, and sloping down to the River Lea. offered splendid sites for the erection of work-

  661
  men's houses, for which it is eminently fitted, because it could be acquired at a price per acre which would enable workmen's dwellings to be erected at a cost which should permit their being let at rents which were moderate. That was one of the most essential things in erecting houses for the working classes, because unless they got land cheap it was impossible to erect houses at a cost which would permit them to be let at a rent which working men can afford to pay. The great difficulty in the housing question was to provide houses for those people who were receiving small and casual wages, say of 20s to 23s. a week, and who could not afford to pay the rents of modern dwellings where the price of the land was high.
  Another reason why he hoped the House would not refuse a Second Heading to this Bill, but would allow it to go to a Committee, was that by Clause 114 of the present Bill the obligation would be imposed upon the Company of carrying third class passengers from London to Tottenham and Walthamstowrespectively for 2d. (being, for a distance of over six miles, less than one third of a penny per mile), while under Clause 121 workmen return tickets are issued up till seven o'clock a.m., at fares which should not exceed the single fare above stated. It might be mentioned here that the traffic arrangements of the Company provided for a two and a half minutes service of trains from the Monument, giving a five minutes service to Tottenham, and a five minutes service to Walthamstow. This Company was also willing to give facilities for the conveyance of workmen's tools by workmen's trains, which was one of the difficulties which had to be provided for at present. The Great Eastern Railway had done much, very much, to meet the railway requirements of the neighbourhoods through which its line passed, but it could not do more at present, it was impossible to run more trains. The population in Tottenham, Walthamstow, Leyton, and Chingford, was increasing weekly, and further railway accommodation was needed now, and it would be much more needed in the near future.
  The present over-crowding in the Great Eastern Railway trains, morning
  662
  and evening, he knew of from personal experience. This morning, from 6.28 till 8.28, he watched the trains leaving Walthamstow, Hoe Street, and James Street. The trains were frightfully overcrowded; people were waiting on the platform five and seven deep, and when he came through from Hoe Street, Walthamstow, he came in a carriage constructed to carry ten passengers and there were twenty-one in it. It was not only the difficulty of getting to work in the morning, but of getting down in the evening at the hours at which they were to get home. The overcrowding of the trains then was so excessive that it was difficult to get a place at all. He went down the other day with twenty-two workmen in a guard's van, because there was no room anywhere else. This matter was one on which the people of the East End felt keenly, and they felt that there was now an opportunity for this House to show that it was willing to do what it could to relieve these difficulties. The suggestion to hang up this railway until after the Report of the Royal Commissioners was one which he hoped the House would not agree to. This railway was on a very different footing to many of the deep tubes which had been proposed, and which were part of a great system for London. This railway went a very short way through the City of London, from the Monument to the limits of the City, and stood, so he maintained, on quite a different footing to those which formed part of the great scheme of tube railways proposed. If this line was delayed, all he could say was that the difficulties and troubles which now existed would be ever so much greater. The fact that this line passed through twelve localities, the Councils of which were unanimous in its favour, showed the feeling in this matter, and he appealed to the Members of this House to let this Bill go to a Committee, and thereby help forward one of the best schemes for enabling our working people to get quickly and cheaply into better air and better dwellings. He begged to move that this Bill be read a second time
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. VICARY GIBBS, (Hertfortshire, St. Albans)in moving that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, said the hon. Member had said there had been much overcrowding on the Great Eastern Railway this morning, and that he came up to town in a carriage in which there were twenty-one other passengers. The reason of that was that there was a thick fog, and for reasons of safety thirteen trains which would have carried this traffic were cancelled. The point he wished to urge on this House was, that there was nothing to distinguish this particular Bill from the other Bills which the President of the Board of Trade had held over. He submitted that the reason they ought to hold this Bill over was, that they must not interfere in any way with the Royal Commission which was now sitting to consider the question of London traffic. ft was perfectly clear that this Bill was in the same category as those which had been suspended by the President of the Board of Trade, and he should wait with great interest to see what it was that the President of the Board of Trade would have to say in explanation of making this differentiati n in favour of this Bill. This Bill proposed to have not exactly a terminus station, but the last station but one in the mouth of Threadneedle Street, which was the most restricted and inconvenient portion of that street for the traffic of London to negotiate. The crowd of pedestrians there was frightfully in excess of the accommodation for them at the moment, and it was now proposed by this Bill to throw crowds into Thread-needle Street in the course of the day without any arrangements being made for their safety, or for the necessary alterations that would have to be made at that particular part. That was a very reasonable ground for this Bill not being accepted at this particular moment.
  His position in this matter was, that besides all the other sins which this Bill would commit, it would take away his own office in the City, and he would probably obtain a large sum of money which he would not otherwise get, and which he did not want, as against what he regarded as the public convenience. They had heard a great deal of people who were shareholders
  664
  in companies not voting, and he asked for the guidance of Mr. Speaker as to what he should do. He wanted to vote against this Bill, but if Mr. Speaker said it was against the etiquette of the House, he should abstain. He did not know that he was called upon to abstain if he regarded this Bill as a public evil, but on that he desired to have guidance.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid this is not a point upon which I can give a ruling. The question whether a vote should be allowed or disallowed can only arise after the vote has been given, and can only be decided by the House itself. Having heard the hon. Member's description of the circumstances in which he stands, I doubt very much whether any hon. Member of this House would quarrel with his vote if he gave one upon this Bill.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: That being so, Sir, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months,
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Mr. Vicary Gibbs.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I cannot pretend that I should gain or lose money through the passing of this Bill, but I am prepared to vote with the hon. Member for St. Albans upon this matter for this reason. The Bill proposes to give communication with certain towns which are already in communication with London, and which already have an exceptionally good service of trains. It is quite possible that as everybody wants to travel at the same time on the Great Eastern Railway, that there may be some overcrowding at that time. The reason which influences me in opposing this Bill is that the Government have appointed a Royal Commission to consider the question of the traffic of London, and the means or method of improving the ingress and egress thereto. My right hon. friend the Member for Walthamstow, who sits upon my right, says that this railway

