Commons Sitting of 28 June 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Preston Corporation Water Bill [Lords], Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [Lords] Read a second time, and committed.
London County Council (General Powers) Bill (by Order). Consideration as amended, deferred till To-morrow (Evening Sitting).
Selby Urban District Council Bill (by Order). Consideration as amended, deferred till Thursday.
Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Pro visional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Arbroath Corporation Water, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Arbroath Corporation Water," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th July, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Dunfermline District Water, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899,: relating to Dunfermline District Water, "I presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 6th July, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]
Melrose District Water Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899,; relating to Melrose District Water, I ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
Melrose District Water Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Melrose District Water," presented; and ordered to be considered upon Friday.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP K).
Captain JESSEL reported from the Committee on Group K of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned until Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolution reported from the Select Committee, "That, in the case of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 13) Bill [County Borough of Tynemouth Order], Petition of Charles Davison Forster for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the ' Northumberland County Council,' against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought not to be dispensed with."
Report to lie upon the Table.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Leave given to the Committee on Group I of Private Bills to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.
Rotherham Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; London and North Western Railway Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1890, and The Electric Lighting (Scotland) Act, 1902, relating to Musselburgh, Portpatrick, and Wishaw."[Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for confirming an agreement between the right hon. Godfrey Charles Lord Tredegar and the trustees of his settled estates and the Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Company for the conveyance to the Company of lands forming part of the settled estates and an agreement between the Company and Lord Tredegar for the issue to Lord Tredegar of a sum of £150,000 preferred ordinary stock of the Company, for authorising the trustees of the settled estates to purchase from Lord Tredegar a sum of £50,000, part of such last-mentioned preferred ordinary stock; for confirming the purchase by the trustees of the settled estates of a sum of £50,000 preferred ordinary stock of the Company created and issued under The Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Act, 1897; and for other purposes." ["Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estate Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Scarisbrick Estate Act, 1877." Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for conferring further powers on the Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, Limited; for constructing tramways and widening and altering roads and acquiring lands in and near Bristol; and for other purposes." [Bristol Tramways ((Extensions) Bill [Lords.]
Lord Tredegar's Supplemental Estates Bill [Lords]; Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [Lords]; Bristol Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 246.]

PETITIONS.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Aberystwyth"; Ashford, Kent; Ashford, Middlesex (two); Ashton in Makerfield; Attercliffe (two); Babbin's Wood; Bankhill; Bath; Berwick on Tweed; Bilsborrow; Bilsdale East; Borrowash; Boston; Boughton; Bourn; Bradninch; Bradford (three); Braithwaite; Braithwell; Bridge of Allan; Brighton; Bromley Cross; Broughton; Bushy Heath; Burton Joyce; Cambridge (two); Carbrook; Carlton in Cleveland; Carmarthen; Castle Donington; Chapel-town; Charlton; Chelsea (two); Cheltenham; Cheriton Mendy; Chester (two); Chiswick; Cleethorpes; Clifton; Cocker-mouth; Countesthorpe; Craignant; Crvm mych; Derby (five); Dewsbury (two); Diss; Ealing; Ecclesfield; Evesham; Finsbury Park; Forest Hill; Foxton; Gamblesby; Gig Mill; Gildersome; Glan-villes Wootton; Gobowen; Golcar; Grantham; Gravesend; Great Bridge; Great Broughton; Great Coates; Grimsby (three); Hartland; Hartlepool; Hazel Grove; Helmshore; Hereford; Hex-thorpe; High Green; High Wycombe; Hornsea; Houghton Conquest; Hum-berstone; Hyde; Hyde Park (two); Ipswich; Kirkcowan; Kirkwall; Lark-hall; Leigh; Llansantffraid; London; Luton; Manchester; Market Rasen; Medomsley; Meldreth; Middlemarch; Morley (four); Newbiggin; Norton Canes; Orwell; Osgathorpe; Oswestry; Parkwood; Reeth; Richmond Hill, Bournemouth; Ringwood; Rochdale; Rockingham; Romiley; Rothley; Roy-ston; Saffron Walden; St. John's Square; Salford; Salkeld Dykes; Scorton; Selathyn; Sheffield (four); Shefford; South Moor; Southwark Park; Stourbridge; Stretford (two); Trevellas

  1399
  Downs; Upton Park; Ushaw Moor; Wadsworth; Walham Green; Wallsend-on-Tyne; Waltham; Watford; West Melton; West Norwood; Weston Rhyn; Whittonstall; Willesden; Willington Quay; Winchcombe; Winkfield; and York; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions for alteration; from Derby and Derbyshire; Pye Bank; and South West Bethnal Green; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Westminster, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Blean, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report, No. 418 (Bermuda, Annual Report for 1903) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN INDIA).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in India, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 31st March, 1904, etc" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 229.]
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 28th April; Mr. Cochrane]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 230.]
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3198 [by Command]; to he upon the
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3198 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  National School at Rathview, Dundalk
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the national school in which Mr. Denis Lavelle, Rathview, Dundalk, teaches, was built by himself at a cost of £350; and that he was not refunded any of this when he was compelled to assign his interest to trustees; and, if so, whether special inquiry will be made into this matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) In 1894 it came to the knowledge of the Commissioners for the first time that this schoolhouse was the property of Mr. Lavelle. The manager was thereupon informed that no further payment of salary could be made so long as the schoolhouse remained the property of the teacher contrary to the provisions of the rules, and until the Commissioners received satisfactory evidence that he had ceased to have any interest in the premises. The manager replied that if the rules prohibited the ownership of schoolhouses by teachers it would be unreasonable to ask that an exception should be made to them in the present instance. He added that Mr. Lavelle I had called on him and expressed his willingness to resign or assign his interest. Some further correspondence ensued and the teacher adopted the "latter course. The rules bearing on this matter have always been rigidly enforced by the Commissioners and were rendered necessary by the occurrence of many and gross irregularities. The schoolhouse of which Mr. Lavelle is the teacher is a non-vested building in which the Commissioners have no interest whatever. They are not aware whether he received any consideration from the persons to whom he transferred the premises beyond the privilege of continuing to be recognised

  1401
  as teacher. He surrendered the house to secure the continuance of his salary, and the question of compensation or a refund by the Commissioners does not arise. The matter is entirely one between himself and the local trustees who now own the house.

  Uganda Railway.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state when the Report on the Uganda Railway, made by Major Pringle, R.E., Board of Trade Railway Inspector, and mentioned in Africa, No. 12, of 1903, will be laid before Parliament; and, with reference to Africa, No. 7, 1903, if the Committee which supervised the construction of the railway, and was dissolved in September, 1903, submitted a final Report; and, if so, when it will be laid before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on the 20th instant, the despatch referred to in the first paragraph of the Question will shortly be laid. A final Report on the history of the Uganda Railway was written by the chairman and managing member of the late Committee, and will also be laid before Parliament.

  Maltese Government Balance Sheet.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the fact that in the balance-sheet issued by the Maltese Government on 29th February, the investments in Imperial and Colonial Funds were stated to amount to £709,999 10s. 6d., although the nominal value of these securities on that day was only £682,449 9s. 4d., and the market value was only £650,476 19s. 6d., involving a deficit of £35,605 instead of a surplus of £22,939 19s. 10fd., he will order the publication of a new balance-sheet.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The difference between the cost price of the investments and their market value on the 29th of February last was £59,522 11s. To meet this deficit the Malta Government had standing to its
  † See page 471.
  1402
  credit the reserve funds amounting; respectively to £13,207 and £10,710, of which the hon. Member has taken account in referring to the deficit as amounting to £35,605. But it appears from the statements which accompanied and were published with the balance-shest of the 29th of February last that the Government had also to its credit on that date the nett surplus brought forward from the year 1902–3, viz., £19,416, and also the excess of the revenue for the period to the 29th of February, 1901, viz., £411,664 over the expenditure for that period, viz., £363,279, i.e., £48 385. These two items together amount to £67,801, and therefore if the Colonial Government had had to sell all its securities on that date the Colonial Government would have been able to meet all its liabilities, retaining a surplus of £22,196, and there would not have been a deficit. The statement of the 29th of February, to which the hon. Member refers, was merely a monthly Return and was not a statement showing the position of the Colony for the financial year, which in the ordinary course would only be published at some period subsequent to the close of the financial year, viz., the 31st of March. The annual statement would, in accordance with paragraph 164 (c) of the Financial Instructions, be accompanied by a detailed statement of investments showing the description and amount of stock held, the actual price paid for its purchase, and its market value. So far as I am aware no annual statement has yet been published in respect of the year 1903–4, but the Governor will be asked when its publication may be expected.

  SUGGESTED MOTOR-CAR SERVICE BETWEEN ULLAPOOL AND GARVE.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, in view of recent improvements in weight-carrying motor-cars, will he consider the expediency of placing a motor-car on the road between Ullapool and Garve for the purpose of assisting the fishing industry in the Lochbroom district, as authorised under Section 4, Sub-section (e), of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897.
  {Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I can only refer the hon. Member to my

  1403
  reply to a similar Question by the hon. Member on the 25th June last year to which I have nothing to add.

  Estate of the late Thomas Flynn.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet ascertained from the American Consul when the estate of the late Thomas Flynn who died in Warwick, Rhode Island, in February, 1902, will be available for distribution amongst his next of kin, who are British subjects.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) No further information has been received beyond that which was communicated to the hon. Member in my letter of 14th April last. His Majesty's Consul-General at New York has been requested to report whether any progress has been made in the matter.

  Pay of Post Office Night Messengers in Scotland.
  MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.); To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the night messengers at Sheffield, Hull, and Belfast are paid at the rate of time and a half for Sunday duty, whilst the night messengers in Scotland receive no pay for, Sunday attendance; and will he now be prepared to adopt a recent official ruling of the Accountant, General Post Office, Edinburgh, that these men are only paid for a week of six days.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) At some of the post offices in Scotland the wages of the adult night telegraph messengers are fixed so as to include payment for Sunday duty, while at others the wages do not cover attendance on Sunday, which is accordingly paid for extra. I will consider whether it is practicable to adopt a uniform system of payment in such cases.

  Scotch Post Office Night Messengers-Attendance to Receive Pay.
  MR. NOLAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the adult night messengers in Scotland have to attend specially during the day to be paid their weekly wages; and, if so, seeing that these men have to work a full night duty, will he direct that in future they
  † See (4) Debates, cxxiv., 553.
  1404
  shall receive their pay when ceasing duty on Saturday morning.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I find that in certain cases the wages of the adult night messengers in Scotland are already paid in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. I shall be glad to consider any application that may be made by the messengers in other places for the adoption of a similar plan.

  Return of Overtime of Railway Servants.
  MR. CHANNING: To ask the President of the Board of Trade why the Return of hours in excess of twelve worked by railway servants in the month of October, 1903, is taking so much longer a time to produce than previous similar Returns; and whether the Board will direct the railway companies who have not yet completed and sent in their Returns to do so without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have no reason to suppose that the Return for October, which was called for two months ago, will take a longer time in production than previous Returns. The time occupied by the last two Returns of this nature was about six months. The attention of those companies whose returns are outstanding is being called to the matter.

  Publication of Annual Report of Chief Inspector of Factories.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department when it is expected that the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops, usually promised for May, will be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Cochrane.) I understand that the Chief Inspector will be able to place the Report in my hands within a few days now. I shall present it to Parliament without delay, and will do what I can to secure that it is printed and placed in the hands of Members at the earliest moment.

  Cyclists in Hyde Park—Watering of Roads
  MR. REGINALDLUCAS: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the Office of Works, whether he can hold out any hope that this year the morning watering of the roads in Hyde Park will be so effected as not to preclude the possibility of their use by bicyclists between the hours of ten and noon.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.)The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to hold out any such hope. The experiment of leaving the sides of the roads unwatered has been tried, and has been abandoned on hygienic grounds.

  School Inspectors and Provision for Religious Instruction out of School Buildings.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether His Majesty's inspectors have received instructions not to sign any time-table providing for religious instruction during school hours out of the school buildings; and, if so, will he say why such notification to His Majesty's inspectors has not been made public by the Board.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board will very shortly issue instructions to their inspectors in regard to the taking of children to church during school hours. It is not the general practice of the Board to make public the instructions which

  Witwatersrand Mines. Value of Gold produced.

  Transvaal Gold Mines.

  Transvaal Gold Mines.

  White men employed.

  Natives employed.

  £

  £

  May, 1897

  867,844

  Outside districts represent about one-twelfth of Witwatersrand output

  9,519 (average for year)

  69,098 (average for year)

  May, 1898

  1,211,765

  1,288,234

  10,684 (average for year)

  82,062 (average for year)

  May, 1899

  1,582,010

  1,658,268

  12,000 (about)

  95,000 (about)

  May, 1902

  588,746

  588,746

  6,727 (June)

  29,410 (June)

  May, 1903

  955,854

  995,463

  11,439 (at work)

  64,480

  May, 1904

  1,302,294

  1,335,826

  (figure not received)

  70,778

  they issue to their inspectors, and they see no reason for making an exception in this instance.

  Retention of Staff of a Division at Salisbury.
  SIR WALTER PALMER: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to retain the headquarters and clerical staff of a Division at Salisbury.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) It is not possible to give a final answer to this Question at present. The course to be pursued must depend upon the exigencies of the service, and, as I have already stated, the future distribution of the Army at home, in which the question of the headquarters is involved, is still under consideration.

  Gold Output of the Transvaal—White and Native Labour.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the value of the gold produced from the mines either of the Witwatersrand district or of the Transvaal as a whole, and the number of white men and of natives employed on those mines, in the month of May in each of the years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1902, 1903, and 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The following figures supply the information desired so far as it is at my disposal:—

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Artillery Guns.
    CAPTAIN NOKTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what steps are being taken to replace such of our horse and field artillery guns as have become eroded, the number of guns ordered, and where those orders have been placed; whether any improvement has been made upon the quality of powder and class of fuses used in the South African War, as well as in the matter of modern howitzers and heavy field guns of the class now in use in the Japanese Army.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): In reply to the first part of the Question, when the guns are condemned for erosion they are retubed, and over 100 have been retubed in the Ordnance Factories. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative, except in the case of the field howitzer, which is still under experiment.
    In reply to a further Question, the right hon. Gentleman said all guns capable of repair were being repaired. He could not give the number of new guns ordered.
    SIR CHARLES DILKE: I will call attention to this subject on the Army Vote on Thursday.

    Acquisition of Additional Ground for Military Purposes at Stobs.
    MR. MCCRAE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether any progress has been made in the negotiations for the purchase of additional ground for military purposes at Stobs.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No further progress has been made in connection with the negotiations for the purchase of additional ground at Stobs.

    Chinese Coolies at Johannesburg—Beriberi.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that beri-beri is a disease
    1408
    which infects a place or locality and so becomes endemic, he will take steps to have all the recently imported Chinese coolies isolated on their arrival at Johannesburg and kept apart from the other workers in the mines until the danger of the development of the disease is past.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have no reason to suppose that the Transvaal Administration and the employers of the newly arrived Chinese labourers will fail to recognise the necessity for all suitable precautions, or to act upon the best advice, though I have not yet heard from Lord Milner what steps have actually been taken; and in the meantime I am not in a position to give the instructions suggested.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph for information?
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have telegraphed three times.
    DR. HUTCHINSON: When will the right hon. Gentleman telegraph again?
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has telegraphed three times and has had no reply.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, that is so.
    MR. BLAKE: Had not the right hon. Gentleman better send a fourth cable with notice of recall?
    MR. LOUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any further steps?
    MR. LYTTELTON: If hon. Members will allow me—In my opinion there is certain to be an explanation of the delay forthcoming, and as I telegraphed as recently as Saturday, I will await a reply.
    MR. WHITLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are now twenty-three cases of the disease in Johannesburg?
    MR. LYTTELTON: As I have not received information I cannot reply.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Did the right hon. Gentleman telegraph last week?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The 23rd was the date of the first telegram.

    Maltese Government Balance-sheet.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, In view of the fact that in the balance-sheet issued by the Maltese Government on 29th February the investments in Imperial and Colonial Funds were stated to amount to £709,999 10s. 6d., although the nominal value of these securities on that day was only £682,449 9s. 4d., and the market value was only £650,476 19s. 6d., involving a deficit of £35,605 instead of a surplus of £22,939 19s. 10fd., he will order the publication of a new balance-sheet.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The difference between the cost price of the investments and their market value on the 29th of February last was £59,522 11s. To meet this deficit the Malta Government had standing to its credit the reserve funds amounting respectively to £13,207 and £10,710, of which the hon. Member has taken account in referring to the deficit as amounting to £35,605. But it appears from the statements which accompanied and were published with the balance-sheet of the 29th of February last that the Government had also to its credit on that date the nett surplus brought forward from the year 1902–3, viz., £19,416, and also the excess of the revenue for the period to the 29th February, 1904, viz., £411,664 over the expenditure for that period, viz., £363,279 i.e., £48,385. These two items together amount to £67,801, and therefore if the Colonial Government had had to sell all its securities on that date, the Colonial Government would have been able to meet all its liabilities, retaining a surplus of £22,196 and there would not have been a deficit. The statement of the 29th of February to which the hon. Member refers, was merely a monthly Return, and was not a statement showing the
    1410
    position of the Colony for the financial year, which in the ordinary course would only be published at some period subsequent to the close of the financial year, viz., the 3lst of March. The annual statement would, in accordance with paragraph 164 (c) of the Financial Instructions, be accompanied by a detailed statement of investments showing the description and amount of stock held, the actual price paid for its purchase, and its market value. So far as I am aware, no annual statement has yet been published in respect of the year 1903–4, but the Governor will be asked when its publication may be expected.

    East Africa—Sir Donald Stewart's Appointment as Administrator.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the importance of the questions which must arise in East Africa, he will state to the House what qualifications of Sir Donald Stewart recommended him to the Government as Administrator there; if the appointment is of a temporary nature, or if it will expire when the Colonial Office takes over the administration next year.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS(Earl PERCY,): Sir Donald Stewart has shown, by his successful administration of Ashanti, that he possesses the qualifications required for dealing with the affairs of the East Africa Protectorate. The selection has been made after consultation with the Colonial Office, and the transfer of the protectorate will not terminate the appointment.

    Insanitary Condition of Sandy (Bedfordshire).
    MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the recent reports of the district inspector and surveyor to the rural district council of Biggleswade, Bedfordshire, as to the insanitary condition of the village of Sandy, and to the prevalence of erysipelas, diphtheria, scarlet fever, and similar diseases in that village, as well as, in a less degree, at Henlow and Arlesey; is he aware that generally the district is

    1411
    dangerous to health, in spite of recommendations made by the inspector of the Local Government Board in 1896 and 1899, in consequence of continued epidemics of diphtheria and typhoid; and whether he will take action, as the improved water supply now being carried out will only partially remedy the evils complained of.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GRANT LAWSON,): My right hon. friend has made inquiry, but is informed that there has been no recent special report as to the insanitary condition of the parish of Sandy. He has, however, been furnished with a statement showing the number of cases of infectious disease notified this year in the three parishes of Sandy, Henlow, and Arlesey. Although, according to this statement, the only cases notified during the present month have been three cases of erysipelas at Sandy, there appears to have been some prevalence of this disease and of diphtheria earlier in the year at the places mentioned. The report of the medical officer of health for 1903 states that the death rate in the rural district was as low as 12·2 per thousand. My right hon. friend understands that both at Sandy and Arlesey there are local sanitary committees, and that in some respects sanitary administration has been improved. He is asking for a special report from the medical officer of health as to the occurrence of erysipelas and diphtheria in the district during the present year.

    Ejectment Processes in County Cork.
    CAPTAIN DON ELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many civil bill ejectments and writs for the recovery of possession of land have been issued against tenants in county Cork from the 1st November, 1903, when the Land Act of 1903 came' into force, to the 1st June, 1904; and how many civil bills for rent were entered for quarter sessions, and how many writs of summons for the recovery of rent from tenants in county Cork were issued during the same period.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): 144
    1412
    ejectments were entered for hearing in the period stated, and 113 decrees were granted. The number of civil bills for rent entered in the same period was 484.

    Head Constable Moore, Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Head Constable Moore is still stationed at Greencastle, county Antrim; how long he has been engaged there on temporary duty; whether he is in receipt of extra pay for temporary duty; and when his period of temporary service will; come to an end.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir; this; head constable is still stationed at Greencastle. It is not intended to withdraw him. The other queries have already been answered by me.
    MR. CULLINAN: Are we to assume that this head constable is stationed there permanently now?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, I think it. amounts to that.

    Irish Police Administration.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of inspectors-general, county inspectors, district inspectors, and resident magistrates in Ireland; and whether, in the effecting of economies in police administration in Ireland, it is intended to reduce their numbers simultaneously with the reducing of the numbers in the lower ranks.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The extent to which economies have been effected is shown in the current year's Estimates, which also show the number of each class of officer mentioned. Further reductions are contemplated in future years.

    Melville Estate, Kenmare.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the Melville Estate, near Kenmare, where negotiations for sale have been concluded at 21½ years purchase

    1413
    of first-term rents and at 24½ years purchase of second-term rents, all the tenants owe arrears ranging from two to four years; and whether, in view of the fact that this estate comes within the definition of a congested estate, being nearly all mountain land, and that pressure was exercised by the agent in bringing the negotiations to a conclusion, he can arrange that the estate will be inspected before the actual sale is concluded.
    MR.WYNDHAM: This estate has not yet come before the Estates Commissioners to be dealt with. Where doubt is entertained as to the propriety of declaring particular lands to be an estate, an inspection is always made.

    Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at the meeting of the Central Executive Committee of the Irish National Teachers Organisation on 21st May last, with reference to the conditions of awarding increments to teachers in the service at the time of the change who, regardless of their attainments and the efficiency of their schools, were placed in grades lower than the classes they had previously held; and to the similar resolution passed unanimously at the annual congress held in Belfast during last Easter week; and, if so, whether he can state what additional amount of money would be required to comply with the suggestion of these resolutions; and whether, considering the feeling which exists on this matter among both managers and teachers, arising mainly from the impossibility, in the great majority of cases, of obtaining promotion to the highest grade and the increments attached thereto, he will endeavour to give effect to these resolutions in the case of those teachers in the service at the time the new system of payments came into operation.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have seen copies of the resolutions in question. It would not be practicable, however, to give effect to them without striking at the fundamental principle of the new system of payments—namely, that increases of income are to be the result of continued
    1414
    good service as teachers. The Rules of the Commissioners in this respect have been liberally applied, though many teachers could not be granted either the increments or promotion for which they were eligible, because their service was not sufficiently satisfactory, or the state of their schools would not warrant their promotion. The additional amount of money that would be required to give advancement, claimed by the resolutions as a right, could not be stated without making intricate inquiries.
    In reply to a Question by Mr. SLOAN (Belfast, S.), Mr. WYNDHAM said the Commissioners had taken particular cases into account, with a result that there had been a large increase in the Estimates. He did not think there was any necessity to issue instructions on the subject.

    Proposed Pier at Port-na-Ling.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a memorial from those interested in the development of the fisheries and granite quarries in and around Port-na-Ling praying for the construction of a pier at that port; and whether, seeing that a report has been made by the Donegal county surveyor, on the feasibility of such a project, to the county council, and, in view of the utility and advantage the construction of a pier would be to the inhabitants of the peninsula of Fonnett, he will send one of the Government engineers to report thereon with a view to the wish being carried out.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are no funds available for undertaking this proposed work, and unless and until additional funds are placed at the disposal of Government, I am afraid no useful object would be served by causing an inspection of the site to be carried out.

    Teaching of the Irish Language in Irish Schools.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in reply to a communication from the parents of children attending the Tulloha National School, in the parish of Bonane, county

    1415
    Kerry, the Board of National Education wrote on the 10th of May to Mr. J. Harrington; and whether, in view of the fact that in this Irish-speaking district the parents have expressed their desire that Irish should be taught in the school, representations will be made to the manager, who has agreed to Irish being taught in other schools under his management.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I recently stated I tad been informed that no communication on this subject was received by the Board of National Education. I now learn that a communication was received by the Board in May. In reply, the Board pointed out that it could not interfere with the manager in regard to the instruction, so long as the curriculum of the schools was within the programme approved by the Board. The teaching of Irish is not compulsory in national schools.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of calling on managers of schools to allow the Irish language to be taught where the parents unanimously desire it?
    MR. WYNDHAMwas understood reply that he could not do that.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Then cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the manager of this school, who is a member of the Government, the propriety of allowing the language to be taught?
    MR. WYNDHAMreplied that that was not within the province of his Department.
    MR. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Lansdowne allows the Irish language to be taught in another school under his management?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order. That does not arise out of the Question.

    National School at Rathview, Dundalk.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the national school in which
    1416
    Mr. Denis Lavelle, Rathview, Dundalk, teaches, was built by himself at a cost of £350; and that he was not refunded any of this when he was compelled to assign his interest to trustees; and if so, whether special inquiry will be made into this matter.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I have made special inquiry into this matter and am satisfied that the teacher has no case against the Commissioners of National Education. An explanation of the facts calls for a somewhat lengthy statement, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate this statement with the Votes.

    Technical Schools in Ireland.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if any measures are being taken to provide a building fund, to be repayable by annual instalments for the erection of suitable technical schools where urgently required in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There are no resources at present available for providing grants for this purpose. The matter is one for consideration in connection with the reform of the system of education, generally.

    Dopping Hepenstal Estate, North Longford.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners for the restoration to their homes of eight evicted tenants on the Dopping-Hepenstal Estate in North Longford; whether he is aware that these eight farms are practically derelict, three of them being in the landlords' hands and five let on the eleven months system; and whether, as this is a poor congested district, any steps can be taken for the sale of the estate under the 7th Section of the Land Act of 1903.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Only one application for reinstatement has been received from this estate. The Estates Commissioners will inquire as to the desirability of issuing a request under Section 7.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: How long will it take to arrive at the decision? When may I put the Question again?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot form any estimate of the rate of progress likely to be made.

    Larkfield Bog Turbary.
    MR. J. P. FARRBLL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities in Granard has been called to the conduct of Thomas Gillespie, a bailiff on the Dopping-Hepenstal Estate; whether he is aware that this man recently and without any legal warrant forcibly dispossessed three men of their turbary on the Larkfield Bog, and threatened with a revolver any person who interfered with him; and, if so, will he say what action the police authorities intend taking to safeguard the public peace in this district.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The bailiff did not forcibly disposses those tenants of their turbary. He cautioned them against trespassing. He was not armed with a revolver. The police will take all steps requisite for the preservation of the public peace.

    Future Tenants in County Kerry.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of future tenants in county Kerry who were in occupation of their farms at the passage of the Act of 1881, but have been made future tenants since; how many of those are at present paying the old rents fixed before 1881; whether, in view of the fact that landlords of such tenants are pressing for high rents with a view to compel them to buy their holdings at impossible prices, steps will be taken to amend the law so as to enable such tenants to have their rents fixed by the Court.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is no official information on any of the matters referred to in the Question. I have stated that the Government does not propose to introduce further legislation affecting the fixing of rents. It is competent to a tenant of this class to purchase under the Act of 1903, and the
    1418
    Commissioners before making an advance must be satisfied as to the security of the holding.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the landlords in Kerry are availing themselves of this opportunity to compel the tenants to purchase at exorbitant rates, and that some are being sued for a fourth gale because they will not consent to extravagant terms?
    MR. WYNDHAMpointed out that any bargains entered into under duress would be subject to inspection by the Commissioners.
    MR. FLAVIN: What alternative have these tenants to consenting?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.
    MR. FLAVIN: No, but it is a part.

    Sport at Derrygoolan.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at five o'clock a.m. on the morning of the 12th of August last, two policemen were found on the lands of Derrygoolan, Woodford, in company with two men named Moran and Whelan, who were poaching; that they were all ordered off and compelled to leave by the action of the tenants; and whether he will direct that the police shall not take any part in such proceedings in future.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Moran was shooting on the occasion, on the invitation of the agent. Whelan is the estate gamekeeper. Two constables were present to prevent a breach of the peace. They will adopt the same course in future should the necessity arise.
    MR. ROCHEwas understood to claim that the tenants of these lands had a right to the shooting and to warn off trespassers.

    Great Southern and Western Railway Company of Ireland—Sick Benefit.
    Mr. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    1419
    whether he is aware that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, Ireland, make it a condition of service that all employees shall join the sick benefit society controlled entirely by the directors; that the directors claim to alter the rules at any time Without notice to the men, who contribute nearly the whole of the money to the society; and that they did so alter the rules as to deprive the men of the benefits in cases of accident arising in the course of their employment; and, if so, whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to defend the interests of these employees.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The hon. Member has been good enough to send me some papers on this subject, but beyond that I have no information relating to it. As to the first part of the Question, I may point out that the Shop Clubs Act, 1902, expressly exempts a railway benefit society, existing at the passing of the Act and contributed to by the company, from the provisions prohibiting compulsory membership. With regard to the alteration of the rules mentioned in the Question, I gather that it was done because the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for the payment of compensation to railway servants in cases of accident. I have no power to interfere, nor can I hold out any hope of legislation in the matter.

    Alleged Perjury by Francis Cooke.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that in the course of evidence given by a bailiff, named Francis Cooke, on the O'Brien Estate, in North Longford, Judge Curran, in refusing to receive the evidence, stated that the late Judge Monroe declared that this man should be prosecuted for perjury in evidence given before him; whether this man is employed as receiver in Judge Ross's Court; and will these remarks of these learned Judges be brought to the notice of Judge Ross, with a view to his removal from the office.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, ): The man Francis Cooke is not a receiver in Judge Ross's Court but only the bailiff of a gentleman named Colonel Dopping, who is a receiver in that Court. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Judge Curran considered that Cooke had,, in a case tried before him, given inaccurate evidence in identifying on a map produced the precise locality of an alleged trespass, but the Judge made^ no reference whatever to the late Judge Monroe or to any evidence given before that Judge by Cooke, nor did Judge Curran himself accuse Cooke of perjury. The reply to the later query is in the negative.

    Royal Commission on Food Supply—Gambling in Grain.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will take steps to instruct the Royal Commission on Food Supplies and Raw Materials to take evidence on the evils caused by the prevailing system of gambling in futures as affecting the producer, manufacturers, and consumer.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): This Question has already been answered, and if the hon. Member will consider the matter he will see that it is impossible for me to dictate to the Commission what evidence should be taken, and on what subject; but he may rest assured that the Commission is giving the matter full consideration.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. LAMBERT. I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to take the Vote for the Board of Agriculture.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say.
MR. LAMBERT: Will it be taken at reasonable hour before the end of the session?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to forecast the allotment of the remaining days of Supply.
MR. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that it shall not be closured?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for me to forecast the allotment of the remaining days for Supply; but I will endeavour to meet the views of the Opposition as far as I can as to when the remaining Votes shall be taken. Suppose, however, that the Opposition were to desire that every one of the remaining days should be allotted to other matters which they considered of greater importance, clearly I could not then carry out a pledge to take a certain Vote on a given date, and therefore I must decline to give any pledge.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the Vote be brought on before we have an opportunity of considering the Undersized Fish Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say; but I cannot doubt that my hon. friend will have full opportunity for the discussion of a subject to which I know he has given unremitting attention for the last five years.
SIR. H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As to business—Which Vote will be taken first on Thursday, what business will be taken on Friday and Monday, and will other subjects be sandwiched with the Licensing Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We shall certainly devote Friday and Monday to further steps connected with the Licensing Bill. As regards Supply the Army Vote will be first taken, and if we are fortunate enough to get the two Reports before the close of business, we shall proceed with Class 1.

ADJOURNMENT.
MR. BECKETTrose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the alarming deficiency in the drafts required for India and South Africa, and the confusion and uncertainty now prevailing in the War Office and the Army owing to the prolonged delay in (he announcement of a definite scheme of Army re-organisation"; but the pleasure of the House not having been
1422
signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen:—
The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, till this Evening's Sitting.

LICENSING BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
MR. WHITTAKERmoved an Amendment to insert
"In Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after 'licence' the words 'to which Section 19 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, extends."
The object of the Amendment was, he said, to confine the operation of the Bill to what were known as the 1869 beerhouses. A certain number of beerhouses which were in existence before the year 1869 were only under the control of the justices to a very limited extent. There was only power to refuse renewal on four grounds, and these grounds practically resolved themselves into two. At the present moment there was no necessity to deal with ordinary public-house licences for the purposes of compensation. There was, in fact, no justification whatever for bringing in a measure for compensation in the case of ordinary public-house licences unless some change was about to be made in the law which would give the licensing authorities and the public generally more control over those licences. But under this Bill it was proposed to seriousy curtail the controlling powers of the justices. In his opinion the only justification for dealing with fully licensed public-houses from the point of view of compensation would be the introduction of a considerable measure of temperance reform, which would increase the power of the licensing authority and facilitate the getting rid of licences. In the course of the discussions on the Bill it had been made perfectly clear that the grounds alleged by the Government

1423
for bringing in the measure were, so far as fully licensed houses were concerned, non-existent. The Government contention had been that there was last year an almost reckless reduction of licences. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Well, if hon. Gentlemen who cheered that statement would only take the trouble to ascertain the facts they would no longer cheer. There were no brewster sessions in 1902 outside London, and consequently the figures for 1903 represented a reduction for two years. The reduction which had taken place in the number of licences owing to refusals had been far fewer on the average during the last ten years than during the preceding twenty years. It was not right, then, to suggest that the justices had exercised their powers unfairly or unreasonably, and what really was wanted was not a limitation but an increase of those powers. But this proposal of the Government was accompanied by no measure of reform—by no special grant of powers of control. He, therefore, suggested that the operation of the Bill should be limited to the 1869 beerhouses, for the reason that the legal position of those houses differed very greatly indeed from that of ordinary fully licensed houses. And in this connection he would like to correct a misapprehension into which the Prime Minister had fallen with regard to the Act of 1869. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Act having been passed by Mr. Gladstone, but if he would only turn to the records he would find that the Bill was introduced by Mr. Selwyn Ibbetson, a Conservative Member considerably identified with the liquor trade. It was not, therefore, what the Prime Minister had suggested it to be, "the last effort of the Liberal Party in licensing reform." A further misapprehension which should be corrected was that the Bill gave special protection to the 1869 beerhouses. It did nothing of the kind. Beerhouses in existence prior to 1869 were not under the control of the justices; any one could get a licence by applying to the Excise and paying the necessary fee, and the Act of 1869 simply took away some of the privileges and put houses of that class more under the control of the justices than before. He did not admit that from either a legal or a moral point of view the 1869 beerhouse had an
1424
absolute right to compensation or absolute fixity of tenure in its licence, but he die admit that there was a good deal more to be said for the 1869 beerhouse than for the ordinary fully licensed house. The legal position was very different indeed Further than that, there was a certain measure of reform so far as the 1869 beer houses were concerned, inasmuch as it was proposed to give greater powers over them to the licensing authorities. They were to have power to refuse the renewal of licences on the ground that they were not required, and compensation was to accompany the refusal.
Another reason why he wished to confine the Bill to the 1869 beerhouses was the well-known fact that this class of houses was the worst in the country, and a class over which the justices had the least control. They had no control over their structure or their sanitary condition. The Royal Commission had a great amount of evidence brought before it to show how extremely unsatisfactory was this class of house. The clerk to the Birmingham justices declared that these beerhouses in Birmingham were the worst class they had in the city; the licences had been granted regardless of structure or means of supervision or anything of that kind; hundreds of them had back doors opening into a common yard, or on to factories or stables, and they were premises such as the magistrates would never have dreamt of licensing. The clerk to the Bradford magistrates declared that many of these beerhouses were simply old cottages never fitted for licensed premises. The clerk to the West Bromwich magistrates said his bench were much troubled by these licences; they had personally visited a large number of them and found some sixty-three cases highly suggestive of illicit drinking practices. There was a lack of control over structural arrangements. The Chairman of the Penzance Watch Committee gave similar evidence, while he chief constable of Manchester said he effect of the 1869 Act was to preserve dirty, ill-constructed, unsuitable licensed louses which no bench of justices in the)resent day would tolerate. This showed the sort of beerhouses the brewers would palm off upon the country if the justices had no power over them.