  665
  does not interfere with the City, because it only goes a short distance into the City; but the City is a very small area, and if you have a railway going a mile or half-a-mile into the City that interferes just as much with the City as any other railway going three or four miles in the West End would interfere with the West End. I was just going to point out that this Bill does interfere with the City very much. I would ask my hon. friend whether he does not agree with me that one of the greatest thoroughfares in the City is Gracechurch Street. Well, they have Gracechurch Street for their starting-point, then the line runs under King William Street, Threadneedle Street, and Bishopsgate Street. I do not know any five streets in the City of London which are more important than those five, and therefore I think it is ridiculous to say that this Bill does not interfere with the City of London; that argument absolutely falls to the ground. I would point out, so far as I understand it, what is actually to be done. Where a Bill is brought in now which merely gives slightly increased facilities to a line that exists, that Bill is not sent before the Royal Commission, but considered on its merits, and is allowed to pass—but where a Bill, a new Bill, is brought in which proposes to make sixteen miles of new railway that Bill is referred to the Royal Commission. I am not interested either directly or indirectly in this Bill, but it seems to me that if the Royal Commission is not to be a farce it is most important a Bill to create new Railways should be referred to it, and not. be passed by this House to-day.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he rose to support the Motion made by the two hon. Members who had just addressed the House for the rejection of this Bill, for reasons in addition to those which they had advanced. His opposition to this Bill to-day was not due to individual captiousness on his part, but that, as a representative of the London County Council, which was, on this particular matter, the chief sanitary and housing authority of this vast city, he considered it desirable, in the interests of London locomotion as a whole, and in the interest of housing conditions, and
  666
  of obtaining cheaper and better railway fares of every description, that this Bill should be considered by the Royal Commission which was now sitting. Last year there were fifteen Tube Bills introduced into this House for the purpose mainly of making London a "Tom Tidler's ground" out of which the Americans were to pick up all the gold and silver. The House of Commons then said we have no right to allow irresponsible promoters to come here and promote, in our Metropolis, unconnected railways, uncoordinated with existing systems of railways and tram lines. Notwithstanding that those fifteen railway schemes had at their disposal the best parliamentary lawyers, draughtsmen and financiers, the House of Commons over-rode the Pierpont-Morgan method of lobbying, and after one of the most remarkable debates that he had ever listened to in this House, it said London was already too much confused with railway schemes, and it could not be subject to endless interference by irresponsible promoters of these Bills. The House of Commons resisted the blandishments of Pierpont-Morgan, Yerkes & Co., and decided to do this. They declined to allow the Metropolis to remain a place of exploitation by railway companies without some recognition of the control of this House, and they practically rejected the bulk of the e Bills. Why did they do that? They did it because there was a general growing feeling on all sides of the House that it was not more railways that London wanted, but that the existing railways should have forced upon them some process of amalgamation in order that the systems might be coordinated.
  It was said "Get your running powers, and if you do that we will do our best to help you," and in that spirit the House of Commons rejected a majority of those Bills. Why, because they are sustained by the decision of the Government Department, which felt, like the County Council of London and every other public authority in London, that the present system of communication could not go on much longer, and that they had got to devise some permanent and definite plan by which the various systems could be harmonised. The House was compelled

  667
  to throw out some of these Bills. The House did so on the promise of the Government Department that before next session a Royal Commission would be appointed. The Royal Commission had been created, and to it these Bills were to be remitted for consideration and report. A number of Bills had been introduced, but very curiously the Bill which of all others ought to be remitted to the Royal Commission was being exempted from the purview of that Commission. The result was, that the Royal Commission instituted to enquire into London locomotion, of which this Bill was the chief section, would be, like Othello, with its occupation gone. He asked the House to remember this fact. It was proposed to exempt from the purview of the Royal Commission in this ease twenty-two and a half miles of Electric Railway. That in itself was more than all the other railways referred to in the schemes which would go to the Commission. The raison d'etre for this Commission would thus be removed, and if they did not remit this Bill to the Commission, they might as well open the door and let the others go through at the same time. This Commission was appointed to consider the whole question of locomotion in the Metropolis, and this Bill referred to the chief railway which should be remitted to the Commission for consideration. He asked, therefore, that this Bill should be suspended until the Royal Commission presented its report.
  He trusted that the House would understand his position in this matter. He had no special objection to this particular Bill, on that matter he was willing to defer to the Royal Commission. He had no technical objection to the plans which had been deposited. He was not entitled to speak on that particular point. All he wished was to defer to the well informed Commission which would have experts to give proper evidence before it, but he did say that to appoint a Royal Commission and then to with hold from it what ought to be the chief part of its work was makingthis Commission a farce, stultifying its ultimate labours, and, incidentally, trying to make a fool of the House of Commons. He objected to that being done. Now they came to this particular railway. This railway proposed to traverse a route
  668
  from Gracechurch Street in the City to Tottenham, by way of Stoke Newington, a distance of eight miles. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading of the Bill was under the impression that it did not in any way interfere with the convenience of the City a great deal, but when there were five of the principal streets in the City interfered with, and when they remembered that the City was only one square mile in extent, it was no answer to say that it only interfered with five streets. The area of the City being one square mile, practically three-quarters of the City was invaded. In the interests of public convenience as a whole he was prepared to invade the City, and some day the County Council would have to capture it, lock, stock and barrel It was proposed also that there should be a branch line to Walthamstow and Waltham Abbey. Just fancy a railway proposed to go under Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. That would be regarded as sufficient to warrant a special instruction to safeguard the public interests in connection with Hyde Park and other open spaces in the West End. If that would be done for the West End. why not for the East End also? Why should Victoria Park, and any other open spaces there might be on the route, not have proper safeguards. He said that they were not the proper body to consider the Bill at this moment. The proper body was the Royal Com miss on appointed to go into these matters, but incidentally he would say that the proper body (o safeguard these open spaces was the County Council, which objected to this Bill going on until the Commission presented its report.
  His next point was perhaps a very good one. This railway, so far as he was able to observe, was only a slight modification and amalgamation of the City and North East London Railways, which were proposed by Mr. Pierpont Morgan last year in Bills which were thrown out. The reason that induced the House to throw out these Bills last year was a reason why they should not pass this particular one Indeed this Bill was not in some respects as good as the two which were promoted last year. There was this advantage in the scheme last year, of which tills was only a truncated portion it connected