1425
According to the evidence the beerhouses were structurally unfit. They had a curious instance of that from Lincoln. The corporation there bought up two houses, one of which it was intended to use as a policeman's house, but the borough surveyor promptly condemned it as unfit for habitation. Again, the chairman of the Sunderland bench declared recently, in reference to a beerhouse there, that it was one of the most miserable hovels he had ever seen; the ceilings were low, the whole place was in a bad condition, and there were no sanitary arrangements. One beerhouse had been licensed for fifteen years, and during the whole of the time not a drop of drink had been sold in it. Hon. Members opposite cheered that statement. Well, he could only say he wished the same could be said of all other licensed premises. But why had the licence been kept alive? Its renewal could not be refused; it was an 1869 beerhouse, one of the class which was able to defy benches of magistrates in a way ordinary publicans could not. In the city of Liverpool the justices had done a great deal to control houses by pressure they had been enabled to apply, but these beerhouses could not be subjected to such pressure. Hence the desirability of bringing them under some such law as the ordinary houses.
Another important point was that under the Act of 1869 the justices had no power to protect the tenant, although when dealing with the question of the transfer of ordinary licences they could have before them and examine both the outgoing and the incoming tenant. They exercised this power frequently, and in almost all cases discovered that the cause of the outgoing tenant's leaving was his failure to force the trade and sell enough beer. But with regard to the 1869 beerhouse licences, so long as the applicant was a suitable man of good character they could not refuse to transfer to him. There had been a great demand for a long time from all the recognised authorities that this class of house should be placed under the full control of the justices, but there had been no public demand except from the trade itself for compensation for the non-renewal of a licence of a fully licensed house. Twenty-one quarter sessions had petitioned Parlia-
1426
ment—eighteen of them unanimously—to give them full control over these houses. Fifty-eight cities and boroughs—forty-four of them unanimously—had asked that power should be given them to deal with them at their full discretion; and innumerable petitions had been presented from watch committees, county councils, and other authorities. As there were 28,000 of these houses, it could be seen there would be great opportunities for considerable reform. It would be this class of house the justices would wish to get rid of. The fact was that in some of our large citise and towns the justices had been compelled to resort to bargaining with the brewers, simply because they had not full control over these 1869 beerhouses, and it was these houses in the congested districts which it was most desirable to get rid of. The justices felt it would be a hardship to refuse the renewal of licences to better-class houses, simply in order to reduce the number of the licensed premises when there were worse houses in the immediate vicinity the licences of which could not be refused. He believed that in Birmingham under the reduction scheme 80 per cent, of the licences for which renewal was not asked were beerhouse licences. In Manchester something like two-thirds of the existing licences were beerhouse licences, and it was clear that if the magistrates were granted power to deal with this class of house they would enormously reduce the number and thus effect a very great reform. It was precisely in those districts where the licensed houses were most numerous in proportion to population that these 1869 beerhouses were chiefly found. They were not existent in new growing industrial districts; they were only to be found in the old parts of old towns just where the reduction was most needed.
He submitted that it would be an enormous improvement if the operation of this Bill were limited to this particular class of house. Not only would it enable then to secure a large reduction in the number of licences, but it would get rid of a large proportion of the difficulties which surrounded the Bill. By applying the Bill to fully licensed houses they were conferring on those houses a privilege which they should not have. He suggested that the Government should

1427
not make the proposed revolution in our licensing system universal at present, but should try the experiment upon that limited class of beerhouses which it was most desirable and most necessary to get rid of. It would be justifiable to make the levy for compensation over the whole of the licensed houses in the district, because they would all benefit by the abolition of the beerhouses. The Government could not get through the Bill as it at present stood by any fair Parliamentary means, or without a ruthless application of the closure. The Bill bristled with difficulties, important points, and proposals to revolutionise the licensing system of the country, and ought to be, and must be, fully discussed. He contended that there was no time in the present session adequately to discuss it. Did anybody imagine that this Bill would be a settlement of the difficulty? He was perfectly sure that it would raise a fiercer struggle and controversy than any which had already occurred, and that the time would soon arrive when supporters of the Government would wish that they had never seen the Bill. Tht troubles of the Government might almost disappear if they would only limit the operation of the measure to the ante-1869 beerhouses; and he would mose earnestly and sincerely submit his Amendment to them as well worthy of consideration.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 5, after the word 'licence,' to insert the words 'to which Section 19 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act, 1869, extends.'"(Mr. Whittaker.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
THB SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,),while agreeing with a good deal of what had fallen from the last speaker, reminded the hon. Gentleman that by this Bill, for the first time in the history of licensing legislation, the ante-1869 houses were brought under the discretion of the magistrates. Had it not been for the introduction of this Bill, these houses, admitted to be bad both structurally and sanitarily, could not be dealt with at all. No effort had been made by hon. Members opposite to deal with this question.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Yes, in 1899 a Bill was introduced for the very purpose of transferring these houses to the jurisdiction of the magistrates.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: I have myself year after year introduced a Bill for that purpose.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Without offering any compensation.
MR. J. H. LEWIS: The Bill was backed by hon. Members on the Ministerial Bench.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the hon. Member for Spen Valley would have the operation of the Bill limited to those houses. He agreed that, as a class, these were the worst houses, and ought to disappear. But it must not be forgotten that they had a Parliamentary title, and, in bringing these licences within the scope of the Bill, the Government had thought they were entitled to extra consideration on that account. The hon. Member hid said that in the Government scheme there was ample money to get rid of the whole of these houses, but he had coupled that with the expression of his opinion that all houses ought to be taxed for that purpose. He ventured to think, on the contrary, that, if they were going to levy the compensation fund over the whole of the on-licences, they could not limit the operations of that fund to one particular class. The houses had, under the Bill, been brought under the discretion of the justices in a manner which they thought was perfectly fair and equitable to all those concerned, and he was sorry they could not make any concession on this point. The question was vital to the Bill, and the Government must stick to their Bill.
SIR ROBERT REIDthought everyone would affirm the right hon. Gentleman's statement that these houses, as a class, were, broadly speaking, the worst in the country, and he wished to point the moral of that, viz., that those houses which were the worst were these which had a Parliamentary title. He did not at all deny that these houses were in a different category from the licences which

1429
came under the decision of "Sharpe v. Wakefield" in regard to statutory rights and to their legal position for renewal, but he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would seriously reflect before he conferred on other houses similar permanency of title or freedom from magisterial control. While prepared to admit that these 1869 beerhouses were entitled to some measure of compensation in case of a refusal to renew their licences, he would urge the Government to reserve their judgment for another year in regard to the tremendously difficult question of a new system of licensing for those licences which had no Parliamentary title, and to confine the Bill to the ante-1869 beerhouses. If that were done, he believed the Bill would pass in a couple of days, and a great deal of good would be done, for these ante-1869 licences were the worst in the country. Besides, they would be paying for something in which there was a legal right. He did hope the Home Secretary would accept that suggestion.
MR. GROVESsaid the Amendment was a simple one but it sought to strike a blow at the whole spirit of the Bill. The philanthropic solicitude of hon. Members opposite had during these debates assumed various forms. First it was the poor publican whose interest was being absorbed by the wicked brewer; then it was the tied-house grievance, and now, it seemed, another section of the trade was to be taken under their protection. It could not be denied that those who had financial interest in licensed property of various kinds had a considerable stake at issue under the Bill, but to deal separately with a single section of the licensing interest in the manner proposed would be very unfair. He did not deny that some of the ante-1869 houses were structurally bad, but to stigmatise all these houses as the worst in the country was unjustifiable, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would see fit to qualify to a large extent the expression he had made use of in regard to them. The ante-1869 houses could show examples of comfort, commodiousness, and good order which would compare favourably with any other section of licensed houses. The record of convictions for
1430
drunkenness also showed a favourable state of things in respect of the beerhouses—where only beer was supplied—as compared with houses where more potent beverages were sold. The really heavy drinking took place largely in clubs. Moreover, the magistrates had full control, limited of course to the four grounds, and they were under police supervision in the same way as any other class of licensed houses. The Amendment was an attempt to get a little bit at a time; to-day they were asked to give up their coats, tomorrow it would be their shirts, and before very long it would be their skins. He believed that in this Bill the Government were making an honest attempt to deal with a very difficult question, and he trusted they would not accept this Amendment; in rejecting it they would, he was sure, receive the support of the House.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that during the past ten years he had frequently introduced Bills to deal with the ante-1869 houses, and these Bills had been backed by Unionist Members. It could not, therefore, be fairly said that this was a Party measure. At least fifty-eight courts of quarter sessions had expressed the opinion, in most cases unanimously, that this was the part of the licensed trade which most urgently needed reform. This was the text of the resolution which had been generally adopted—
"That this bench of magistrates is of opinion that the very limited discretion vested in justices in regard to the renewal or otherwise of licences of old beerhouses which were in existence in 1869 is anomalous and not conducive to the public interest, and that legislation with a view to removing such anomaly and placing such beerhouses on the same footing as fully licensed houses as regard the licensing and the justices' discretion is urgently needed."
At present the discretion of the justices in regard to these licences was very much confined, and to say that the magistrates had anything in the shape of full control over the licences was the reverse of the fact. It was an accepted principle that licensed premises should be conveniently arranged for purposes of police supervision, but in the case of these beerhouses such supervision was almost impossible, and the magistrates had no power to refuse the licences however structurally unfit the premises might be. They could not even bring pressure to

1431
bear on the owners of the premises to put them in a proper sanitary condition. They could exercise that pressure in the case of fully licensed premises which might be much more valuable and better conducted than the old beerhouses. With regard to fully licensed premises the magistrates could lay down conditions for conducting the business, and if the business was conducted in an objectionable manner, and illegitimate inducements for drinking were offered, the magistrates could interfere, whilst beerhouses which might not be required owing to the demolition of a large amount of property could not be touched by the licensing magistrates. All these matters were outside the four grounds to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. The hon. Member for Stretford said that the privileged existence of these particular houses was the greatest evil in connection with the licensed trade. It was most unjust to the public, unfair to the magistrates and the police, and also to the fully licensed houses that this privileged position should continue. He supported the appeal made by his hon. friend. There were 35,000 of these houses and this would be an experiment well worth making. He thought the Government would carry the House of Commons with them if they limited the Bill to this class of property. With regard to compensation these houses were in a different position, and the House of Commons, when it introduced the provision in the Bill of 1869, acted through sheer inadvertence, and they would have to bear a heavy penalty in consequence. If they now limited their efforts to that class of property the Government would carry with them the whole country by adopting a beneficent scheme of licensing reform.
MR. TALBOTsaid he had had a great deal of experience in regard to licensing questions but he confessed that he was unable to follow the logic of the hon. Member opposite. If this was a bona-fide Amendment it seemed to him to be based upon an absolute ignorance of the actual condition of things. If it was not a bona-fide Amendment it was not worth discussing. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Salford as to the condition of the ante-1889 beerhouses. He was speaking from a
1432
magisterial point of view and his hon. friend spoke from another point of view. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear," and laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laughed at that and seemed to think it was strange, but if they held shares in brewery companies they also might take another view He agreed that it would be better if the number of 1869 beerhouses could be reduced. He was grateful to the Government for having, in regard to this class of houses, done that which no Government on either side had ever before ventured to do. When they were told that this was an anti-temperance measure and in favour of the brewers he hoped those who made such statements would remember that this was the first time in the history of Parliament that these ante-1869 beerhouses were being dealt with. He was utterly at a loss to understand what the hon. Member for Spen Valley was aiming at when he limited the operation of the Bill to these beerhouses. He agreed with him in wishing to dispense with many of these, but the hon. Member did not wish to do anything more. That was a wholly inadequate conception of the position of things. They all desired as far as they could to remove the temptations to excessive drinking which was generally acknowledged to be largely encouraged by an undue number of licensed houses. Surely they could not stop half-way upon this question. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite think that all but the 1869 beerhouses ought to be maintained in their full vigour and none of them removed? He knew as much of the magisterial mind as most hon. Members, for he had occupied the position of chairman of quarter sessions for many years, and he said deliberately that if the Committee passed this Amendment they would never get rid of any other licensed houses, because the magistrates would take the view that they were doing an injustice and they would not get rid of a single house for which the owner and occupier did not get compensation. That would be the result, and he had come to that conclusion based upon many years experience. He at any rate did not represent the brewers, and in this respect he had a clean slate; he urged hon. Members to pause before they supported this Amendment which would deal

1433
a severe blow at the cause which they all desired to serve.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the right hon. Gentleman had just informed them that he found some difficulty in the logic of the hon. Member on that side. He was not surprised at that, because anyone who had supported the Government like the right hon. Gentleman opposite must have got rather confused in his ideas of logic. The right hon. Gentleman had assumed that they simply wished to deal with beer-houses and that they did not propose to do anything in regard to other licences. All they wanted was that the law should take its course. With regard to ordinary licences the magistrates had full and free discretion, but they had no such discretion in regard to beerhouses. He contended that this was not a case for compensation, but if there was a case at all it was that in which there was a Parliamentary title. The Opposition were opposing the whole Bill, but seeing that the House of Commons had carried the Second Reading of the Bill, and the Government were pressing it through, they were now trying by Amendments to narrow it down to the point where there was a Parliamentary title and to that alone. That was the whole position. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that with regard to beerhouses there was a case for a very drastic reform. Everybody had admitted that except the hon. Member for Manchester whose point of view was rather different from that of the majority of the Members of the House. By adopting this Amendment they would provide a fund for this purpose, and they would be able to get rid of a very considerable number of these small beerhouses, leaving the others to the operation of the ordinary law. The Home Secretary seemed to think it would be unfair to enforce a contribution from houses which would not be entitled to compensation when their licences were taken away, but he did not think that followed at all. If they took away a licence in one particular neighbourhood they must necessarily add something to the trade of the remaining houses. This point had been decided in Birmingham by the brewers themselves. Therefore, there was no unfairness in imposing a
1434
contribution on the houses which did not share in compensation, because they benefited financially by the withdrawal of the licence which had been taken away. He still hoped that the Government would take into consideration the practicability of doing something on these lines. On the Opposition side of the House they could not accept the principle of the Bill, but at any rate let the Government it try to give them something practical in regard to these beerhouses. Both branches of the Licensing Commission were agreed upon this. They were agreed that the beerhouses were far and away the worst features of the licensing system. They were also agreed that there was a distinction with regard to their title. All that his hon. friend was proposing to do now by this Amendment was to proceed on the unanimous opinion of the Commission which sat for years on this subject. He would commend this to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University. The Archbishop of Canterbury was one of those who signed the recommendation that these houses should be deprived of their licences and that full and unfettered discretion should be allowed to the justices, and he went the length of saying that compensation should not be given to them. His hon. friend's proposal was much more moderate. He said that if they were going to give compensation at all, they should get it. He ventured to say that that was a perfectly logical case.
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he was sorry the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division had brought forward this proposal in the way he had done. It was perfectly true that up to now these beerhouse licences had been beyond the control of the magistrates. The owners of these houses could set the magistrates at defiance in regard to sanitary matters if the magistrates wanted them put right. His reason for rising was to ask the Home Secretary whether in future, not only in regard to compensation but also in regard to everything else, these beerhouses were to be under the magistrates. The discussion so far had gone on two lines—-one the line taken by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division who desired