  669
  Walthamstow with Piccadilly and Hammersmith, and the railways proposed by the two Bills last year did carry a person from Hammersmith to Piccadilly and then by way of the City to Walthamstow. They had a through route and reasonable rates were imposed on the Pierpont Morgan group. But this Bill does not provide for a railway to Piccadilly and Hammersmith. It abandoned the through route and the fares were not so good as those proposed by last year's Bill. The Bill went before Lord Windsor's Committee, and that Committee rejected it in so far as it related to the scheme between the Mansion House and Whitechapel, which this particular scheme happened to be a portion of. He wanted to put this to the House of Commons. The Bill practically failed on account of the dropping out of the most important section—between Hammersmith and the City. What was left of this particular Bill was repudiated by Lord Windsor's Committee and rejected by the House of Commons.
  When they remembered that out of forty miles of electric railway this particular scheme had twenty-two miles, it appeared to him that, as the greater rules the lesser, it should not be proceeded with, if anyone was going to have a through route from Hammersmith to the City, and thence to Tottenham, Walthamstow and Waltham Abbey. He ventured to say that it would be better for this House to impose that through route upon the existing Tube railways and upon the Great Eastern Railway, or some Company that was doing part of the work now—if they liked, inefficiently—with larger capital, greater knowledge and experience of this part of the Metropolis than this newly-Hedged syndicate could hope to command. If this proposal went before the Commission it would be found that the Great Eastern Railway submitted to a Committee in 1901 practically this scheme, occupying much of the same route, and it would have done the work in a better way than the promoters of this Bill could ever hope to do it.
  Might he appeal to the House of Commons to rise above the local reasons which had induced some hon, members to support this Bill? The House of Commons was a national assembly; it was not a congress of Borough Councils and vestry
  670
  men, or representatives of local areas. It was a national assembly for the determination of both national and metropolitan questions on broad, not to say Imperial, lines. The only reason for this Bill being supported was that some local Members had thought that parochial considerations warranted them in supporting it, and local reasons alone have been adduced to justify their action. He was going to sacrifice his personal interests on the altar of Metropolitan duty. The district which he represented had two Tube Bills, which were to be brought before the House this session. One was for the construction of a tube railway connecting Clapham Junction with the Marble Arch, whence passengers could go to other places by another route. It would be convenient for the people of Battersea to have these two tube railways, but it would be selfish, exclusive, and unpatriotic for Battersea to promote its own sectional interests independent of the general considerations of Metropolitan interests and the traffic of London as a whole. He was going to ask the House of Commons to throw out these two Bills on the broad ground that he asked them to throw out this one, which was that it served only local interests and was not generally asked for, while it was opposed by the authority that, in hisopinion, was the best judge onmatters of locomotion—namely, the County Council.
  His next point was this: What had the hon. Member who moved the Bill done to-night? He said that, Railways 5 and 6 were withdrawn. No reason had been advanced why 5 and 6 are withdrawn. Was it to suit the convenience of the promoters, and was it because by taking that course they were pursuing the line of least resistance? Why were they cutting them out? Possibly, for anything they knew, Railways 5 and 6 might go through greatly congested districts, and probably they would be the two parts of the Bill the Royal Commission would keep in. It was really amusing to hear hon. Members who were opposed to the housing policy of the London County Council dragging in that Council to-night by the scruff of the neck as a reason why this Bill should be passed It was true that a policy for the housing of the working classes had been gone, into by the London County Council, and that it had been enabled to establish at

  671
  Tottenham a scheme that would give house accommodation to 42,000 people; but he put it to the House of Commons: Was the authority that had done this work, and which was responsible to Parliament for the carrying of it out, going to cut off these 42,000 of the community from easy communication with the City? Was it going deliberately to depreciate its housing scheme by depriving the people of proper facilities for transit? The County Council thought that if this particular company got this Bill for a railway from the City to Tottenham, it would have an exclusive monopoly to serve that community without regard to their relationship to the other railway companies which were prepared to do the work. Probably that community would have dearer fares, fewer trains, and worse accommodation than they would have if the housing scheme was brought before the Royal Commission. They would be better served by that Commission than by this House if the subject came before the Commission for consideration. The Member for Walthamstow dragged in the question of overcrowding, and referred to a case where three families were living in one room, with an average wage of 15s. a week. But the question of overcrowding was not met by this particular Bill. The hon. Member expressed the hope that this Bill would not be removed from the purview of the Royal Commission.
  *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. A. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars)said he did not propose to follow the hon. Member who had just sat down into his argument in so far as it was a plea for the rights of property. The bulk of his speech was based on what he believed to be an entirely erroneous impression. He spoke of referring this Bill and the other Bills to the Royal Commission which had been appointed. The Royal Commission had not been appointed to consider special Bills, and the promoters of this Bill would have absolutely no right to insist that the Commission should consider it.
  MR. JOHN BURNSknew that the hon. Gentleman would pardon him for interrupting him. He was aware that the Royal Commission had not been appointed to consider this special Bill,
  672
  and that it had been appointed to consider the general question of London locomotion, of which this Bill was a prominent part.
  *MR. A. BONAR LAWsaid that was what he stated. It had been appointed to consider the general question of locomotion in the Metropolis. He would try to explain later on the grounds on which his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade considered that this Bill should be dealt with by this House. If he was not mistaken, the London County Council, for whom the hon. Member for Battersea had been speaking to-day, actually approved of this Bill two years ago. He had tried very earnestly to gather the grounds on which the hon. Gentle man opposed it now. It appeared to him that he stated no ground except that he objected to this Bill because there were certain other Bills in which he was more directly interested, which were not allowed to be considered by a Committee upstairs. Heappealed to hon. Members, and to the House, if that was not the policy of the dog in the manger. Now all this was apart from the important question which the House had to decide. He quite admitted that his right hon. friend in appointing this Royal Commission, did intend that in the meantime nothing should be done to interfere with the general scheme which that Commission might place before Parliament with reference to London locomotion. At the very time that he moved for the appointment of a Royal Commission, that appointment wax objected to by some hon. Members on the other side of the House. And his right hon. friend wasasked: "Do you mea n to say that until the Commission has reported no Bill will ever be considered by the House?" His answer then was: "Of course any Bills that are brought before the House will be considered on their merits, and especially with reference to the point whether or not they will interfere with the general plan or scheme for the whole of the Metropolis." The principle on which his right hon. friend had acted was a simple one. In considering what Bills should be allowed, and what Bills should not be

  673
  allowed, to go upstairs, he had been influenced to some small extent by the urgent needs for particular Bills which might be brought forward.
  In connection with this particular Bill he himself received a deputation in support of it. That deputation consisted of representatives of every one of the local authorities affected by the Bill, and was supported by the Members of Parliament in every district through which the railway was to pass, and they urged the need of the Bill, and the necessity of greater accommodation being provided by the district. Even the hon. Member for St. Albans, who had a special case to plead that day, and some other Members, stated that they had travelled in first-class carriages on the Great Eastern Railway in which there were three or four times more people than the carriages were built to accommodate. That, however, was not the main consideration which influenced his hon friend. The main consideration was whether this Bill would interfere with the general plan or scheme for the whole of London of the Royal Commission. He might say at once that when the deputation saw him he pointed out that they must consider that point, and that if this Bill would interfere with the general plan, it was almost certain that it would be thrown out. That was the ground on which his right hon. friend had chiefly considered this Bill. He had considered it with the assistance of the best expert advice at the disposal of the Department, and the conclusion arrived at was, that it was not a Bill which would interfere with the general plan to be recommended by the Royal Commission. That was the conclusion to which his right hon. friend had come, and in that he was supported by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, and by the Deputy Chairman of that House; but in spite of that, his right hon. friend did not claim that he had necessarily come to a correct judgment on that point. Without more evidence than they had at the present moment, it was impossible to be sure that the Bill would not interfere with such a general plan for London. They did not ask that the Bill should be passed; all they asked was that it should be allowed to go upstairs and be considered by the Committee there. The House knew the
  674
  importance of a general plan for London, and if this Bill interfered with that general plan, the sufferers would be the promoters of the Bill. On those grounds he hoped sincerely that the Second Reading would be allowed to pass.
  MR. COURTENAYWARNERsaid he had had the same difficulty in placing his vote as the hon. Member for St. Albans, because if this Bill had been passed two or three years ago it would have considerably benefited him. He thought, however, he might have a free hand on this particular point, although the hon. Gentleman might have a nicer conscience than he had. He would point out that this was the only line ever proposed for this particular district, except one mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea, which had been suggested by the Great Eastern Company, but which was never promoted. It was dropped as soon as the complications ceased. The line did not compete with any other line, and it was absurd to say that it could compete with the Great Eastern, because it was admitted that that Company had more traffic offered to them than they could carry. He remembered seeing a photograph of the state of a workmen's train ten years ago, in which the over crowding was so manifest that the suggestion that the Great Eastern Company could carry the traffic was put down at once. If that could be said ten years ago, when the traffic was not half what it now was, it could be more powerfully urged at the present day. As this was the only line it was possible to make, all that was required was that proper safeguards should be put in by the Committee as to tares, and as to communications at the end of the line with any other line which might be built in future. The necessity of the line was so great, and he could testify to that because he knew the district well, that the House should give some relief, and allow the Committee upstairs to say whether or not it was the fact that the urgency of the case demanded that this Bill should not be defeated.
  *MR. FORDE RIDLEYsaid he wished to look at this question, not only from a

  675
  local but a national point of view. The population which it was proposed to help by this railway amounted to no less than about a million persons. He held that this scheme had certain things about it which made it entirely different from other schemes which had come before the House. Overlapping had been very much considered, but in this case overlapping did not occur. This railway, which was almost identical with the scheme proposed by the Great Eastern Company some years ago, but which was dropped when they found no opposition, was absolutely essential if the people were to be housed in the outlying districts. Why, the London County Council now proposed to house 148,000 people in this district, and there should be sonic additional means of transit in order to take them to and from various parts of London. The Great Eastern Company had done all that was possible for them to do to convey the people, but they admitted that it was impossible to carry more than they did at present. Hon. Members might have heard during recent months what hardships had been borne by the working classes by being brought into London hours before they had to go to work. Temporary sheds had been erected for their shelter, and in some cases the churches had been thrown open in order to prevent these poor people tramping about the streets in all weathers before they went to work. Why was it that there was this state of things? It was because the Great Eastern Company could not deal with the traffic, although they had gone the length of
  widening their rolling stock in order to carry more persons than at present. The trains had to be sent back to the suburbs to bring in the clerk element, who had to be in their offices between nine and ten o'clock, and so it was impossible for the Great Eastern Company to run workmen's trains at a later hour in the morning than at present.
  There were exceptional reasons why this Bill should be allowed to proceed without being hung up in Committee upstairs. If hon. Members wanted to convince themselves of the inconvenience to which the public are put, he advised them to take a journey in the early morning arid see for themselves what the condition of affairs was. The hon. Member for Battersea suggested that the first and second class carriages should be thrown open to the working men; he was authorised to state, by one who knew the facts, that already third class passengers were allowed to travel in second class carriages, and that women and children were allowed to travel in first class carriages. He hoped the House would not look at this matter solely from. the local point of view, He was speaking for 130,000 people who dwelt in his own constituency, but the local authorities of all the East-End districts of London were unanimously in favour of this Bill, which he thought should be allowed to proceed as quickly as possible.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes, 60. (Division List No. 28.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, W. (Cork, N. E.)

  Brigg, John

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Butcher, John George

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardign)

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Caldwell James

  Denny, Colonel

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

  Douglas, Rt. Hom. A. Akers

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chapman, Edward

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. H. Sir H.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

  Bell, Richard

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Bignold, Arthur

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bigwood, James

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Boland, John

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Forster, Henry William

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cremer, William Randal

  Garfit, William

  Gilhooly, James

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Graham, Henry Robert

  M'Crae, George

  Smith, H C (North'mb, Tyneside)

  Groves, James Grimble

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G. (Midx)

  Maxwell W.J.H. (Dumfriesshire)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Hardy, Laurence. (Kent, Ashfd)

  Mitchell, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stock, James Henry

  Helder, Augustus

  More, Robt Jasper (Shropshire)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert, T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hoare. Sir Samuel

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hobhouse. C. E. H. (Bristl, E)

  Myers, William Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'han)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Jeffreys. Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Kitson, Sir James

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Knowles, Lees

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Purvis, Robert

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Lawrence. Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Lawson, John Grant

  Randles, John S.

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E.R. (Bath)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lees, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Remnant Jas. Farquharson

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Lockie, John

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Mr. David Morgan and

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Mr. Forde Ridley.

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Galloway. William Johnson

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Charles P (Glone., Stroud)

  Gretton, John

  Rea, Russell

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Harmsworth. R. Leicester

  Richards, Henry Charles

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hemphill. Rt. Hon Chas. H.

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Horner, Frederick William

  Shackleton, David James

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Long, Sir John.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lundon, W.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Crean, Eugene

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Cullinan, J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Whitley J. H. (Halifax)

  Delany, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Duffy, William J.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  O'Dowd, John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Mr. Vicary Gibbs and

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Mr. John Burns.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  CHARING CROSS, EUSTON AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he begged leave to move the Instruction standing in his name
  678
  with regard to the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill. The words in Clause 8 which he proposed to omit related to the taking away of the subsoil without compensation. He noticed that according to this Bill the full price was paid in this respect to the owner of the adjoining property, and his contention was that

  679
  this was a new principle which was now being introduced, and was one which ought not to be agreed to by this House. His object was to make a provision whereby the owner of the subsoil might protect his property from damage by means of compensation, whereas if the company was allowed to take the subsoil without this provision, it appeared to him that such owners would not be protected. In the Bills passed last year—he alluded to the Tube Bills—a provision of this kind was inserted, and a similar provision was inserted in the City and North-East Suburban Electric Railway Bill, the Second Reading of which had just been passed. This provision secured that in the case of owners whose property was not taken if damage was done by the work compensation would be paid. If this Instruction was not agreed to, a man might have the subsoil taken from him, and in the event of his property being damaged he would not be in a position to obtain any compensation whatever from the company. He did not think he needed to labour the matter any further, because he had been given to understand that the promoters were willing to meet him by accepting his Instruction. The effect of this Instruction would be to allow the Company to take the subsoil, but not to allow them to take it without paying for it in the usual way. He begged to move.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit, in Clause 8, page 7, all the words before the words 'the Company,' in line 32, and all the words after the word 'respectively,' in line 36."—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
  MR. SKEWES-COXsaid he rose to say that on behalf of the promoters of this Bill they have no objection to the Instruction of the hon. Member for Tonbridge, which they were willing to accept.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said that all he desired to say was that he hoped the action which had been taken by this company in regard to this matter would be followed
  680
  by any other companies coming up before this House for Bills of a similar character, for if this were done much needless discussion would be avoided.