1435
to apply the principle of compensation to the beerhouses; and the other was the line taken by the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs whose speech was directed to the way in which the beerhouses had been carried on for years, and who desired that the preferential position they occupied now should be discontinued. In some respects the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had followed on the same line, suggesting the need for reform. What he wanted distinctly stated by the Home Secretary, because he thought it was what was meant, was whether it was the intention of the Government to place the beer-houses in exactly the same position as public-houses, in future, in regard to compensation and all the requirements the magistrates might make. To give them compensation was a very small affair, but to put them under the magistrates on exactly the same terms as fully licensed houses was the reform of all others which should be carried out.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid be had ventured to interrupt the Home Secretary because both he and the hon. Member for Oxford University had repeated the statement that this was the first attempt that had been made to bring beerhouses of this kind within the jurisdiction of the magistrates. He happened to have before him a copy of the Bill of 1899, in which there was a proposal to place these beerhouses under the jurisdiction of the magistrates. That was carried on the Second Reading, which was as far as it could be carried, and it was defeated by a considerable majority, in the main Conservative. The Government needed to give a lead to the House on that proposal, for when the hon. Member for King's Lynn asked bow they were going to vote, the Under-Secretary of the day said he must "leave that to the superior judgment of the House, and with regard to this Bill or any other Bill of a similar character, the Government could not express any opinion." He remembered the occasion all the better because he believed he was the only one sitting on the Liberal side who spoke against the Bill, and he incurred the displeasure of some of his hon. friends because he objected to it on the ground that it took away a Parliamentary title
1436
without any proposal to give compensation. He was supporting this Amendment for the reason which male him oppose the Bill of 1899. This Amendment proposed to do what that Bill did, with the difference that it gave compensation. The Bill now before the House was a Bill to recognise a vested interest and to give compensation. He was willing to give compensation where there was a vested interest, but he was not willing to give compensation where there was no vested interest. The distinction he drew between these beerhouse licences and others was that there wan a deal of vested interest, a Parliamentary title, in the one case, and no Parliamentary title in the other. He was certain there was a vested interest in the pre-1869 beerhouses and he was willing to give compensation to them. The value of a licence was due in the first place to the fact that competition was excluded by monopoly, and in the second place to the fact that Parliament, with a fatuous incompetence which could not be too strongly condemned, had refused to look facts in the face, and to ask the licence-holders to yield up their monopoly. In other words, it was the low scale of licence duties which gave the value to licences. That was what they were beginning to see now. He wanted this matter placed on a logical footing by recognising a vested interest only where it existed, and giving compensation only where there was some value to be taken away.
MR. CORBETTsaid the hon. Member for Salford and the right hon. Member for Oxford University, who had taken part in the debate on this Amendment, had spoken from points of view which were diametrically opposed. The right hon. Gentleman told the Committee that all those who desired to reduce licences must oppose the Amendment, because the justices were so tender in the interest of property that they would refuse to take away licences without compensation. The hon. Member for Salford told them that the justices were so ruthless that if this Amendment were carried out they would take away his coat, his shirt, and even his skin.
MR. GROVES: I did not refer to the magistrates at all. I referred to what would be done by the so-called temperance reformers on the other side of the House.
MR. CORBETTsaid the hon. Member had cast a new light upon the matter. The proposal which the hon. Member wished to defend was that these parties were not to be included because the protection they sought was against future Acts of Parliament, and that he thought was one of the most serious aspects of the proposal. It was not merely to protect against the existing danger, but to checkmate the operations of future Parliaments and future generations. He was glad to hear the Home Secretary state that these beerhouses would be brought under the same full control as ordinary public-house licences. He hoped the Home Secretary would give an assurance that they were correct in understanding that the pre-1869 licences would be under as full control as any others dealt with in the Bill.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid it had been assumed by all the speakers on this question that the holders of the pre-1869 licences would be entitled to something in respect of what was called Parliamentary title. He, for one, protested against its being supposed that they had a right to have any compensation at all. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Dundee seemed to think that they were destroying these licences at one fell swoop. Whatever occurred in 1869, he submitted that it was subject to this condition, that, if it appeared that the business of the house, in respect of which a Parliamentary title attached, was being carried on injuriously to the public welfare, the licence should not be continued. This Amendment was to confine the operation of the Bill to these houses, and he thought it was a very wise proposal. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Oxford University say that the magistrates might refuse to exercise their right judicially. He did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he said, in effect, that the magistrates would not do their duty. The fact was
1438
that the magistrates had been recently awakened to their duty, and this Bill fettered their discretion. He did not think that the magistrates would refuse these licences on mere sentimental grounds, but would deal with them, as in the case of other houses, judicially. There was one reason for pressing this Amendment—and that was in the interest of temperance. It was all very well for the hon. Member for Salford to attack the hon. Member for Spen Valley. After all, the hon. Member for Spen Valley had no personal interest in this matter. He felt anxious to protest when he heard the brewers who were personally interested in this matter attack people on that side of the House who had no personal interest to serve, but whose desire was to pass a measure for the benefit of the community. The reason he urged in favour of the Amendment was that a great deal of work would be put on the magistrates in various parts of the country. The scheme was so big that they would not attack it with hearty will. Hitherto the magistrates were not allowed to deal with the ante-1869 beerhouses, although they knew the character of these houses. And the one thing which facilitated the granting of a new licence was that the brewer came to the magistrates and said, "We are prepared to give up one, two, or even three beer licences over which you have no discretion if you will grant this new licence." He thought the magistrates would bend to their work with a will if they were allowed to pay their attention to these beerhouses, and thereby a great temperance reform would be accomplished by abolishing these beerhouses, which were admittedly the worst.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON,)said he thought it was interesting to note the admission made on the other side of the House that the Bill did one good thing—it brought these beerhouses under its purview. He had found great difficulty during the Second Reading of the Bill in getting any admission of that kind. These beerhouses were very nearly one-third of all the licensed houses in England, and it was admitted that they were the worst licensed houses in the country. Therefore if this Bill was not

1439
passed the worst beerhouses could not be touched, and those licensed houses that were of a superior class would suffer. After all, that was some justification for the Bill of the Government. Another unfortunate admission was made by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, whose honesty in the cause of temperance nobody would deny. The hon. Member admitted that under this Bill the levy would be quite sufficient to wipe out the whole of these 30,000 beerhouses. Was it not something that there was to be a levy for the trade, if the Bill passed, that would enable them to put an end to the worst of these 30,000 beerhouses? But the hon. Member went on and said that the Government ought to stop there and leave the Bill alone as regarded the other licensed houses. Now he did hope the House would consider, in coming to a conclusion on this Amendment, the very weighty words that fell from the right hon. Member for Oxford University. The right hon. Gentleman was talking of a matter of which he had had years of experience as a chairman of quarter sessions and he knew what the magistrates were likely to do. But they really did not want the right hon. Gentleman's experience; for it stood to common sense that if this Bill was passed limiting the action to the 1869 beerhouses the magistrates would attack these beerhouses, admittedly the worst, and leave the other houses alone. He should have thought that that would be a most unsatisfactory state of things, when they were told that the magistrates were doing less than before in putting down fully licensed houses. It was perfectly plain that where there was an admitted excess of licensed houses and the magistrates were doing less than before in reducing them, it must be because they did not wish to do an injustice.
MR. WHITTAKERsaid that his point was that the difficulty of the magistrates was that they did not like to take away the licences from the best class of houses, but if their hands were left free to touch the beerhouses they would attack them.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that if the magistrates were to touch the beerhouses and nothing else that would not be a satisfactory condition of affairs. It
1440
might be perfectly true that in some parts of the country there were too many beerhouses, but in other parts where there were few beerhouses and a large number of ordinary public-houses, some of which it was desirable to get rid of, the Amendment would operate against that. He therefore hoped the Committee would reject the Amendment. A Question had been put to him by the hon. Member for the Newton Division as to the position of the ante-1869 beerhouses under the Bill. At present the renewal of their licences could not be refused except on four statutory grounds which he need not repeat. When this Bill passed the magistrates in quarter sessions would have the light, on the recommendation of the local magistrates upon any ground, to refuse the renewal of these licences.
SIR ROBERT REID: On payment of compensation.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: On payment of compensation, yes, because they had got a Parliamentary title, and when they were abolishing, in the public interest, what Parliament had previously said they were not to abolish, it was only fair that they should obtain compensation. Something had been said about structural alterations. His own view was that, under the 1902 Act, the magistrates had complete power to order any structural alterations they pleased, and if these were not carried out they had the power of in flicting a very severe fine—he thought 30s. for every day these alterations were not carried out—therefore, there was a power to compel the carrying out of the structural alterations; but if that power was taken away and the man was deprived of his licence he ought to receive compensation. He appealed to the Committee to at once come to a decision.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid they could not accept the position of the Solicitor-General or of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University with regard to the Bill as a whole. The Solicitor-General and the right hon. Gentleman regarded the Bill as a Bill to enable justices to act where they would not otherwise be able to act at all. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University spoke

1441
of human nature; but it was not human nature not to remember the declaration of the Prime Minister, that it was necessary to fetter the discretion of the licensing justices. That was as simple as it could possibly be; and it was impossible not to connect it with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University said that the Committee ought to bear in mind that there had been a great fuss made over the fact that the justices were acting according to the view of the Government; this was an enabling Bill and a temperance Bill. His hon. friend, in moving his Amendment, pointed out that if the Bill only dealt with ante-1869 beerhouses, it might be fairly regarded as a temperance measure, as it would give the magistrates more discretion as regarded these particular licences than they had before. That was so much to the good. The magistrates were not given full discretion, but they were given more than they had before. If the Bill stopped there, it might be fairly described as a temperance measure to which Amendments as regarded details might be suggested, but which would not be seriously fought. He himself would be prepared to support such a Bill if it stopped there. But the Bill proposed a limited discretion over the ante-1869 beerhouses, while taking away the full discretion which the magistrates now had over all other licensed houses. That was the whole point.
MR. TALBOTsaid that the discretion was, in practice, hardly ever used.
SIR EDWARD GREYsaid he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the declaration of the Prime Minister, that it was necessary to fetter the discretion of the magistrates. That was the answer to the right hon. Gentleman in point of fact. He did not understand his hon. friend to say that a measure which dealt with the ante-1869 beerhouses would be the final word on temperance reform. He understood his hon. friend to say that it would be a fair measure for the House of Commons to deal with during the present session. They, on that side, had been taunted by the Home
1442
Secretary, who said that they ought to accept the Bill because a Liberal Government had never passed a temperance measure. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman might have explained his statement in attributing to a Liberal Government legislation which came from his own Party. The taunt came very badly from the Home Secretary, who, having been in the House for twenty years, ought to have remembered that for that period a Liberal Government had only had two complete sessions of Parliament. In that time there was one attempt to deal with the question of temperance. The present Government were now making an attempt; but they had not yet passed their legislation. They had heard again and again from the Government that the many mistakes in temperance legislation occurred because the efforts were too ambitious. His hon. friend, by his Amendment, sought to confine the Bill to the ante-1869 beerhouses. That would be a useful measure, which would be certain to pass, and would avoid the very error which the Liberals had been reproached with, of trying to accomplish too much. While he admitted that the Bill, as far as the ante-1869 beerhouses were concerned, was a temperance measure, the other part entirely changed its character and he would therefore support the Amendment.
MR. CAWLEYsaid that from an electioneering point of view it would be a great deal better for he Opposition if the Government proceeded with the whole measure and passed it; but he believed they would simplify their task if the Amendment were accepted. A great many of these 1869 licences were held only for purposes of exchange. They were the very worst houses; many of them were not paying; and, therefore, the brewers would not be prejudiced if they were swept away. He had no hesitation in saying that seven-eights of them were owned by the brewers. All the public-houses ought to contribute to the compensation fund, for all the other houses would gain if the 1869 licences were done away with. He was not very much against the Bill when it was first introduced, because he could not conceive that the Government would

1443
adopt it without a time limit; but he was against it now that they had refused a time limit, because it had been quite plainly shewn that if the Government put all the other licences in the same position posterity would be in exactly the same position, and in twenty years time would cast the gravest reflections upon the present Parliament. The present Bill would rivet a monopoly upon posterity. It was said the justices would be disinclined to use their discretion if the 1869 houses were the only ones to be compensated He did not believe that would be the case in the large manufacturing towns. It
was well known that before the Prime Minister made his declaration, some time since, the Manchester and Salford brewers had arranged to give up fifty licences without any compensation at all, and that a great many of them were ante-1869 licences. If this Amendment were carried, the justices would in most cases do away with this class of licence because it was the worst class, and they would use their discretion in a proper manner.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 165; Noes, 288. (Division List, No. 180.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Rhondda)

Ffrench, Peter

Lyell, Charles Henry

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Field, William

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

M'Crae, George

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

M'Kenna, Reginald

Athlerey-Jones, L.

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Barlow, John Emmott

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Mappin, Sir Frederick Torpe

Barran, Row and Hirst

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh,N.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Black, Alexander William

Grant, Coirrie

Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

Blake, Edward

Grey, Rt. Hn. Sir E. (Berwick)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

Boland, John

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Moss, Samuel

Brigg, John

Hain, Edward

Norman, Henry

Broadhurst, Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Harcourt, Lewis V. (Rossendale

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Harcourt, Rt Hn. Sir W (Monm'th

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Burns, John

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Burt, Thomas

Harwood, George

O'Doherty, William

Caldwell, James

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Cameron, Robert

Helme, Norval Watson

Parrott, William

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Partington, Oswald

Cawley, Frederick

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Paulton, James Mellor

Channing, Francis Allston

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Perks, Robert William

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Horniman, Frederick John

Price, Robert John

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Priestley, Arthur

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Rea, Russell

Crombie, John William

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Reddy, M.

Crooks, William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Joicey, Sir James

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Cullinan, J.

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Dalziel, James Henry

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Jordan, Jeremiah

Robson, William Snowdon

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

Joyce, Michael

Roche, John

Delany, William

Kearley, Hudson E.

Roe, Sir Thomas

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Kilbride, Denis

Runciman, Walter

Done an, Captain A.

Kitson, Sir James

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Labouchere, Henry

Schwann, Charles E.

Duncan, J. Hastings

Lambert, George

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Dunn, Sir William

Langley, Batty

Sheehy, David

Edwards, Frank

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Elibank, Master of

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

Ellice, Capt, E. C (S Andrw's Bghs

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Slack, John Bamford

Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

Leng, Sir John

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Evans, Sir Fran. H. (Maidstone)

Levy, Maurice

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Lewis, John Herbert

Soares, Ernest J.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

Lloyd-George, David

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Fenwick, Charles

Lough, Thomas

Stevenson, Francis S.

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh., N.

Tennant, Harold John

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

White, George (Norfolk)

Yoxall, James Henry

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Tomkinson, James

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

Toulmin, George

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

William M'Arthur.

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Wallace, Robert

Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Heaton, John Henniker

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Helder, Augustus

Aird, Sir John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Ambrose, Robert

Davenport, William Bromley

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham)

Hogg, Lindsay

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Denny, Colonel

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Arrol, Sir William

Dickinson, Robert Edmond

Horner, Frederick William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Dickson, Charles Scott

Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

Austin, Sir John

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hoult, Joseph

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Houston, Robert Paterson

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Baird, John George Alexander

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Balcarres, Lord

Doogan, P. C.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Baldwin, Alfred

Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

Hunt, Rowland

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Doughty, George

Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Duke, Henry Edward

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Kimber, Henry

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Bignold, Arthur

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks., N. R.

Bigwood, James

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Bond, Edward

Fisher, William Hayes

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Fison, Frederick William

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Boulnois, Edmund

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Brassey Albert

Favin, Michael Joseph

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Brodrick Rt. Hon. St. John

Fower, Sir Ernest

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Forster, Henry William

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

Butcher, John George

Gardner, Ernest

Lowe, Francis William

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

Garfit, William

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

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

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Macdona, John Cumming

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Graham, Henry Robert

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Maconochie, A. W.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Greene, Sir E. W (B'ry S E dm'nds

M'Fadden, Edward

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

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

M'Kean, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Chapman, Edward

Grenfell, William Henry

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Charrington, Spencer

Gretton, John

Majendie, James A. H.

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Groves, James Grimble

Malcolm, Ian

Coates, Edward Feetham

Gunter, Sir Robert

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

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

Coddington, Sir William

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.

Crean, Eugene

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Milvain, Thomas

1446

1447

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Rankin, Sir James

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Ratcliff, R. F.

Strovan, John

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Reid, James (Greenock)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Moore, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

Morpeth, Viscount

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Morrison, James Archibald

Renwick, George

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Richards, Henry Charles

Thornton, Percy M.

Mount, William Arthur

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Tuff, Charles

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Robinson, Brooke

Valentia, Viscount

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

Walker, Col. William Hall

Myers, William Henry

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Nicholson, William Graham

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Webb, Colonel William George

Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

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

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

O'Dowd, John

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Wills, Sir Frederick

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roseomnion, N.)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E. R.

Parker, Sir Gilbert

Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

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

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Pemberton, John S. G.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Percy, Earl

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Pierpoint, Robert

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

Young, Samuel

Plummer, Walter R.

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

Younger, William

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Pym, C. Guy

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Asquith.)—put, and agreed to.

MR. COUETENAY WARNERsaid the object of the Amendment he had placed on the Paper was not to injure the Bill in any way, but to give to the publican a greater security than was afforded by the words in the clause. The clause as drafted would not in some cases cover the publican's loss. The licensee might have made considerable alterations in his house for the purposes of trade which would have no value whatever for private purposes, but that expenditure would not come in under the words of the Bill. His proposal was very nearly the same as that in the Bill, but it defined the matter in such a way that the publican was more protected, although the contributors to the compensation fund would not have to pay any larger amount. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word 'than' to the word 'shall' in line 9, and insert the words 'that the house or
1448
shop in respect of which a licence is held, or any adjacent house or shop owned or occupied by the person holding the licence is of a disorderly character, or frequented by thieves, prostitutes, or persons of bad character, or that the holder of the licence has failed to comply with an order for structural alterations under Section 11, Sub-section 4, of the Licensing Act of 1902.'"—(Mr. Courtenay Warner.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid it was impossible to accept the Amendment, the wording of which was much more limited and inappropriate than that of the clause.
MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought the words in the Bill would press very hardly in certain cases. It was true that the Amendment imposed a limit, but it was the old limit, and the persons affected knew what would happen under it, whereas they did not know at all what

1449
the magistrates would do under the words of the Bill.
MR. MOSSsubmitted that the words of the Amendment were not narrower than those of the Bill, inasmuch as they extended to "any adjacent house or shop owned or occupied by the person holding the licence."
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that they might go into the character of the licensee.
MR. MOSSagreed that they might go into the character of the licensee, but not into the character of the premises. The house, as well as the person conducting the house, might have a bad character, and if the licensee was the owner of adjoining premises which was of a disorderly character, and that was not to be a ground for refusing the licence, they might have cases in which licensed premises would be evading the law.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEwas disposed to agree with the Solicitor-General, but he asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered that the words would enable the magistrates, if they considered the house to be of bad character, to deal with the matter without compensation being paid.
SIR EDWARD CARSON: It would be "ill-conducted."
MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the publican desired some definition of the word "ill-conducted."A very wide discretion was left to the magistrates, and houses which were considered to be "ill-conducted"in some places would not be so regarded in others.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he really could not interfere with the discretion of the magistrates in this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Drafting Amendment agreed to.
MR. HERBERT ROBERTS(on behalf of the hon. Member for the Spalding Division) moved an Amendment to include, as a ground for refusing the renewal of a licence,
1450
the non-provision of reasonable refreshment. Many witnesses before the Royal Commission complained of the difficulty of obtaining reasonable refreshment at public-houses, and it was only right that in a Bill under which a new system with regard to the magistrates' discretion was laid down, it should be made perfectly clear that this was a ground upon which the justices might act without paying compensation. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 7, after the words 'ill-conducted ' to insert the words "or for not having provided reasonable refreshment.'"—(Mr. Herbert Roberts)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. MANSFIELDsaid the Amendment aimed at stopping the growing tendency to turn the village inn into a drinking shop. A few years ago it was comparatively easy to obtain tea or coffee and something to eat at most public-houses, but any such demand now was usually met by a stony stare, and the would-be customer had to wait an interminable time. A system had grown up under which the sole object appeared to be the sale of intoxicating liquors, and any person who was not prepared to take beer or spirits had to be content with aerated waters, which were more or less alcoholic and almost as poisonous as some of the intoxicating liquors, or to put up with stale ginger-beer. The object of the Amendment was to enable a large body of the general public, such as cyclists, to obtain the refreshment they needed. It was not likely that any bench of magistrates would refuse the renewal of a licence on the ground that tea or coffee had not been provided, but it was desirable that they should retain the powers they at present possessed, because a suggestion from the magistrates often carried more weight than anything else. This proposal was made in order to prevent village public-houses being turned simply into drinking shops, and to make them places where the public could get the refreshments they required. That was why he was anxious that this Amendment should be carried, and it could not