  THE CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY BILL.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid the Instruction he wished to move now was a similar Instruction to that which the House had carried on the previous Bill, and he moved it for exactly the same purpose. He hoped, therefore, that the promoters would agree to accept it. If that course were not taken, he should be obliged to divide the House upon this Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to omit, in Clause 4, the words "without being required to purchase the same or any easement therein or there under.' "—(Mr. Griffith Boscawen.)
  MR. COHENsaid he did not think that these two Bills were exactly on all fours, and even if they were, personally he thought the time had come when the House of Commons should not allow its own business to be conducted by a sort of outside negotiation between those who opposed a Bill and the so-called promoters of a Bill. Personally he wished to say that he had absolutely no interest and very little knowledge of the points dealt with in either the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill, or the City and South London Railway Bill, but he was informed with regard to this Instruction that this was a question upon which the promoters had not absolutely come to terms with those advocating it, and they contended that it differed from the Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill, inasmuch as this was a new Bill upon which the sub-soil was not affected in the same way. He wished to say that he had not any desire to pronounce upon the arguments of his hon. friend the Member for Ton bridge, either for or against. All he wished was that the House of Commons, might not allow matters which properly be-

  681
  longed to the House of Commons, or the Committee upstairs, to be settled by those who were for or against in the Lobby. Let this matter, which was essentially one to be determined after examining the representatives for and against, be settled by a Committee upstairs absolutely uninfluenced by any sordid motive. [An HON. MEMBER: Are we so influenced?] He had not suggested that, and he did not know why his hon. friends seemed to be so concerned about it. The Committee examined this question and decided it upon its merits, and therefore he hoped the House would not adopt this Instruction.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid his hon. friend suggested that there had been some sort of negotiation in this matter. Might he be allowed to say that there had been no negotiation whatever, and he had not been in any sort of communication with those interested in this Bill. He wished to point out that the two clauses to which he had alluded were absolutely identical in effect in both cases, and inasmuch as the House had agreed to one principle the same applied to the other.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he thought the hon. Member for Islington's conscience would prick him before the evening was out. He now saw the evil of supporting the previous Bill, for it had carried him further than he really thought it would do. If this matter of the sub-soil had been referred to the Royal Commission they would not have had the hon. Member's speech, and public owners in regard to the sub-soil would have
  been properly protected. The proper course was that which the hon. Member for Islington tardily admitted, that was, for the House not to recognise the promoters' concession to some gentlemen who represented from an absolutely disinterested point of view a certain principle with regard to the acquisition of private property. The hon. Member was perfectly entitled to put before the Committee this principle, but he thought it was a matter which ought not to be advanced in the way of Instruction upon a Bill like this. The House saw now the error of its ways, and desired to find a way out. The way out of the difficulty was to withdraw the Instruction from the previous Bill and let both Bills unconditionally go either to the Committee upstairs or to the Royal Commission, and have evidence produced of damage done either to private or public properties and let the Committee or the Royal Commission determine the principle and the amount of compensation. But the House had thought fit, against its better judgment, to resolve upon a less excellent course. He was sorry that he was not able to convert the House to the better view. If private property was damaged, and public rights were encroached upon, as they would be if these instructions were carried, the House of Commons must not blame the hon. Member for Battersea, but they must blame those gentlemen who, at the behest of a few politicians, had undermined the rights of property.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 57; Noes, 162. (Division List, No. 29.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Forster, Henry William

  Pym, C. Guy

  Bagot, Capt.Josceline FitzRoy

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge)

  Balcarres, Lord

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

  Gordon Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nrn)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Bignold, Arthur

  Gretton, John

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Groves, James Grimble

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

  Butcher, John George

  Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Carson, Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham)

  Stock, James Henry

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claver house

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Valentia, Viscount

  Cochrano, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Myers, William Henry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)

  Mr. Griffith Boscawen and

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Mr. Vicary Gibbs.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

  Rea, Russell

  Allan, Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harmsworth. R. Leicester

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Helder, Augustus

  Ridley, S. F. (Bethnal Green)

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Arrol, Sir William

  Horner, Frederick William

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Kb. Hn. Sir H.

  Hudson. George Bickersteth

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Joicey, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Balfour, Rt, Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Joyce, Michael

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Bell, Richard

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Bigwood, James

  Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Kitson, Sir James

  Shackleton, David James

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Knowles, Lees

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Brigg, John

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Gbasgow)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burns, John

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Smith, H.C (North'mb. Tyneside)

  Burt, Thomas

  Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Caldwell, James

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spear, John Ward

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Leng, Sir John

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Lockie, John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Lundon, W.

  Tennant, Harold John

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  M'Crae, George

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Crean, Eugene

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Cullinan, J.

  More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies, M.Vaughan (Cardign)

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Delany, William

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Webb, Col. William George

  Denny, Colonel

  Mount, William Arthur

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Mowbray, Sir Robt. Gray C.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Murphy, John

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Murray. Rt Hn A.Graham (Bute)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Duffy, William J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Durning-Lawrence. Sir Edwin

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

  Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid)

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Ffrench, Peter

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  O'Dowd, John

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

  Wylie, Alexander

  Flower, Ernest

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Gardner, Ernest

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES-

  Garfit, William

  Randles, John S.

  Mr. Cohen and Colonel

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Rankin, Sir James

  Lucas.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

SUPPLY.
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY.]
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
ARMY ESTIMATES, 1903–4.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,638,000,
684
be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for Retired Pay, Half-Pay, and other Non-Effective Charges for Officers, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1904."
MR. WHITLEYsaid it was a little difficult to discuss this important Vote, as they all understood that this

685
Vote was not going to be taken to-day. The Prime Minister had distinctly announced that the previous Vote would be allowed to be discussed during the whole of to-day's proceedings because he said it would be necessary to get the Vote by twelve o'clock. They were now asked to pass a Vote of £1,638,000 without having had a reasonable opportunity of examining it. There were one or two things he wished to ask the Government. They had heard from the representatives of the War Office that they had been making a considerable extension in the employment of soldiers on half-pay and on retired pay, and he noticed an increasing number of cases in the Estimates where such employment was found. He should like to ask the Government what arrangements they made in a case of that kind. Was the salary entirely in addition to retired pay or half-pay, or was the retired pay or half-pay taken into account in the new payment that was made for the services rendered? On the second page of this Vote there was the sum of £10,000 as rewards to officers for distinguished or meritorious services. He should like to have some information as to the methods on which this amount was allotted. He was rather surprised to find that practically every man received the same amount according to his rank. For his part he could not see that there was much judgment in allotting this money for meritorious service if they gave exactly the same amount to all officers of the same rank. He would have thought that that £10,000, which was intended by the House to be put at the disposal of the War Office as a special reward for special services, would have been allotted with much more discrimination than appeared to be exercised. Was it likely, for instance, that all the lieutenant-generals did meritorious service exactly equal in value] He could not understand any business being conducted in that way. The money ought to be awarded in amounts proportionate to the service rendered, and surely there was a very wide difference between the services rendered to their country by these various officers. He wished to know further if these rewards were permanent. He noticed that they were voted by the House year by year,
686
and he would like to be told if, when once an award was made to an officer, it was a permanent award or merely an annual or temporary grant. He noticed at the bottom of one page a note on the question of retired pay, stating that in some cases the amount actually drawn exceeded the rate by Royal Warrant, owing to compensation being given for loss of prospects to officers compulsorily retired. If an officer were compulsorily retired he presumed it was because they were not satisfied with his services, and if the authorities were compelled to take such a step, it ought not to be necessary to compensate the officer for loss of prospects. That was a matter which required consideration.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that, in spite of the large demobilisation at the end of the war, there were now more officers on active employment and fewer on half-pay than there were a year ago. He would like to know whether there had been such an enormous flow of promotion that the higher ranks were over-filled, and it seemed to him that the result of the mobilisation would be to increase rather than decrease the number of officers on half-pay.
MR. PIRIEcomplained of the Vote being taken that evening. He had desired to call attention to what he considered to be abuses in the non-effective Vote. He had on the Paper a Question asking for a Return of the sums expended during the last five years on the non-effective Vote. It was only fair that the House should have that statement before it was asked to pass the Vote. He wished to have an explanation how it was there were ninety-two lieutenant-colonels and colonels placed on half pay in 1903–4 as compared with sixty-six in 1902–3. In the same years there was an increase of four majors and of five captains. Seeing that this country was the only one which kept a half-pay list as a means of punishment he thought he was entitled to ask for that explanation.
*MR. BRODRICKreplied that obviously after a campaign in which a very large number of additional officers had been engaged, there was not now employment

687
for all of them, and consequently some of them had been placed on the half-pay list, possibly only for a time. So far as the general officers' list was concerned, the principle of selection which was now fully in force would ultimately greatly lessen the number of general officers on half-pay. In explanation of the foot-note referred to by the hon. Member for Halifax, it referred to cases in which officers were compulsorily retired under the old Royal Warrant on larger sums than were now allowed. No such cases occurred in the present day, however. He had long felt that the principle on which distinguished service awards was given was not defensible. He was glad the hon. Member had called attention to this matter, because undoubtedly a good case had been made out for a change. Under the present system an officer receiving £2,000 a year might get the award, but when he was retired on perhaps £800, he was deprived of the £100 a year distinguished service award at the very moment he most needed it. With the full concurrence of the Commander-in-Chief he had laid it down that a man who had been selected for a reward for distinguished service should not get the money while he was in receipt of full pay, but when he finally went on half-pay, when he probably needed it most. In regard to the general position of the Vote, the Committee would be glad to note that there was a considerable reduction.
*SIR WALTER FOSTERjoined heartily in the protests against this Vote for one and a half millions being brought on that evening. It was contrary to the distinct understanding arrived at.
*MR. BRODRICK: On what do you base that?
*SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid he based it on the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government would be satisfied if they got Vote A and Vote I on Thursday night. They had got those Votes at the afternoon sitting, by means of the Closure, the use of which was no part of the bargain. It was not treating them with consideration to have other Votes like this one brought on and pushed through Committee late in the evening. The Government had had an exceedingly good time in the last few days. They had had, moreover, the satisfaction at last of seeing their critical friends below the Gangway support them—a change of front due no doubt to a recent remarkable election. This all the more justified the. protest. In any case a Vote of this kind wanted to be looked into with the closest scrutiny, and there was no opportunity of doing that in consequence of the action of the Government in bringing it on unexpectedly and contrary to what was understood by Members on the Opposition side.
*MR. BRODRICKthought the indignation of the hon. Gentleman was a little thin. Those who had watched the discussions during the last four days must admit, he thought, that his right hon. friend the Prime Minister had given most ample opportunity to those who wished to criticise the Government on Vote A and Vote I. He carefully watched the debate that afternoon, and he noted that until about a quarter of an hour before the adjournment there was no sign of any wish to raise further discussion on Vote I.

689
It had always been the custom when the House had obviously exhausted its criticism, not to allow one or two individuals to stand in the way of getting on with the business. In addition to that the non-effective had never been the subject of prolonged discussion; they were the same year by year; no fresh principle was introduced on this occasion, and he really thought they might be allowed to continue, without protest, the modest amount of business which remained to be got through.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)pointed out that the very modest amount of business to which the right hon. Gentleman referred consisted of voting £3,500,000 more than anything that the Prime Minister spoke of getting that night. The right hon. Gentleman the other day said that for reasons which could be chronologically justified, it was necessary, in his opinion, to get Vote A and Vote I by that evening, and on that occasion he ventured to put in a little careat and intimated that he must not be held to consent to that course if it involved an undue curtailment of debate. When the debate was gradually dying down in the usual pleasant way, the Prime Minister thought it not inconvenient or disrespectful to the House to move the Closure, just at the moment the House had no expectation of its being done, and when many Members who possibly had something to say on the Vote had gone away. Now the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take Votes for another £3,500,000 in order to make the Government perfectly independent of the House of Commons, as far as the Army Estimates were concerned, until July next. That
690
certainly was not dealing fairly with the House. He maintained that, from the point of view of the Government, it was a grave breach of the understanding which existed, to move the Closure at the time when it was moved. The Government, therefore, ought not to persist in taking any more Votes that night, the opportunity for which had been gained in such a way.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid the Secretary of State for War had made very light of that matter. He had stated that from time immemorial it had been the practice to pass these non-effective items without debate. That time, however, had now passed; Members wanted to know more about these matters. The non-effective part of the British Army had become so very considerable that they felt bound, in the interest of the nation and of the safety of the Empire, to go into that part of the subject at greater length than they had done in the past. There were 284 non-effective colonels at £500 a year each. That was a serious matter, and required looking into. Then with regard to rewards and allowances for meritorious and distinguished services, there were several columns filled with grants of £10. Surely some explanation should be given of how all these distinguished services came to be worth exactly £10 apiece. He moved to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Broad-hurst.)
*MR. BRODRICKthought the Motion could hardly have been made with any