1451
possibly do the trade any harm. The brewer and the publican in these debates had been regarded as synonymous terms, but that was not so. The Amendment was not aimed against the interest of the publican, because he would get as much profit out of tea as beer. He had another Amendment on the Paper which had to do with the provision of bedroom accommodation, and perhaps he would be allowed to move that a little later on. This Amendment could not possibly do any harm, and it was certain to do a great deal of good. If the Government were anxious for temperance reform, as they professed to be, then they ought to hail with delight an Amendment to encourage the drinking of tea instead of alcoholic liquors.
MR. CATHCART WASONsaid that although the Amendment of his hon. friend was drawn in wider terms than the one he himself had given notice of he cordially supported it. Every one of them must have experienced the immense difficulty in getting an ordinary cup of tea or even a glass of water at one of this class of beerhouses or hotels in the country, and even in London. This was one of the most important Amendments which had been moved during the whole of the discussion upon this stage of the Bill, and it would do more to promote temperance than any other suggestion which had been made. Many of these beerhouses existed merely for the purpose of selling so many barrels of beer, and that was the raison d'étre of their existence. They had been established not because the public wanted them, but because the brewer wanted to sell so much beer. They ought to let the country see plainly whether this Bill was moved with the object of promoting temperance, or whether it had been introduced in the interests of brewers. The question was whether those houses were to exist as refreshment houses or whether only intoxicating liquors were to be sold in them. His hon. friend was asking for very little in this Amendment which would do a great amount of good in the direction of temperance reform. There was scarcely 5 per cent, of the hotels in London where a working man could go to and ask for a cup of tea without standing a chance of
1452
being kicked out. The public-houses existed in order to provide refreshment for the public, and not simply for the consumption of intoxicating liquors. He hoped that the Government would accept this Amendment.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. COCHRANE,said the Amendment recalled to his mind a debate last year on a private Member's-Bill to which he was able to give some sympathy and support. That Bill only sought to affect innkeepers, who were, of course, under a different obligation, from that of the ordinary public-house keeper. The law remained that, if the refusal to supply reasonable refreshment was of a gross character, it would constitute misconduct, and in that case the innkeeper would not be entitled under this Bill to receive compensation if his licence were taken away. There was no such obligation in the case of a public-house, and, if the House was unwilling last year to pass a Bill dealing solely with innkeepers, it was unlikely that they would now desire further to extend the obligation in the case of public-houses. He did not think this was a favourable opportunity for promoting an object which in itself was desirable, that innkeepers should more often supply refreshments of a non-intoxicating character. But in all parts of the country shops for the supply of such refreshments were springing up, and if the trade was a paying one he had no doubt that in the course of time it would be extended in the desired direction.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON,in supporting the Amendment, thought the refusal to serve reasonable refreshments of a non-alcoholic kind ought to be a ground for refusing a licence-There had undoubtedly been too much of this on the part of these public monopolists. They had refused reasonable refreshment to particular classes, and to his mind that was the most serious grievance of all. There had been many complaints that soldiers and sailors in uniform had been unfairly discriminated against, and if he were a magistrate, and found a licensed victualler so treating; anyone who wore His Majesty's uniform,

1453
he should not hesitate to withdraw his licence. But there was another grievance, which, though less common, was even worse. He referred to the attempted discrimination in regard to persons holding certain opinions. They had in the past seen what was a reign of terror in connection with the South African War. No man who held certain opinions about that war could hold his own anywhere. [An HON. MEMBER: He can now.] Yes, the tide of opinion has changed on that subject. Opinions which one could now freely express could only be expressed then to the danger of the persons expressing them, and that with the encouragement, he was sorry to say, of persons in high position. There were within his own knowledge and within a stone's throw of this House two cases of hotels which attempted that discrimination. He should have taken away the licences from those houses with as little hesitation as from those that discriminated in the case of soldiers and sailors. On both these grounds he strongly supported the Amendment.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was sorry that the Government could not see their way to accept this Amendment. The Solicitor-General, as they had seen once or twice, exercised an independent judgment on these matters, and he would appeal to him to give the Committee a better answer than had been given up to the present on behalf of the Government. Their acceptance of the Amendment would not interfere with the structure of the Bill, and it would enable them to render one little bit of service to temperance. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not be intimidated by the face that he had the hon. Member for Burton-on-Trent sitting behind him. The Under-Secretary had assumed that this was an extension of the obligations of the justices. If this were included in the Bill it would not compel magistrates to refuse a licence simply because refreshments were refused, but it would give them discretionary power to do so.
SIR EDWARD CARSONindicated assent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was glad that the Solicitor-General assented to that proposition. The proposal in the
1454
clause was depriving the magistrates of that power. A great monopoly was given to them by the public, and the magistrates, on behalf of the public, should be able to bring pressure to bear on them to exercise it fairly towards the public. What was the position at present when a licence-holder was asked for a cup of tea or coffee, or some substantial refreshment? He had known cases where the persons making the request had been rather insolently refused because it meant too much trouble. He was told by a former Member of this House, who was not a teetotaler, that on asking a publican in the country for a cup of tea he was answered in a perfectly insolent fashion. That gentleman wrote to the chairman of the bench of magistrates, and the same thing, he believed, would not occur in that public-house again. But if this Bill were passed what could the publican do? He would know perfectly well that the magistrates could not interfere, and that if they took away the licence because of the refusal to supply a cup of tea they could only do it by giving compensation. The magistrates should have the power to warn the publican not to repeat the offence, and that if it was repeated they would consider next year whether they would renew the licence. That sort of warning was useful without actually depriving a man of his licence. He asked the Solicitor-General whether he could not see his way to include that in the Bill. It would not come within the category of an ill-conducted public-house. He believed that on both sides of the House they wanted to discourage the mere drinking saloon. That was the sort of thing that had been done in America by men who were against prohibition, and in favour of a modified form of drinking saloon. The old inn which provided bedroom accommodation and refreshments for man and beast was disappearing in this country, and it was for the beasts alone that accommodation was provided in a good many of them. He was dwelling on this at the present moment because the Amendment was the first of a series of the same kind. The houses recently set up by the public-house trusts were working on the line of providing something besides intoxicating liquors. They were engaged in providing non-intoxicating refreshments and rather restricting the sale of

1455
drink. He was not suggesting merely the form, of words contained in the Amendment. If the Solicitor-General could suggest any other form to carry out the object in view they would be acceptable to Members on that side of the House. The Government by accepting the Amendment would be able to render substantial assistance to the cause of real temperance. The Government must remember that the state of things had been considerably aggravated of late by the tied-house system, and that was why greater emphasis ought to be placed on Amendments of this character. In this matter no encouragement would come from the brewery company or managers, because they did not wish to develop trade on those lines. Pressure must come from the magistrates who represented the public and they must have the power of insisting on reasonable refreshments being provided for the public.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he had hoped that the Solicitor-General would have risen in response to the invitation of his hon. friend, but the right hon. Gentleman had given no indication that he desired to do so. He wished to reinforce what had been said. He looked upon this as a very important Amendment, but the Under-Secretary in the remarks he made had not appreciated the real position. It was not a question as to who was under legal obligation. He quite agreed that the obligation was cast upon innkeepers and innkeepers alone. It was a question of policy, and the position was that in a large number of cases, owing in a considerable degree, as his hon. friend had stated, to the development of the tied-house system, persons who previously carried on these public-houses to all intents and purposes as inns as well as places for the sale of drink had come under the strongest inducement to subordinate that side of the business, and in some cases to stop it altogether, and to become agents for the sale of drink of one particular brewery. Places which were undoubtedly intended, when the law conferred on the occupiers the monopoly in a district of supplying intoxicating liquors, as places to which everybody could resort for reasonable refreshment, had more and more degenerated into mere drinking saloons. He did not think
1456
anybody who was acquainted with the social conditions of the country would say that that was an exaggerated picture. It really was, in many of our rural districts, in particular, a serious provocation to intemperance. How had the magistrates dealt with this? The magistrates at present had absolutely unfettered discretion when a licence-holder came and asked for a renewal of his licence. It was perfectly competent for them to say. "You shall not have this monopoly for the sale of drink unless you will at the same time undertake that the wayfarer and sojourner in this part of the world shall at your premises find reasonable refreshment." A reasonable condition or stipulation to annex when conferring a monopoly. Many magistrates had taken the view that a matter they might fairly take into their consideration was whether a particular applicant should or should not have his licence renewed in these circumstances. That was the state of the law. Let them look at the state of the law that would be created by this Bill. That power was taken away entirely from the magistrates, because this was not one of the grounds enumerated in the Bill in which the magistrates could continue to exercise the unlimited discretion which they at present possessed. What followed? He would suppose a flagrant case where licensed premises which might have been used as a place of refreshment had been turned into nothing more nor less than a drinking shop. The licensing justices would have no jurisdiction in the matter at all. They would have to go to quarter sessions, and quarter sessions would be in this dilemma. Either they must renew the licence, or, if they refused to renew it, compensation must be paid out of the fund. In the majority of cases the licence would be continued to a person who had shown himself unfit to possess it. That was what the effect of the Bill would be unless the Amendment were accepted. They were discussing here a question of principle, and what they wanted was to get from the Government some indication of opinion that they would continue to the magistrates their present discretion to refuse the renewal of licences in cases when tea and coffee were not provided.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that, in considering this Amendment, it was necessary to distinguish between the ordinary inn and the ordinary public-house. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said unless food and tea and coffee were provided in inns, they became nothing but drinking saloons. In the case of the ordinary inn, there was a common-law obligation on the keeper to provide reasonable refreshment, food, and accommodation, and, therefore, as he could be indicted for a refusal to discharge that obligation, his premises would come within the Bill as ill-conducted premises. He thought it was hardly in doubt that if a man was indicted for this particular offence and convicted before a jury and if that conviction were brought before the licensing magistrates they would arrive at the conclusion that he was not a fit person to have a licence. As the hon. Member the Under-Secretary for the Home Department had stated, a Bill was brought in last year to provide an easier method by summary procedure to compel the innkeeper to discharge this obligation. The Bill passed this House by a large majority, but for some reason or other it was dropped in another place and never became law. The main discussion on this Amendment, however, and certainly the opening statement of the hon. Member who moved it, had reference to the owners of public-houses who were not discharging the duty they ought to perform in failing to provide reasonable refreshments. The case of the ordinary public-house was much more difficult than that of the ordinary inn. What the hon. Member who put the Amendment on the paper wanted to do was to turn every public-house into a hotel.
MR. MANSFIELD: Into an inn.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that the Amendment proposed that the keeper of an ordinary public-house should give to everybody who demanded it "reasonable refreshment."He hoped the Committee would not think he was not trying to do what was best in relation to these public-houses. The hon. Member for Carnarvon made an appeal to him to give way on this Amendment. Well, if there could be a
1458
means of putting an obligation on the owner of a public house to give refreshment in certain cases, he could not say that there would be any objection to that, but what he wanted to point out was that the penalty proposed for failure to provide refreshments was far too great. What the hon. Member opposite wanted to enact was that if a public-house keeper did not provide "reasonable refreshment"—whatever that might mean—he could be deprived of his licence without compensation although he had subscribed to the insurance fund. That was a penalty that would be out of proportion to the offence he had committed, in most cases at all events. They all knew that there had been a great increase in the number of those houses which did supply refreshments; but be might mention that he had had several letters since the Bill was brought into the House expressing the hope that the Bill would not, at all events, increase the amount of refreshments that were given in public-houses, on the ground that the providing of tea in public-houses might be a temptation to a man who only wanted a cup of tea to take intoxicating liquor. [OPPOSITION laughter.] He did not say he agreed with that, but that view had been put before him. Take the case of a public-house where month after month refreshments outside drink had not been asked for. Was the owner of that public-house to keep on his premises always "reasonable refreshments" when they might not be inquired for, and would be wasted? He could not say more than that he would consider the matter, and see whether, if the power the magistrate now had was taken away, they could not put pressure in some other way on the publicans to supply these refreshments without subjecting them to a penalty out of all proportion to the offence, of depriving them of their licences without compensation.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid the Amendment did not propose to enact that the magistrates should refuse to renew the licence of a publican who did not supply temperance refreshments. All it proposed to do was to leave in the hands of the magistrates the discretion they at present possessed with regard to the

1459
management of public-houses. The Solicitor-General had not referred to the cases of refusing refreshments to soldiers and sailors in uniform. Did the right hon. Gentleman sympathise with those refusals?
SIR EDWARD CARSON: I do not.
SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid that they could not expect a soldier or a sailor to take action in such cases, although it was a direct insult to the uniform. To meet such cases the magistrates should continue to have the power to refuse the renewal of the licence. The mere threat to do that would put a stop to such practices. There had been many cases where soldiers had been refused refreshment, and the licensee, when he came up for renewal of his licence, had promised it would never occur again. He did not think it would be necessary to take a division if the Home Secretary would give a pledge to reconsider the question, and bring up a clause on Report which would end the grievance of a sailor or a soldier in uniform being refused refreshment, to which he was entitled just as much as any other man in his working clothes.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid that while he was in sympathy with the principle of the Amendment, he objected to its form. If it were adopted, it would practically amount to compelling the magistrates to treat a refusal to supply refreshment on the same footing as unfitness or want of character. That would create a new condition of affairs. He thought there were some grounds for a new clause in another part of the Bill to define what reasonable refreshment meant, but to withdraw a licence because a man refused on one occasion to supply a cup of tea would be ridiculous and unreasonable. The Committee ought to be glad that the Solicitor-General had undertaken to consider the Amendment, and to bring forward a new clause.
MR. BROADHURSTsaid that before the Opposition decided not to take a division they should receive something stronger than the promise of the Solicitor-General. When, two or three
1460
years ago, another Licensing Bill was under discussion the feeling of the Grand Committee was strongly in favour of the proposal, and the Amendment was only defeated by the Government declaring that it would not fit in with the general scheme of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Derbyshire, who spoke with great authority on this question, promised to support him if he would give him an independent proposal. On that point he divided the House on the Report stage of the Bill, and was defeated by eighteen votes only. Again the Government expressed full sympathy with the proposal, viz., that the licensed houses should be compelled by law to supply these refreshments. Subsequently he brought in a Bill on the subject. His hon. friend the Member for North-West Norfolk moved the Second Reading, which was carried, and the Bill went to the Grand Committee, where it was defeated in consequence of some proceedings in connection with the Copyright Bill. As the law stood there was no legal remedy whatever. The only satisfaction a complaining party could get, to whom light refreshments were refused, was to make a complaint at the brewster sessions. He knew a case where a gentleman travelled from Lancashire to the Isle of Wight specially for that purpose. The Solicitor-General had said that the number of houses supplying these refreshments was on the increase. He would like to know what authority he had for making that statement. His belief was that these houses were decreasing. As the tied-house system extended the freedom of the tenant was curtailed, and he was prevented by his agreement with the brewer from selling anything in which the brewer had not an interest. He appealed to the Government to make the concession.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid that he had heard with very great satisfaction that the Government proposed to accept, not this Amendment because it appeared to be impossible, but something in that direction which would not inflict any injury whatever on the trade. This was really a very important proposal in the interests of temperance, and one which was fair and just to the very poor. What was the condition of

1461
a man who lived in the most wretched quarter of his own constituency? He had to live in a dark, ill-lighted street, with a limited view of the sky. Such a man naturally sought light and refreshment, but the only condition on which he could visit a public-house involved his taking alcohol. That was unfair, because if he was a weak man he formed the alcoholic habit, and became a drunkard. That should be prevented. He thought very strongly that the present monopoly should not be continued except conditionally, and one of the conditions should be that a man should be able to have a cup of tea or coffee.
MR. BRYCEsaid he hoped the Home Secretary would reconsider the question from the point of view of the immense increase in the demand for refreshment on the part of persons using the roads of the country. The hon. Member who had just spoken said, very truly, that there was often a demand in the lower quarters of the great towns for refreshment which could only be obtained at a public-house. Having recently made extensive excursions through England, he was very much struck by the immense number of people who used the roads, and who sought refreshment at the smaller wayside inns. There was no doubt that in many parts of England there was an insufficent number of places supplying refreshments. This was perhaps not the best form in which an Amendment of this kind should be introduced, but the only answer which the Solicitor-General had made was that the licensing justices had power to deal with the matter. Surely they could trust the magistrates to use this power in a reasonable way. He hoped the Home Secretary would give the Committee a pledge that the Government would deal with this matter.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid the hon. Member who moved this Amendment contended that reasonable refreshments ought to be provided at all licensed houses, and he asked the Committee to repudiate the action of innkeepers who refuse to serve soldiers wearing the King's uniform. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire had alluded to the difficulty of obtaining
1462
reasonable non-alcoholic refreshment in certain districts in the country, which he had illustrated by his own personal experience, and he had also stated that he thought it was desirable that all licensees should be compelled, as a condition of their licence, to supply refreshments of this sort. He agreed that inconvenience did arise from inability to get light refreshments at public-houses; but he could not agree to accept the proposed Amendment, because it would mean that a man's claim to compensation might be refused on the ground that he had not supplied this class of refreshment. He could not consent to accept this Amendment, or agree to any Amendment which would place so great a hardship upon the owners of houses. The Solicitor-General had promised to consider this question, and to see whether it was possible, in another portion of this Bill, to insert a clause to meet the desires of hon. Members who thought this class of refreshments should be provided in all houses. He would confirm the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General to give consideration to the question, and see whether, in some other part of the Bill, the desire of hon. Members could be given effect to. If the Amendment were introduced in the clause as proposed, it would be unfair to the licensee. He agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield that if this Amendment were passed the justices would look upon it as a direction to refuse compensation if the licensee had not agreed to supply light refreshments of this character. Upon this point he could not go further than the Solicitor-General had gone.
MR. TREVELYANsaid the Home Secretary took up the position that it would be a hardship to refuse compensation in the case of a public-house which had not performed its obligation. But, after all, the obligation proposed was very small, namely, that a certain amount of non-alcoholic refreshment should be forthcoming. It was not the small out-of-the-way public-houses which failed in that respect. He knew very few places in the out-of-the-way parts of Northumberland where people could not get tea and bread and butter, or eggs and bacon, simply for the