691
expectation that the Government would accept it. He hoped the Committee would continue business.
MR. PIRIEsaid he had put a Question on the Paper with direct reference to this particular Vote, asking for a Return of the increase therein for the last five years' expecting to get the Return early next week, when he had presumed the Vote would be discussed. He therefore supported the Motion.
MR. LOUGHsaid it was impossible to discuss the Vote to-night. Relying on the pledge of the Prime Minister Members had prepared themselves only for Vote I.
*MR. BRODRICKsaid that no pledge whatever had been given. The Prime Minister stated that he wanted Vote A and Vote I before the end of the evening, but he did not pledge himself not to proceed further.
MR. LOUGHcontended that there wag a distinct understanding that only those two Votes would be taken, and on that understanding many Members had left the House. It was now sought to get another two or three millions of money voted. The Government were trying to hustle things through in the meanest possible way, and he thought there was no more reasonable proposition than that they should report Progress.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONagreed that the Vote was a most important one, and he was burning to discuss it. He, however, was quite prepared to make his criticisms
692
at once, and ho protested against business being interrupted by such a Motion as that before the Committee.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANasked the Secretary of State whether he had ever known a case when the non-effectives had been taken on the same night as Vote I.
*MR. BRODRICKsaid he had known much more important Votes taken on the same night as Vote I. He looked upon it as a proof of the moderation of the Prime Minister that he had put down only the non-effective Votes. He-was not certain, but he believed that even in the life of the present Parliament the non-effective Votes, or some of them, had been taken the same night as Vote I.
MR. WHITLEYput forward as an additional reason for reporting Progress the fact that they had heard that night for the first time that this sum of £10,000 a year for meritorious services was to be dealt with on a new plan. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that in future these rewards would come into force only on the retirement of the officers concerned, and that was entirely inconsistent with the Vole as submitted.
LORD HUGH CECILsuggested that it would be reasonable if the Opposition would allow this particular Vote to be taken on the understanding that no other non-effective Vote should be taken that night.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the suggestion of the noble Lord would hardly be acceptable, because many Members had gone, being under the
impression that the non-effective Votes would not be taken.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64; Noes, 154. (Division List No. 30.)

AYES.

Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

Joicey, (Sir James

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herat. Hy.

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Joyce, Michael

Shackleton, David James

Brigg, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, S.)

Broadhurst. Henry

Lambert, George

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burns, John

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer, RtHnC. R. (Northants

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Leng, Sir John

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cawley, Frederick

Lough. Thomas

Strachey, Sir Edward

Charming, Francis Allston

Lundon, W.

Tennant, Harold John

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lamark)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr) -

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Crae, George

Thomas, J. A. (GFm'rgan, Gower

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Tomkinson, James

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney)

Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith

Murphy, John

White,' George (Norfolk)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Brien, P. J. Tipperary, N.)

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Curdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pirie, Duncan V.

Harms worth. R. Leicester

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

Hayne. Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Roe, Sir Thomas

Mr. Herbert (Gladstone) and Mr. Causton.

Helme. Norval Watson

Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner. James Tynte

Cranborne, Viscount

Knowles, Lees

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Crossley. Sir Savile

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th,)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh 0.

Denny. Colonel

Lawson, John Grant

Arrol, Sir William

Dickson. Charles Scott

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Dimsdale. Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Aubrey-Fletcher, Kt. Hn. Sir H.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Lockie, John

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.

Balcarres, Lord

Duke, Henry Edward

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Balfour. Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G W. (Leeds

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Maconochie, A. W.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Finch. Rt. Hon. George H.

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Bignold, Arthur

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Bigwood. James

Fisher, William Hayes

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigt'n)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose-

Maxwell, W. J. U. (Dumfriessh.)

Boscawen. Arthur Griffith-

Forster, Henry William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bousfield. William Robert

Galloway. William Johnson

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John

Gardner. Ernest

More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire

Butcher, John George

Garfit, William

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Carson. Kt. Hon. Sir Edw. JI

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Morrison, James Aichibald

Cautley, Henry Strother

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Mount, William Arthur

Cavendish. V'C W (Derbysh.)

Gordon, Hn. J.E. (Elgin & Nrn,)

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Graham, Henry Robert

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute)

Chamberlain.Rt'.Hn. J A (Wore)

Gretton. John

Nicholson, William Graham

Charringron, Spencer

Groves. James Grimble

Nicol, Donald Ninian.

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Give. Captain Percy A.

Hardie. J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

Hardy, Laurence (Kenf.Ashfd)

Percy, Earl

Callings, Right Hon. Jesse

Harris. Frederick Leverton

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richard

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Helder. Augustus

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Corbett, A Cameron (Glasg.)

Henderson. Sir Alexander

Pretyman, Ernest George

Corbett. T. L. (Down. North)

Houre. Sir Samuel

Purvis, Robert

Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse

Randles. John S.

Seely, Maj J. E. B. (Isleof Wight)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Rankin, Sir James

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Webb, Col. William George

Reid, James (Greenock)

Smith, H.C. (North'mb. Tyneside)

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Smith, Jaa. Parker (Lanarks.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Ridley, Hn.M.W. (Stalybridge)

Smith, Hn. W. P. D. (Strand)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Spear, John Ward

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Hath)

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Stock, James Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wyndham-Quin, MajorW. H.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Thornton, Percy M.

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. E. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Sir Alexander Acland-

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Valentia, Viscount

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Vincent. Col Sir C.E.H. (Sheffield)

Original Question again proposed.
MR. OOURTENAY WAENERsaid he wished to know why, after the demobilisation of the Army in South Africa which had necessarily put several generals on half-pay, they now had fewer generals on half-pay than they had last year, when a number of men who ought to have been on half-pay were employed in the field. In order to obtain a reply he would move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
MR. ALFRED HUTTON,on a point of order, asked if moving a reduction on Item B would prejudice his right to move a reduction on Item A.
THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order; it depends on whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to give way,
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was quite willing to withdraw his Motion in order to allow his hon. friend to proceed.
MR. ALFRED HUTTONsaid that when he asked a question about the allocation of the £10,000 for rewards for
696
meritorious services, the Secretary of State informed the Committee that he had a new scheme for the allocation of the money. Those new schemes were getting a little bewildering, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him asking him one or two questions with reference to his latest scheme. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that in future the money voted by Parliament for this purpose would not be received by the officers concerned until they had retired on half-pay. If that was so the Vote now presented to the Committee was incorrect, because it included officers on the active list as well as officers on the retired list. That was the reason why they should have the right hon. Gentleman's scheme in black and white before they proceeded to discuss the Vote, and in order that that might be done he would move the reduction of Item A by £100.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A (Rewards to Officers for Distinguished Services) be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Alfred Hutton.)
*MR. BRODRICKsaid the question was a very simple one. Officers holding appointments would not draw rewards,