1463
asking. The real grievance was experienced in the case of the big public-house where they had so much custom in alcoholic liquors that there was no inducement to them to supply other kinds of refreshment. Moderate reformers should press for this Amendment because it would tend to improve the character of public-houses and make them places to which respectable people might resort for necessary refreshment, and where, at present, in many instances no respectable person would think of entering. For these reasons he thought this Amendment was an eminently useful one and ought to be pressed to a division.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid the confusion upon this question had arisen owing to the limitation of the discretion of magistrates to the particular grounds specified in the Bill. In the past there had been no limitations of this character, and the magistrates had had an absolute discretion. Consequently, in considering the renewal of any licence, they were able to take into their purview such grounds as were covered by the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member opposite, and though, of course, they were not bound to refuse the renewal of the licence they were able to take into consideration offences more or less parallel to that which was the subject of this Amendment. By the terms of this clause they were limited to the specified conditions and, therefore, such matters as were dealt with by this Amendment were ruled out. Consequently they would probably be confronted with a series of attempts to widen the terms and conditions under which a magistrate might refuse the renewal of a licence without compensation. The essence of temperance reform was that the divorce between eating and drinking in the public-house should be removed and an encouragement given to licensed premises to provide for the consumption of food as well as of liquor. The Amendment would not meet the particular grievance it was designed to remove. Drinking was divorced from eating in ordinary public-houses, because the provision of eatables did not pay so well as the provision of drink. That was the real difficulty of the situation, and, so long as it paid him better, the publican
1464
would naturally prefer to supply drink rather than food. He failed to see how the Amendment, if accepted, would operate in favour of temperance. Then were three specified grounds upon which the magistrates could refuse the renewal of a licence without compensation, and the Amendment sought to add a fourth. His own view was that the more the particular grounds on which the renewal of licences could be refused were defined the more would the discretion of the magistrates be limited. The vaguer the terms of the conditions upon which the magistrates were allowed to exercise their discretion the more widely they would be able to utilise their powers for the advancement of temperance. He, therefore, thought the Government were wise in refusing to accept the Amendment at the present stage, though he felt that the Home Secretary had somewhat "watered down "the pledge of the Solicitor-General to deal with the question in a later portion of the Bill. He hoped that when the time came the Government would see that the obligation was imposed upon the tenants of public-houses to supply more solid refreshment and not to rely chiefly upon the supply of alcohol.
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that when publicans were being placed by Parliament in an exceptionally favourable position it was not right that they should be allowed to refuse to serve any class, whether soldiers or anybody else, or to discriminate in any way as to the persons they would supply, so long as the applicants were sober and behaved themselves respectably. The Government had intimated their disposition to remedy or to palliate that state of things. Their task, however, was a very difficult one, because the clause was so drawn as to cover much more than at first met the eye. The idea generally entertained with regard to the clause was that when licences were discontinued in the public interest compensation was to be paid, and the judges of the compensation were to be not the local magistrates, but the quarter sessions. The scope of the clause, however, was much wider. The local justices had power to refuse renewals only upon three grounds, subject to appeal. All other grounds upon which under the existing law the magistrates were able to

1465
discontinue licences vanished at once, because they were remitted to quarter sessions, and, if they were acted upon, compensation became payable. He felt bound to express his admiration of the draftsman of the Bill; a more cunningly devised or deftly constructed measure he had never seen. It was necessary to watch every line closely to see how the Bill went. The measure was so constructed that it went miles beyond compensating the man whose business was taken from him in the public interest. The Amendment afforded an apt illustration. If a soldier in uniform went into a public-house, asked for a glass of beer, and was refused service, the magistrates under the existing law would probably ask for an explanation from the publican and intimate that if there was any recurrence of such conduct the renewal of the licence would be refused. But, under the present Bill that was not one of the specified grounds; there was no obligation to serve any man, and, as the matter would be remitted to quarter sessions, if any action was taken compensation would be payable. That was only one illustration of the consequences that would flow from the Bill as constructed. It meant that local magistrates might, if they chose, upon one of three specified grounds, refuse licences absolutely, but beyond that they had no power whatever. All the pressure they were able to exercise in virtue of their present full discretion disappeared, and the publican was given not merely a right to compensation when his licence was taken away in the public interest, but also immunity from magisterial control except in certain small details. The object of the Bill was understood to be to provide for the payment of compensation when a licence was discontinued on public grounds, but the measure was so drafted that the Opposition would be compelled to enumerate the different offences for which the local justices should be at liberty to discontinue licences.
Mr. CRIPPSsaid he so fully agreed with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member opposite that he ventured to make an appeal to the Government. Personally he was prepared to give compensation only when a licence was taken
1466
away owing to public requirements. The Committee would get into the most indefinite discussion if they attempted by enumeration to limit the discretion of the magistrates beyond that particular. The discretion of the magistrates would undoubtedly be taken away except in the cases specified in the Bill. He did not think that was right, nor did he believe it was the intention of the Government when they introduced the Bill. It was really a drafting question, and the only way in which it could be properly dealt with was to say that where a licence was taken away on the ground of public requirements the case should go to quarter sessions and the principle of compensation apply. That was the only sound basis for a Bill of this kind, and if it were once departed from the greatest difficulty would ensue. The Amendment was inadmissible at the present stage, but he was not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the local magistrates except in the one case he had mentioned. If the Government would consider the question as a matter of drafting they would be able to make the position clear, and to avoid the difficulty with which they would otherwise be faced.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid this was a very important matter. He assured the Committee that the Government had no intention of going beyond providing compensation for licences taken away in consequence of public requirements. That had been the intention of the Government all through, but the hon. and learned Member opposite appeared to think that this clause had been drawn as if the Government wished in some way or other to cover up something else. He assured hon. Members that this was not so. This matter had been considered by the Law Officers on many occasions, and it was not so easy a question of drafting as seemed to be supposed. If they put in words relating to public requirements they would have to define them. What the Law Officers thought was that the words in the clause covered everything else, but they were prepared to consider other matters which might be suggested. Suppose the magistrates said a house was a tied house. Could they then take the licence away on the ground that it did not meet the public requirements?
SIR ROBERT REIDsaid that when he spoke of public requirements he meant those cases in which houses were taken away because they were not needed in the district.
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid suppose the magistrates thought it extremely disadvantageous to have a public-house in the immediate neighbourhood of a chapel or school or workmen's dwellings, might that licence be taken away on the grounds of the public requirements? Some Benches might take that view. He assured the Committee that there was no sinister purpose in the way the clause was framed. That was the sole object of the Government, and if any other cases could be shown which did not come within the scope of the clause, all he could say was that they would be considered. He was perfectly certain that if they wanted any uniformity of practice and not to leave it to some Benches to deal in one way and other Benches in another way with the same question it would be better to lay down the law clearly and leave no loophole as to putting a matter into one category when it ought to be put into another.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the difficulty, as he understood it, was due to the view of many magistrates that the number of the houses was out of proportion to the needs of the district, and that in discriminating between the houses to be preserved and those to be destroyed there was no principle of equity by which the discrimination could be made. Therefore if they cut down the number they must cut it down upon the footing that the licences which were extinguished should be compensated because their extinction had not been attended by any misconduct, or by reason of their failing to conform to the standard of requirements that the magistrates had imposed upon them. The aim of the Government was to send to quarter sessions only those cases in which the very difficult problem was to be dealt with of limiting the number of houses in a district which was over-supplied. If that was so, the clause might be amended to read in this way—
"The power to refuse the renewal of an on licence on the ground that the number of licensed houses exceeds the reasonable require-
1468
ments of the district shall be referred to quarter sessions."
That would meet the whole case. That was the sort of case they wished to take out of the consideration of the local justices and to leave the county authority to deal with it on the principles of administration applicable to the whole county. They administered the fund connected with the whole county, but where the public-houses in a particular district were to be regulated the discretion of the magistrates ought not to be interfered with.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid they had arrived at a condition of things which was really not uncommon in discussions in Committee. That condition was that practically and substantially they were all agreed as to what they wanted, and the only difficulty was to find the exact expression which would give them what they wanted. It was the duty of everyone to make suggestions for that purpose. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a suggestion which apparently he thought provided the exact solution required. He thought he could show him that that was not so. Take the case where a public improvement was required—a new street, for instance—and a licence stood in the way—a licence which, if compensated under existing circumstances, would add very materially to the cost of the improvement. Under this Bill, it was quite conceivable that when the licence came up for renewal the magistrates might say, "We are going to take it away because the public interest requires that it shall be removed, and we are going to refer it for compensation to the fund which does not come out of the public pocket but out of the pockets of the trade." Under the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman they could not do that. He thought if they tried to limit the matter as strictly as was suggested they would find that they would arrive at exactly the opposite result to that which they intended, and the number of licences taken away would be less. He thought that the obligation of supplying reasonable refreshments should be imposed upon licence-holders and a definite penalty, which would, no doubt, take the form of a fine, should be provided in the Bill. It would be a

1469
tremendous penalty to take away a man's property and livelihood merely because he had refused or neglected to supply food. He thought that the case of a licence-holder refusing to serve a man because he was wearing His Majesty's uniform would come under the definition of misconduct. If that was not the case, it would be possible on the Report stage so to extend the meaning of "misconduct" as to include cases of that kind. He did not think the object of the Committee would be attained by accepting the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that after the interesting and instructive speech to which they had listened he wished to put one Question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had taken the case of a public improvement and of licensed premises standing in the way of that improvement and he appeared to suggest that under the provisions of the Bill it would be in the power of quarter sessions to take away the licence and give compensation to the ex-licensee out of the fund contributed by the trade. Was he to understand that it was really the view of the right hon. Gentleman that where a licence was withdrawn, because it stood in the way of a public improvement, the compensation would come out of the fund contributed by the trade and not out of the rates.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid that where a licence was withdrawn because it stood in the way of a public improvement the compensation would come out of the rates. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's illustration was an unfortunate one. But they were dealing with the clause as it stood now, and he should be very glad indeed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stretford, were so strong as to say to the Government that they should recast the clause in such a way as to place an obligation on all licence-holders to provide non-intoxicants and reasonable refreshments. Before the Committee came to a determination on this Amendment, he wanted to know what was the view of the Government upon it. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
1470
West Birmingham agreed with those on that side of the House and would like to see an obligation imposed on the licence-holder to supply reasonable refreshments. The Home Secretary, following the Solicitor-General, said that the Government would consider this matter. But what was the matter they were going to consider? Were they agreed to insist that all licence-holders should provide reasonable refreshments?
SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid that what he had stated was that by reason of this Bill certain pressure which the magistrates now put on the licence-holder would be taken away, and that he would consider whether, in lieu of that pressure, the Government might frame a clause which would enable the same object to be carried out by making it compulsory on the licence-holder, where the magistrate? thought fit, to supply these refreshments.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSasked if the Solicitor-General would see that it was put perfectly clearly that the Government were prepared to say that they would put an obligation on the licence-holder to supply reasonable refreshments? That was a very simple, clear, and definite question. If the Government were not in favour of placing any such obligation on the licence-holder, then the Amendment was absolutely necessary. If they were willing, then he thought this was the proper place to deal with it, for they would be dealing with the power which would still remain with the local justices if the licensee did not do his duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that this would be an awful penalty to impose on the licensee if he failed to fulfil this obligation from a mere slip; but the right hon. Gentleman knew that the licensing justices were reasonable men. The licensing justices had been very active in Birmingham, and he was quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not say that the licensing justices in that city would not take a reasonable view of this question. At the present moment there was no obligation at all on the licence-holder to supply anything except drink. The Committee would be interested to know that according to decisions there might be an obligation on the part of temperance hotel

1471
keepers to supply reasonable refreshments while these licence-holders were not under obligation to supply soldiers and sailors with food. The substance of the Amendment was of importance. All real temperance reformers wanted to see two things, viz., the improvement of these licensed houses and the moral welfare of the people who went to these houses. Evidence was forthcoming that when a man came to the licensing justices and asked for a licence he made all sorts of promises that he was willing to supply his customers with food, but immediately the licence was granted that was lost sight of, particularly if it was a tied house because all the brewers wanted to make was large profits, and the difficulty was that they did not get as much profit out of food as from intoxicating liquors. When Parliament was giving this monopoly to licence-holders they ought to place them under an obligation to supply food to people who demanded it. It was agreed by everybody, except those on the Front Treasury Bench, that this was a matter which should be left in the discretion of the local justices. The Home Secretary had acquired the excellent power of saying nothing in very many words. He did not say that offensively to the right hon. Gentleman; that was sometimes very necessary when the speaker wished to leave some question indefinite. But nothing could be simpler than the matter with which he and his hon. friends were seeking to deal. He asked finally, was the Government now prepared to say that there should be an obligation on the part of these licensees to supply refreshments, and if there were a breach of that obligation that ought to come within the purview of the licensing magistrates and power be given them to give an absolute refusal of the renewal of the licence without the right of compensation?
COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid that the Government ought to give their attention to the question about all the licences being granted on exactly the same terms by the local magistrates and by the quarter sessions. If refreshments were systematically refused and only drink supplied, surely that was a case where the licence ought to be taken away. It would be very undesirable to grant new licences without very definite
1472
conditions on this subject; and he thought, therefore, that the Government might undertake to look at the clause again, and see whether it could not be made stronger. He was perfectly certain that a condition of every new licence should be that tea and other refreshments should be supplied; and he did not understand why a provision to that effect should not be put in Clause 1. The Government were taking away the power of the local magistrates, and they ought accordingly to give equal power to the quarter sessions.
MR. EDWARDSsaid he spoke as one who had suffered in this matter. He had oftentimes found it difficult to get refreshments of a non-alcoholic kind in places which were supposed to be houses of entertainment. These houses were licensed not for the benefit of the publican but for the benefit of the public. It had been said "Oh! If the public-houses will not give you tea, you can go to a tea-house and get it there." But in some country districts with which he was acquainted there was no such thing as a tea-house but there was a public-house. He thought there was a great deal in the remark that had been made that the power of refusing licences on the ground that reasonable refreshment had not been supplied would have the effect of making these houses better conducted than they were now. Exception had been taken by the Solicitor-General that the penalty was too great for such an offence. But he thought the justices might be trusted in this matter. In the past they had done their duty fairly well on the whole. Evidence of that fact was to be found in the Report of the Licensing Commission. They would not outrageously ruin a man's livelihood because a licensee had refused to supply reasonable refreshment on one occasion. It had also been said that it would be hard for a man who had contributed to the compensation fund to receive no part of it. But that point was dealt with in the Bill, because if a man lost his licence through the house being badly conducted, although he contributed to the fund, he would not receive compensation. He cordially supported the Amendment.
MR. SEELYsaid he thought the hon. Gentleman would be wise if he

1473
withdrew his Amendment. He understood the Government had agreed to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that an obligation should be placed upon licensed victuallers to supply refreshment. The Hone Secretary had stated that the power of magistrates to deal with this question was now taken away, and that the Government proposed to bring in a new clause, under which means would be devised for seeing that reasonable refreshment was provided by licensed holders. He pressed his suggestion still more upon hon. Members opposite, because this was the very thing in the Licensing Bill of 1902 they pressed upon the House. The hon. Member for Leicester spoke to the same effect as the Home Secretary, that the existing power to deal with the question was far too strong and stringent to put into force and he wished the Government to agree to more moderate penalties being placed upon licence-holders if they did not provide reasonable refreshments. He agreed with the Government that the clause they were considering was not a good place to insert the proposal. He trusted they would bring in a clause giving effect to it. If it were Properly drawn it would be one of the greatest temperance reforms ever passed.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he merely wished to ask that a definite answer should be given to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken misapprehended the position because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was not now a member of the Government. That suggestion was that there should he an obligation cast upon the licensed holder to provide reasonable refreshment, and that if he failed to perform the obligation he should be liable to a penalty. He would point out that that suggestion had already been incorporated in the Scottish Act of last year so that there was a precedent which the Government could follow. Section 41 of that Act required the keepers of these houses to provide a sufficient supply of drinking water and eatables as might be laid down by the by-laws. Section 53 laid down that anyone guilty of not providing eatables should be liable to a fine of £5 for the first offence and
1474
£10 for the second offence, with a possible forfeiture of the licence. A very definite suggestion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite which was incorporated in the Bill passed last year, and he thought they were entitled to some answer from the Government upon this point, more especially when the suggestion had come from such an influential quarter and when it had been found to work well in another part of the country.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELLasked whether the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be in order if carried out in this Bill, and whether a separate clause could be introduced dealing with this subject.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is open in this Bill to amend the Licensing Acts generally because this is a Bill to amend the Licensing Acts only in respect to the extinction of licences and the grant of new licences. Therefore any new clause would have to come within that purview.
SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL: Then our only chance of obtaining this clause may be to obtain it at this moment, one, shall feel it my duty to before the Amendment before the House.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked if the right hon. Gentleman was correct in his interpretation of the ruling which had just been given.
THE CHAIRMANsaid that he did not wish to mislead the Committee in any way, but would rather not pronounce an actual opinion until he saw the clause. What he understood was first suggested was that power should be given to the brewster sessions to impose certain conditions upon licensees in respect of the provision of food and drink of a non-alcoholic character. It seemed to him that that might possibly be within the four corners of the Bill, but to put into this Bill proposals for fines and other punishments creating new offences would not come within the four corners of this Bill.
MR. MCKENNAsaid the Bill was introduced as a temperance measure for the purpose of reducing licences. They were originally told that the magistrates, not having the power to grant compensation, were unwilling to take away licences; now they were told that the magistrates would abuse their power and withdraw licences unreasonably. It should be remembered that in every case there would be the right of appeal to a Court of quarter sessions. There was a contest between the brewers' claims and the public rights, and they asked that the public rights should not be limited. It lay with the Government to define the specific cases in which compensation should be given. The case had been put most admirably by the hon. Member for the Stretford Division. The words which had been suggested by his hon. and learned friend would limit the right of the brewer's claim for compensation, and they appeared to him to meet the exact case of the Bill as originally drawn by the Government. It was not fair to put upon the Opposition, who were defending public rights in this matter, the obligation of singling out every individual infraction of those rights, and it was the duty of the Government to carry out the pledges which they gave when the measure was introduced. Those pledges were that they only proposed to give compensation where the licence was taken away through no fault of the holder. Where the licence would be taken away owing to the default of the owner was not a case in which compensation should be given. If the Government did not respond to the appeal which had been made, with all respect he ventured to say that they were departing from the pledges which were given when the Bill was brought in.
MR. ASQUITHsaid that after the course which the debate had taken it was quite necessary that they should come to a definite understanding as to what the position of the Government was. Numerous appeals had been made to the Government from their own side to deal with this matter in the sense, if not in the terms, of this Amendment. In view of the ruling which had been given, it was clear that it was only in the first clause that the safeguards
1476
which both sides regarded as essential could possibly be introduced. He did not wish in the least to pledge the. Government to the words of his hon friend's Amendment, which were not very artistic in form, although their substance was excellent. It was quite possible that the Amendment ought to come rather later in the clause. He suggested that they should report Progress in order that the Government might have an opportunity between then and tomorrow of considering the best form of Amendment.
MR. AKEBS-DOUGLASsaid the Government had already stated, in view of the wish of the Committee that any liability which there was on the licensee to supply food and drink of a nonalcoholic character should be enforced if possible, that it would be most satisfactory, and they were quite willing to bring up words to deal with, the question at a later stage of the Bill. But they could not accept this Amendment, because it would place upon the licensee an absolutely intolerable penalty. They agreed with the gist of the Amendment, however; and if, on consideration, they could incorporate words to enable the justices to make such a stipulation in future, they would be prepared to do it. He hoped he had made clear what was the offer of the Government, that they would consider either a clause or an Amendment to carry out the wish which had been expressed on both sides of the House, although they could not accept the present Amendment.
MR. ASQUITHsaid he could not allow to pass without protest the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Amendment of his hon. friend, if carried, would impose a penalty of any kind. It did nothing of the sort. The effect of the Amendment was merely to retain the power which the magistrates already possessed to stipulate, when application was made for a renewal of a licence, that the licensee should provide reasonable refreshment to all persons. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to pledge the Government to bring up a form of words which, in their view, would carry out the wish of the Committee that this

1477
should be regarded in future as one of the obligations which the licensee took upon himself, and that if that obligation was not fulfilled the withdrawal of the licence without any compensation would necessarily follow. He understood that to be the position of the Government [MINISTERIAL cries of "No"]; he was in the recollection of the Committee. As there still seemed so much possibility of misunderstanding he thought the best course would be to report Progress. He therefore moved.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this eveing.

EVENING SITTING

  ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10) (ARMY REORGANISATION).
  MR. BECKETTin moving the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "the alarming deficiency in the drafts required for India and South Africa, and the confusion and uncertainty now prevailing in the War Office and the Army owing to the prolonged delay in the announcement of a definite scheme of Army reorganisation,"said:—In proposing this Motion I hope I may not have to make too large a claim upon the indulgence of the House, as I do not rise to discuss the Report of the War Office Reconstitution Committee, or the Report of the Militia and Volunteers Commission, or to attack or defend any particular scheme of Army reform, but only to deplore the absence of any such scheme, and to implore the Government to put an end to the doubt and uncertainty now prevailing which has produced a state almost of chaos and paralysis in the War Office and the Army, and to present their scheme to the public with as little delay as possible. I do not make this demand prompted by an idle curiosity. The Government cannot fail to be aware that there is on the part of
  1478
  the House and the nation a universally felt and generally expressed desire that we should know, and know quickly, what is going to be done with our Army, and if I may venture to do so I would warn them, in no unfriendly spirit, that they cannot thwart or set aside this desire without serious consequences to themselves.
  The state of our Army is an urgent and pressing question, a question which, at the present moment, far transcends in its urgency any other question that is before the public, and which is causing the gravest possible anxiety to those who are behind the scenes. It is a question that cannot be trifled with or ignored, or postponed to a more convenient season. It is not a question like that of Tariff Reform which can be ruled out during the present Parliament, it cannot be pigeonholed like a Resolution or massacred like a Bill. It is a matter of the first importance which clamours for immediate settlement. I think I do not use language too strong when I assert that this deficiency in our drafts for India is alarming. Of course the recruiting difficulty is the fons et origo mali, and is the cause of this alarming deficiency. Last year my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India boasted of the number of recruits he was obtaining, looked forward to the future with hope and confidence, and cheerfully anticipated that the necessary numbers would be forthcoming. He recognised that the Army, whether organised on his system or upon any system, was dependent on its recruits not only for its efficiency, but for its very existence, and no one knew better than he that if at least 45,000 recruits were not obtained annually his scheme would entirely break down. To protect himself against this possible breakdown he changed the terms of enlistment from seven years with the colours and five with the Reserve, to three with the colours and nine with the Reserve. He was warned most emphatically again and again that unless a certain proportion, stated by some at 70 per cent, and by himself at 50 per cent, a year, agreed to extend their term of service that the armies of India and South Africa could not be kept up to the strength below which they could not fall without danger to our position and

  1479
  authority in those vast dominions of the Empire. He believed that by raising the pay of our soldiers from 1s. to 1s. 6d. he would be offering a pecuniary inducement sufficient to secure the re-engagement of the percentage he wanted. Last year I pointed out that the fate of the British Army was a gamble on the sixpence.
  Now, Sir, what has happened? The number of recruits for our Army has fallen from 51,000 to 29,324. There has been a reduction in the infantry of the Line of 18,709, notwithstanding the fact that mounted corps have been closed, and that recruits wishing to enlist had practically only the infantry open to them. Moreover, as the Inspector-General for Recruiting points out, "it is very unsatisfactory to notice a considerable increase of the percentage rejected for various ailments. The percentage is higher than it has been for nine years." And these disturbing figures are all the more remarkable because there has been a slackness in trade with an inevitable increase in the number of unemployed, which hitherto has always meant a corresponding increase in the number of recruits. Now, Sir, I ask the House to look at the very serious state of affairs that is revealed. The Secretary of State for India, reckoning upon an annual supply of recruits amounting to at least 45,000, told us that if his short-service system was to succeed, not less than 50 per cent, out of the 45,000 must agree to extend their term of service, that is to say, he wanted at least 22,500 men per annum to reengage, -whereas it is unfortunately the fact that only 13 per cent, have consented to reengage. Now 13 per cent, of 45,000 amounts to about 6,000 men, so that here we have a shortage of about 16,000 men. But we must remember we have not got our 45,000 recruits, we have only 30,000, and 13 per cent, of that number does not amount to much more than 4,000 men, a number totally and ridiculously inadequate for the purpose of supplying drafts to India and South Africa. I ask the House to look at the figures given in the Answers to Questions yesterday, from which it appears that the number of men in the infantry of the United Kingdom who have extended their service to complete eight years is only 1,405. Surely, I think that
  1480
  everyone will agree that this is a definite matter of urgent public importance.
  The War Office are doing the best they can to meet this desperate situation. They are sending out men to India who have not ten months to serve, and men to South Africa who have not six months to serve, which is a most expensive arrangement, waiting, like Mr. Micawber, "for something to turn up," and hoping that they may be able to persuade men by bribes and doles to reengage in numbers large enough to save them from military bankruptcy. We must all condole with my right hon. friend the Secretary for War in the difficulties with which he is confronted. He is not responsible, he has merely to try and work an unworkable system. He has been set to make bricks without straw, and I feel sure that everyone must extend to him their heartiest sympathy.
  What is to be done? We must revert at once to our old system of enlistment. Under that old system we secured annually from 250,000 to 280,000 years of service. Under the new system we secure annually barely 90,000 years of service, leaving a deficiency of nearly 200,000 years, so that each of the 1,405 would have to serve more than 100 years if that deficiency is to be made up. Is not this statement enough in itself to show us our peril and make us prefer the old system to the new. The old system, with all its defects, gave us at a much smaller cost an Army that could supply the drafts we required for service abroad. It also gave us an efficient Reserve, so efficient that the Secretary for India adopted the short-service system largely because he wanted to fill up his depleted Reserve as rapidly as possible. Under the new system we have failed to get the drafts we require in the attempt to recreate a Reserve, and, if the House will allow me, I will once again quote the very remarkable prediction of Lord Roberts made twenty years ago, which exactly anticipates our present dangerous predicament. He said—
  "We are sacrificing our Army to obtain a Reserve. Any attempt to make the Foreign Service Army subservient to the Reserve must end in failure, and, I confidently predict, in disgrace and disaster."
  The force of these words must come home to us painfully at the present moment, far more so than when I quoted

  1481
  them a year and a half ago. We are indeed sacrificing our Army to obtain a Reserve, and the attempt has ended in failure, but I hope with all my heart that the disgrace and disaster confidently predicted by Lord Roberts may still be averted. Something might be said for this sacrifice if by it we obtained such a Reserve as was built up before the war, and which did such splendid work and proved so invaluable to us during the war. But a Reserve composed of men who have served seven years with the colours is a very different thing to a Reserve composed of men who have served three with the colours. In the one case we get trained, hardy, experienced soldiers thoroughly imbued with the military spirit, who know and take kindly to their work. Can the same be said of three-years men? They become civilians almost as soon as they have learned to be soldiers. They re-enter civil life when they are still very young, and before long would hardly regard themselves as soldiers at all. The knowledge of their military duties stored up during three years would soon be forgotten, and in the event of war we should find that the percentage of men who presented themselves was much smaller, and that the quality and military efficiency of those who did come forward was decidedly inferior to what they have been. And there is this further disadvantage, not to say danger, in the short-service system. We must have the men, for drafts, and if the bribe of an extra sixpence is not sufficient we are inevitably tempted, if not compelled, to increase the bribe, so that practically our Army may be at the mercy of the men whom we place almost in the position of being able to make their own terms. Is this a safe or dignified position for the country to occupy, to say nothing of the expense in which we should be involved? In the Question I put on the Paper yesterday, I asked my right hon. friend if the number of those who had agreed to extend their term of service was sufficient to supply the necessary drafts for India and South Africa for the next twelve months. To that Question he made no reply, and the inference is obvious. I wish to make no attack on my right hon. friend. I have great confidence in his judgment and experience, and few men have rendered such
  1482
  signal services to the cause of Army reform as he has done. I feel sure he would like to act and act quickly, as no one is better aware than he that this condition of doubt and uncertainty into which the hesitation and indecision of the Government have plunged the Army and the country is having a very bad effect upon the Army itself. It feels it has been thrown into the melting-pot, and Ministers and Committees sit round it with long sticks all anxious to give it a stir, and each one trying to tilt the pot, so as to pour it out into his own particular mould. No Army in the world could long stand such a process as this, and I feel I need no justification for making this Motion as a means of applying to the Government the force and pressure of public opinion. Surely the Government have had time to make up their minds, or is it that they are so permeated with the policy of unsettled convictions that they have no minds to make up? It has come to be considered in some quarters that the highest achievement in politics is to halt gracefully between two opinions, and that the true test of statesmanship is to serve God and Mammon at the same time without declaring yourself on the side of either. However well this may answer in some matters, it is fatal as regards the Army.
  What is the position? We fought a great war, out of which, after many reverses, after much tribulation, after a great sacrifice of life, after an immense dissipation of our national resources, from the effects of which we are suffering grievously to-day, we emerged victorious. During the course and progress of the war, the Army was reorganised by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India upon a German basis, and, with a loud fanfare of trumpets, six Army Corps came into being. They flourished in the Army List, and figured in the Estimates, but, after a brief and troubled existence, they came to an untimely end, and might claim as their own the well-known epitaph—
  "If I was so soon to be done for,
  I wonder what I was begun for."
  We all wonder that now. But let us proceed with our story. In fulfilment of pledges, reluctantly given by the Government to stave off criticism while the war was going on, at the conclusion of the

  1483
  war a Committee was appointed on 11th October, 1902, to sit and inquire into the military preparations and other matters connected with the war in South Africa. They ended their labours and reported on 9th July, 1903. During that period they collected an immense mass of useful information, and, founded upon that information, they presented a Report, which, though couched in the most careful and moderate language, has been generally accepted by the public as reflecting severely upon much that preceded the war, and upon many things that took place during the war, and as forming a weighty indictment of our existing system of Army organisation. The publication of that Report threw the public into a state of great uneasiness, which would have probably been far more pronounced and acute, had not the Tariff Reform agitation diverted their minds into other channels. But that Report, and the evidence in support of it, still remained for the consideration of the Government, and no Government worthy of the name could have refused to give it their most earnest and serious attention. For nearly a year that Report has been under the eyes of the Prime Minister, of the Cabinet, of the Defence Committee, and of the War Office, and surely they have had ample time for the digestion and assimilation of its contents and conclusions. But that is not all. The Prime Minister, and the Cabinet, and the Defence Committee, and the War Office did not venture to rely on their own unassisted wisdom. Apparently this was a matter that was too hard for them, so they called into counsel a Committee of Three, and from them sought enlightenment and instruction. This was a brilliant idea on the part of the Government, for if the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and the Defence Committee and the War Office were enable to make up their minds, the Committee of Three had no doubt whatever about theirs, and went to work in the most slashing and business-like style, so much so that some of the remarks, with which they accompanied their most valuable recommendations, rather reminded me of the concluding chapter of Revelations in which the most dreadful penalties are invoked upon those who might be presumptuous enough to add to
  1484
  or take away aught from what was written therein. Surely with these textbooks before them, written in such clean strong, straightforward language and containing such a clean-cut plan and system of Army reorganisation one would have thought that the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Defence Committee, and the War Office could have laid their heads together and produced a scheme. From information which I have received, I am led to believe that they did lay their heads together with the result that it was found that there were almost as many schemes as there were heads. The Prime Minister had his scheme, the Defence Committee had its scheme, the War Office had its scheme or its several schemes. The Cabinet was the only body that did not produce a scheme, but I daresay each member of it would have modestly produced his scheme had he been individually consulted in the matter. We are told that in the multitude of counsellors there is safety, but Solomon never told us what would happen if they all counselled different things. But I think we could tell Solomon confusion happens, and doubt, and uncertainty, producing paralysis and almost chaos, where order and method should reign and hearty co-operation for a recognised object.
  One cause of confusion is that so many new men occupy old places. That may be a good or bad thing, and of course they take a little time to settle down to their work, but it is impossible for them to work with advantage or effect unless they work upon some plan and system—I don't want to exaggerate my case. Men are drilling in the Long Valley as usual, and clerks are writing in the War Office as usual, and officials are inditing despatches as usual, and heads of departments are sending long minutes as usual, and money is being spent like water as usual, but all this is no proof that "huge confusion and dismay" does not exist in the War Office and the Army. If I were at liberty to repeat half the statements that have been made to me I should have to detain the House till midnight. But I might sum them up by saying that they all point to much profitless work and much preventable waste. If the Government were not able to work out the details of their scheme

  1485
  they might at least have laid down the broad lines and principles upon which others were to work. But here again there is confusion and uncertainty. To take an illustration. The Norfolk Commission received a communication which they were told was the authoritative expression of the views of the Secretary of State. Two minutes later they were told it was not authoritative, and in reply to their repeated inquiries on this very important question of what forces were required for home defence they were told to work on a basis that was hypothetical and was liable to be changed later on. By their own confession the lack of decided direction greatly hampered and impaired their work. We were led to expect by the Prime Minister that a definite statement would be made on Thursday, 16th June. That statement was postponed, and judging by the reply made by the Prime Minister yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition, we are left entirely in the dark as to when this statement will be made, or whether it will be made at all during the present session. Had the Prime Minister given a pledge that the statement would be made within a reasonable time I would not have moved the Adjournment of the House. But from information that has reached me, I am led to believe that the Government are still casting about for a scheme—much of my information is confidential, but this I am permitted to divulge, that on a certain Wednesday a communication was made to the War Office that a scheme of Army reorganisation was to be produced on Saturday. Certain gentlemen in the War Office were immediately set to work in order to formulate a scheme by Saturday. They tackled this almost impossible task with the utmost zeal and ability, extending their deliberations far into the night, and, wonderful to relate, by Saturday a scheme was forthcoming, and was sent in to the Government. The Government, however, would not accept this scheme, and returned it saying that another scheme was to be produced by Monday. This was too much for the hard-worked gentlemen at the War Office; and having the fear of the Lord's Day Rest Association before their eyes, they declined the task. However, I am given to understand
  1486
  that on Monday they resumed their labours and for aught I know, they are still engaged in hatching schemes. If the matter were not so serious, it would afford material for comedy, but as it is. I am afraid that tragedy is more likely to be the result. The danger is now that we may be served with a hash and hotch-pot of schemes, instead of a scheme carefully thought out in all its details and coherent in all its parts. But I hope for the best, and I rely on my right hon. friend, as I do not think he would remain in office unless he had to administer what he considered a sound and workable scheme.
  But, Sir, if ever there was a matter of urgent public importance, this must undoubtedly be so described. I do not know what line my right hon. friend will take to-night. I only hope he will not take the line adopted by his predecessor in the defence of his Army Corps, and produce an array of statements and figures which serve to obscure the facts of the case, and to hide the real gravity of the situation from the public. I cannot help thinking that if War Ministers had the courage to tell the public the truth about the Army, they would gain a far larger measure of support than they imagine. The British public is a good-natured public. It is never extreme to mark what is done amiss; and I feel convinced it would do its best to help an embarrassed Minister in an embarrassing situation, if only he would frankly take it into his confidence; but as it is, it has a not unfounded suspicion that the Secretary of State for War is apt to make out a case to suit the Parliamentary situation, and to stave off Parliamentary criticism, which does not correspond with the actual state of the Army. It is true that the problem is a difficult one, but it is not impossible of solution. The more I study it with the aid of those who have all the complicated points at their fingers' ends, the more I am convinced that for £25,000,000 you can get a thoroughly well-trained and efficient Army, able to do the work which it is expected to do both at home and abroad. But to get this Army you must go the right way to work, and must consult the sentiments and ideas of the Army itself, and the feelings and