697
but when they were on half-pay or retired pay they would draw them.
MR. HUTTONsaid that many of the officers concerned were not on retired pay.
*MR. BRODRICKsaid that the scheme would only apply to grants made in the future.
MR. HUTTONsaid that after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation he would withdraw his Motion.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
Original question again proposed.
MB. PIRIEsaid he wished to move a reduction of the Vote in consequence of the insufficient reply which had been given with regard to the details of Item C. He referred to the increase of the item for half-pay for colonels and lieutenant-colonels. The Secretary of State for War explained the increase by saying that it was due to the conclusion of the South African War. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in appointing fresh officers to any appointments which might be created under the new Army Corps system, regard would be paid to economy as well as to fitness for selection. A
698
certain sum would be saved by giving billets to officers on half-pay; and he wished to know whether the War Office intended to study economy in makingsuch appointments. He also wished to know whether every officer would have to submit to a strict medical examination before taking up a Staff appointment. He begged to move.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item C (Half-Pay of Regimental and Departmental Officers eligible for Employment) be reduced by £7,680."—(Mr Pirie.)
MR. BRODRICKsaid that the close of the war had left a number of colonels and other officers of lower rank whose services were not required immediately, and they had gone temporarily on half-pay. Other things being equal, economy would always be studied, and, if officers were eligible for appointment, they would be employed.
MR. LOUGHsaid the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was a general one. He thought his hon. friend was right, and that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to explain the increase. The only explanation they got was that it was because of the war in South Africa, and that did not appear to him to be sufficient.
MR. PIRIEasked if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to grant a return giving the names of the officers.
Question put
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 64;

AYES

Allen, Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Roe, Sir Thomas

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brigg, John

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

Shackleton, David James

Broadhurst, Henry

Helme. Norval Watson

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joicey, Sir James

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burns, John

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Joyce, Michael

Spencer, Rt. Hn. CR (Northants)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Kearley, Hudson E.

Stevenson, Francis S.

Causton, Richard Knight

Lambert, George

Tennant, Harold John

Cawley, Frederick

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Thomas, J. A. (Glam., Gower)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Leng, Sir John

Warner, Thos. Courtenay, T.

Delany, William

Lundon, W.

Wason, JohnCathcart (Orkney)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

White, George (Norfolk)

Duffy, William J.

M'Crae, George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Kenna, Reginald

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

TELLERS FOR. THE AYES—

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Murphy, John

MR-. Pirie and Mr. Lough.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Roberts. John Bryn (Eifion)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Killop, Jas. (Stirlingshire)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir H E (Wigt'n)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Maxwell, W.J. H. (Dumfriessh.)

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Arrol, Sir William

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

More, Robt, Jasper (Shropshire)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt, Hn. Sir H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Morgan, David J (Walthamst' w)

Bain, Colonel James Robert

FitzGerald, Sir Robt. Penrose

Morrison, James Archibald

Balcarres, Lord

Forster, Henry William

Mount, William Arthur

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r)

Galloway, William Johnson

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Balfour. Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Garfit, William

Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham (Bute)

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Nicholson, William Graham

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Bignold, Arthur

Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nrn)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bigwood, James

Graham, Henry Robert

Parkes, Ebenezer

Blundell. Colonel Henry

Gretton, John

Percy, Earl

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Groves, James Grimble

Pilkington, Lt.-Col. Richards

Bousfield, William Robert

Hamilton, Marq. of (Londondy

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashfd)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Butcher, John George

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Pretyman, Ernest George

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Purvis, Robert

Cautley, Henry Strother

Helder. Augustus

Randles, John S.

Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

Henderson. Sir Alexander

Rankin, Sir James

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc)

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Reid, James (Greenock)

Charrington, Spencer

Jebb. Sir Richard Claverhouse

Remnant, James Farquharson

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

Ridley, Hn. M.W. (Stalybridge)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Cochrane, Hon. T., H. A. E.

Knowles, Lees

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Colston, Chas. Edw H. Athole

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Campton, Lord Alwyne

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

Round, Rt. Hon, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Lawson, John Grant

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Sadler, Col. Saml. Alexander

Cranborne, Viscount

Lockie, John

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Crossley. Sir Savile

Lowther, C. (Cumb, Eskdale)

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Seely, Mj. J.E.B. (Isle of Wight)

Denny, Colonel

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Dickson. Charles Scott

Macdona, John Cumining

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Maconochie, A. W.

Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside)

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)

Noes, 153. (Division List, No. 31.)

Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

Valentia, Viscount

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Spear, John Ward

Vincent,Col Sir C. E. H (Sheffield)

Wylie, Alexander

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Stock, James Henry

Webb, Col. William George

Sturt. Hon. Humphry Napier

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Sir Alexander Acland-

Thornton, Percy M.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Tomlinson, Sir Win. Ed. M.

Wilson, A. S. (York, E. R.)

Tufnell lieut-Col. Edward

Wodehonse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath)

Original Question again proposed.
And it being after Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
Whereupon MR. SECRETARY BROD-RICK Whereupon MR. SECRETARY BROD-RICK rose in his place, and claimed to
move, "That the Question be now put,"
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 64. (Division List, No. 32.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

Wylie, Alexander

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Webb, Col. William George

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Thornton, Percy M.

Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Valentia, Viscount

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E.R. (Bath)

Sir Alexander Acland-

Vincent.Col Sir C. E. (Sheffield)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

NOES.

Allen. Chas. P. (Glos., Stroud)

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Roe, Sir Thomas

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt Hy.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Helme, Norval Watson

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Brigg, John

Joicey. Sir James

Shackleton, David James

Broadhurst, Henry

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, S.)

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Joyce, Michael

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burns, John

Kearley, Hudson E.

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Caldwell, James

Lambert, George

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants)

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Stevenson, Francis S.

Cawley, Frederick

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Tennant, Harold John

Channing, Francis Allston

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Leng, Sir John

Thomas, J. A. (Glam.,Gower)

Cullman, J.

Lough, Thomas

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Duffy, William J.

M'Crae, George

White, George (Norfolk)

Duncan, J. Hastings

M'Kenna, Reginald

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Murphy, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone

Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

Pirie, Duncan V.

and Mr. Canston.

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tyd)

Roberta, John Bryn (Eifion)

Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
MR. GALLOWAYasked when the Government proposed to take the Report Stage of Vote A and Vote I of the Army Estimates.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somersetshire, W.)said the intention of the Government was to move the Speaker out of the Chair on Monday on the Navy Estimates. The Report Stage of the Army Estimates would not be taken before Wednesday.

NEW BILLS.

  POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE.
  Bill to make provision for the Defence of Poor Prisoners, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Cripps, Sir Joseph Leese, Mr. Perks, Mr. Kimber,
  Mr. Butcher Mr. Atherley-Jones, Mr. Marshall Hall, and Mr. Duke.

  FALSE CHAHACTERS.
  Bill for the prevention of giving False Characters to servants, and of offences connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bousfield and Mr. Herbert Robertson.
  POOR PRISONERS' DEFENCE BILL.
  "To make provision for the Defence of Poor Prisoners," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

  FALSE CHAHACTERS BILL.
  "For the better prevention of giving False Characters to servants and of offences connected therewith," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.