  1487
  opinion of the public. The thing can be done, and it should be done. At present we are working upon the rags and tatters of a discarded scheme, and none of us know where we are. But almost any scheme is better than none; and it is because under this present lack of system the necessary recruits are not forthcoming, and the necessary cohesion and organisation are entirely wanting, that I have taken this step, in the hope that the Government may be stimulated thereby to terminate this period of confusion and uncertainty, and to produce their scheme of Army reorganisation, which I sincerely trust may meet with a better fate, and enjoy a more successful career, than any of its predecessors. I may be told that this Motion is an obstructive Motion. I regret it should bear that character, but in any case I am not alarmed by the charge. I believe that the present state of the Army is a danger to the country. I may be mistaken. I really hope so, but I do not think I am. My heart is wrapped up in this question. I have studied it closely. I have pondered over it long, and I declare to you frankly that the continuance of this or that Party in office is as nothing to me compared with the welfare of the Army. You can give days to the discussion of your Licensing Bills, of your Aliens Bills, of your Education Bills, and it would be monstrous if you grudged three hours for the discussion of the most important question that at the present time can engage the attention of the country. You may condemn me here on these Benches, but I appeal to a larger and more generous public outside and by them I do not believe I shall be condemned. I beg to move.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he rose with pleasure to second the Motion, because he believed that his hon. friend in moving it was discharging in the truest sense, and by no means for the first time, a great public duty. His hon. friends near him cheered when the word "obstructive" was mentioned. Whatever his hon. friends might think with regard to the Motion, he felt confident that the people in the country would not regard it in the same
  1488
  way. He believed the time had arrived when the country should have a clear and definite statement of the Army policy of the Government. What was the position to-day? They knew hardly anything, and the little they knew caused the greatest anxiety and apprehension. It was not his intention to utter a word of attack against his right hon. friend the Secretary for War. This Motion, whether his hon friends considered it obstructive or not, was not a hostile Motion. Its sole object was to elicit a clear and definite statement from the Minister responsible for the Army Department. Questions upon this subject had been put in the House and the Answers which had been given to them had only confirmed that grave anxiety and apprehension. The time had now arrived when some immediate steps should be taken to remedy the evils which undoubtedly existed. It was common knowledge that confusion and chaos reigned at the War Office. Nor was it to be wondered at, for they now had an old scheme, which had been wholly condemned and partially abandoned and partially retained, switched on to a new scheme, which was incomplete and had been brought to an abrupt conclusion. What they wanted to know was when the old condemned scheme was to be removed from the purview of Army organisation, and when the new scheme, so abruptly brought to a conclusion, was to be developed in its entirety. The authors of the new scheme have only guaranteed its success if taken en bloc. The reply which had been given to a recent Question showed that there was cause for apprehension. The trooping season had not begun this year, and yet we saw that in the past year 2,400 drafts had been sent out to India whose service would expire any time between now and two years hence. He did not think it was unreasonable to anictipate that a very small proportion of men would rejoin under the present inducements offered. He wondered what was the expense to the State of sending these soldiers to India and bringing them back again, because this was a matter which the House and the country should take clear note of. There were hundreds and possibly thousands of men going to be sent out to India and the Colonies, each

  1489
  of whom must cost the State anything between£20 and£40.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: £120.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid they must cost the State£20, £40, or£50 more than the normal cost, and that money was wasted if they refused after a short while to re-engage. How in these conditions were we to get the men necessary to supply the establishment in India and the Colonies? We had to supply 70,000 men in India and 20,000in South Africa. While nothing had been done in the way of a new scheme, a serious indication of the tendency was furnished by the proposal that had been made with regard to the reduction of the establishment of the Imperial Yeomanry in this country. Speaking as a member of the Imperial Yeomanry he greatly deplored that reduction.
  MR. SPEAKER: It will not be in order for the hon. Member to discuss that question upon this Motion.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsaid he only pointed out this matter in connection with the Imperial Yeomanry as an indication of the tendency of the new scheme, which was going in the direction of a reduction of a very important and what he regarded as an integral part of the Army in the future. The time had come when the House and the country should have a clear statement of the policy of the Government in regard to the provision of troops for the Indian Empire and the Colonial garrison. It was a grave question, and one which bristled with difficultie, but it was one which must be confronted, and it was with that object that his hon. friend had moved this Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Beckett.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Mr. Speaker, the very terms of the Motion before the House indicate that this debate has a double character. The two portions of the Motion are very dis-
  1490
  similar, and I cannot find any very strict logical connection between them. I do not complain of the fact, but I note it. Possibly the debate also may have a double character. I am inclined to divide hon. Members to whom I desire to reply into two classes. There are those who to some extent agree with me as to the proper methods of treating our great Army problems, and there are those who differ from me. To both those sections I shall endeavour to reply. It is possible that there is a remaining section which will be inclined to discuss this matter from the altogether alien standpoint of Party advantage, and to them I will not address myself. The question of the Army is a sufficiently serious one for us to deal with it on its merits, without reference to any other question. The speech of my hon. friend the Member for Whitby contained a few lapses which I regret, but which I do not think had much to do with the Army; but I am certainly not going to impute to him or the hon. Member who seconded his Motion any motives other than those which they assigned themselves. My hon. friend is an ardent student of problems in which both he and I take an interest, and I shall endeavour to reply to his speech in the same tone in which he has addressed the House.
  I propose to deal first with the question of drafts. The hon. Member who proposed and the hon. Member who seconded this Motion have pointed out that the adoption of the three-years system of enlistment has had a most prejudicial effect in connection with the drafts for our Army across the sea. It would be idle for me to pretend that that system has been to the advantage of our service of drafts to India and the Colonies. I agree with my hon. friend that this matter is a very grave and a very important one. I do not want to say more about the origin of this proposal than that it was one which was absolutely forced on the Government, at the time, by the circumstances which existed at the time. The Government had to deal with a falling market, and my right hon. friend had to consider by what immediate step he could provide for the necessities of the nation. He has, I think, not been rewarded in

  1491
  one sense, but he has been rewarded in another. My hon. friend the Member for Whitby suggested that the result of the change had been that recruiting for the Army had largely fallen off. That is an error. My hon. friend was quoting from a document the figures in which were for nine months only. It is not a fact that the recruiting of the Army has fallen off. It has been steadily maintained. I think it is very much owing to the steps taken by my right hon. friend that the recruiting has not continued to fall off, as at one time it threatened to do. We have got the recruits, but we have not retained the recruits, and that has been the danger of the situation. The danger I have been the first to admit, and, in view of the answers I have already given. I do not pretend that this was other than a danger. This year the recruiting is numerically satisfactory; but it is very difficult to exaggerate the seriousness of the position which has been created by the failure of men to respond to the expectations which had been formed with regard to their retention. I do not know whether all hon. Members are as familiar as I am with the exact character of the engagement into which the soldier now enters. He enters into an engagement for three years at a certain rate of pay and on certain terms of service. At the end of two years he is eligible to extend for a longer period of service at an increased rate of pay. Unless he does extend, he has a right at the end of three years to pass into the Reserve. It is a fact with which I have to deal, and which undoubtedly does cause serious anxiety to myself and those who are working with me, that the extensions of the men have not nearly come up to the anticipations which were formed, and that there has been a very great deficiency in the number of the extensions. In the infantry we should require, in addition to the extensions which have taken place, 9,730 men to extend. In the garrison artillery we should require 775 more men to extend.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: How many men have extended?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The extensions must be divided into two parts. There are the men who have extended
  1492
  after six months of service; and the men who have extended after two years of service and thereby become eligible to get the increased pay given on extension. The total number of those who have actually extended in the United Kingdom is 900. I am speaking of the infantry. Of course we have to consider also the extensions in India, which are very relevant to this discussion. We have had to send to India a number of men who have not yet extended, and who, in some cases, have only ten months to serve. If it were the case that these men were not willing to extend, we should undoubtedly be put to the expense of bringing them back to this country. The expense is less than my hon. friend suggested.
  SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: Can my right hon. friend give us the approximate expense?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think it is about£10 each way and not£150; but whether it be less or more it is, of course, an expense which we ought to endeavour to avoid. Fortunately, the extensions in India have been much more encouraging than the extensions in this country. The extensions in India have been, in cavalry and garrison artillery, perfectly adequate to the needs of the service. I am glad to say the extension of the Royal Artillery at home, and the cavalry also, have been perfectly equal to the needs of the service. There has been a much larger percentage of extensions in India, and the extensions have already reached 54 per cent, of the men who are capable of extending under the two-years rule. But it is a fact that the extensions at home and in South Africa have not reached anything near that point, and that does undoubtedly cause a very serious situation.
  Now, if I am asked what is my conclusion upon this matter, I would say that it is that the system is not one which can be continued with advantage. It is perfectly clear to me that when we consider what are the real needs of the Empire, it will be seen that we cannot indefinitely continue a system which exposes us to the least uncertainty in regard to the organisation of our Army; because, be it remarked, the question

  1493
  of uncertainty is a much more important factor than the actual question of numbers. I have little doubt that a great number of these men will extend; and I am positive of this, that neither I, nor any successor, if I may venture—perhaps I ought not—to speak in the name of any successor, will ever consent to give way to that policy of bribes and doles which my hon. friend has suggested as a remedy for the difficulty in which we find ourselves.
  The remedy is a different one. The remedy for the moment is to find the drafts as best we can and to relieve ourselves from the difficulty as well as the circumstances allow. The difficulty has not become acute; but those who are responsible for the administration of the Army have to look ahead and anticipate the day when it will become acute. But it certainly does not enter into the programme of the War Office to hold out any prospect of bribes or doles to the men who serve. We believe that there is another remedy, and that consists in altering this system and substituting for it one more in harmony with the traditions of our Empire. I may point out in passing that this introduction of the three-years' system has had a very peculiar effect on the drafts for India. It will be seen on reflection that if you do not allow a man to make his election until he has been two years in the service, the period of his departure for India is considerably postponed. A great many men who were the requisite age for India, namely, twenty years, used to go out long before they had completed two years service. Now, a man has the option of waiting for two years of his service before he extends; and the result is that, if the trooping season does not coincide—and very often it does not—with the date of the termination of his two years service, his departure is postponed until something like two and a half years after the date of his enlistment. The result of that is that the period of his service in India and the Colonies is decreased, the period in this country is increased, and the number requisite to furnish the drafts is increased in proportion. I think I have met the hon. Member's Question fairly and openly. My reply is that I am as concerned as he can be as to the
  1494
  possible consequences of the continuance of this system, and I am as convinced as he can be that it is our duty not to attempt to tinker with the system, but to alter it so that we may be free from the uncertainty in advance as to the prolongation of the period of service.
  My hon. friend spoke of the desirability of some pronouncement being made by the Government with regard to their intentions in respect to the Army at large. He suggested that it is my duty to propound a remedy for the evils which I, in common with himself, believe exist in the organisation of the Army. I admit the soundness of that proposition, and I agree with his conclusions. I should like to make it quite clear to hon. Members that, whatever they may think about the times and seasons of my statement on the subject, there is no question at all about the indefinite prolongation of the present system. We feel that there are difficulties connected with the present system which can only be met by an alteration. Therefore, I beg hon. Members to dismiss from their minds the belief that there is any conflict of opinion, or can be any conflict of opinion, upon this question at all. What we are face to face with is not having to make up our minds as to whether a change is necessary or desirable. Many things have happened—among other things the Report of the Commission on the War, which my hon. friend most justly said was a pronouncement which was bound to have weight with any responsible Government—many things have happened which have confirmed some of us in the belief, and created the belief in others, that a change in the organisation and administration of our Army is absolutely essential. I do not agree with the general charge that my hon. friend made as to the existence of chaos in the War Office and the Army. The War Office, as responsible for the Army, has undoubtedly had to go through a time of difficulty and trial, but I would ask the House to remember what has been the task imposed on the War Office and on those who are responsible for its direction. By, I believe, an almost universal desire, a change has been made in the constitution of the War Office. That change has involved very drastic alteration in the constitution of

  1495
  the Department, and those changes have been effected, I believe—despite all that has been said on very slight information and often on no information at all—with the minimum of friction and the maximum of good will.
  I have been reproached for adding to this supposed chaos because in the time that has elapsed since this change was decided upon we have not elaborated the whole of the scheme which I believe, and my hon. friend believes, the War Office ought to carry through. I would ask my hon. friend to put himself in my position—[An HON. MEMBER: "No, don't do that," and cheers and counter-cheers]—I would ask my hon. friend to put himself in my place and to ask himself whether he considered it a bad record. He very justly pointed out—and I entirely sympathise with what he said—what must appear to many of us the almost patent absurdity of some correspondence which took place in connection with the Auxiliary Forces Commission. It is true that when the different Departments of this country were called upon to give coherent information as to the real duties of the forces of the country they were not able to give it. Well, but what is the answer? Is that a new state of things? That has been our infernal heritage from years past; and it is because we believe it to be one of the greatest dangers of this country that the first care of the War Office has been to give effect to the principal recommendation of the War Commission and to form a body which, imperfect as it nay be, and imperfect as may be its knowledge, is yet, as I believe, seeking not without success to give an answer to these very problems which my hon. friend truly pointed out were not solved and could not be solved at the time this Commission was appointed. We have reconstituted the whole staff of the War Office, and if hon. Members knew the complexity of this problem I think they would not be to ready to say that we have been dilatory. But I believe that every hon. Member will consider that the most important part of that task has been accomplished in a way which, I believe for many years to come, the War Office and the country will be glad to recognise.
  1496
  We have also reconstituted and added to the strength of the Intelligence branch of the Army, so as to put it on a level with the wishes of all hon. Members who have felt that we have been lamentably weak in this particular. That is an event only of the day before yesterday; and it may be a couple of months before we are able to go through the necessary preliminaries, to examine the staff of every department, to compare the cost of every change, to obtain the sanction of the Treasury for those changes involving reductions in some cases, and in those which concern the staff, involving an excess of expenditure. I do not believe that the time allotted to us has been long.
  We have been blamed because we have not carried out the reorganisation of the Army throughout the United Kingdom. That is true, but we have given an immense amount of attention and care to this matter. It is obvious that, if we are to reorsanise the entire Army on some basis which is more consonant with the ideas of the House with regard to expenditure and the number and efficiency of men, it would be idle for any department of the War Office to come to a final conclusion as to the allocation and distribution of commands in the United Kingdom, until we could say what the commands would be and the number of men that would be desirable. My hon. friend has rebuked the Government and myself for failure to produce, on a definite basis, the scheme which was to be the redemption of the promise which, I fully admit, I have made myself responsible for. It was a promise that I would produce to the House the scheme which I believe was needed by the necessities of our Empire and which was consonant with the views of the House and the country generally in the matter of expenditure and the efficiency and character of the men. I did not redeem that promise on the particular Thursday which the hon. Member desired; but I would most respectfully remind the hon. Member and the House that this problem is one of some complication.
  It may be said with some fairness that we have been given a good deal of time, but there have been some new facts imported in the situation which have gone some way to complicate it. As the

  1497
  Minister responsible for this Department, I say that there have been added difficulties. We have had the guidance of the Committee of Defence, working, as it is now working, practically and vigorously in the direction we wish to see it work. We have their views upon the general problem as to the work the Army has to do outside the United Kingdom, and we have realised that oversea work would be the great demand on our Army. Of all the problems of oversea, the most pressing, the most definite in one sense, the most indefinite in another sense, must be the problem which may arise on the only great land frontier we have. The Indian problem is a very complicated one We have recently had the advntage of having with us a servant of the State who is probably better informed about that problem than any other man in the King's dominions; and we have naturally turned to him to know his opinions on the question. I mean the Viceroy of India.
  We have had another element to consider; we have had another addition to the factors of this problem. We have had the Report of the Auxiliary Forces Commission. It would be out of order if I were to discuss that Report now, and I have not the slightest intention of doing so, but I think it should be known to the House that the view of the Government—and I fully share the view of my colleagues on this matter—is that a portion of this Report is impossible of acceptance; I mean the proposal about conscription, which, if adopted, would add enormously to the expense of our Army. It is not one which can be taken seriously into consideration; but there are points in that Report which deserve the serious consideration both of the House and of the country. I have explained to the House what are the kind of difficulties that meet one in dealing with a task of this magnitude. It was my duty to give this Report careful consideration. I set to work, and I analysed its recommendations. I added to everyone of the recommendations my own views on the questions for what they were worth, and I have circulated these recommendations among the authorities most concerned. That is not an operation that can be undertaken in a day, but it has undoubtedly led to this result; when the
  1498
  effect of these recommendations is examined it is seen that the vast majority of them mean an addition to the expenditure which I believe to be already much too heavy.
  These are some of the complications of the problem with which we have had to deal; and I must ask to be dispensed, at any rate in answer to my hon. friend, from the necessity of naming a day. I believe, as has been said, it will be a very great mistake for any one who dares to face this problem to bring it before the House in anything but what he believes to be a complete condition. I agree absolutely with the dictum, that any proposals ought to deal with this question with a knowledge of its intricacies and details and with a clear grasp also of its principles; and until I am able to fulfil all those conditions it will be premature for me to bring forward proposals.
  I think the problem is clear. We have got to get an Army suited to the needs of the country and the Empire. We have got to have an efficient Army in the first place. That is an absolutely dominating condition. The second thing is to make very large reductions in our Army expenditure. I believe, when I say that, I am representing the opinions of nine-tenths of the Army Members of this House. I believe there is almost absolute unanimity in this House, and a very large consensus of opinion out of the House, that we must have large reductions in our Army expenditure. The resources of this country are limited. Quite apart from that fact, I believe there is a new and better school of thought dictating the arrangements of our defensive and offensive forces, which would rather contribute any additional expenditure we were able to incur to another branch of the defensive forces rather than the Army. And there is a third problem, which I do not say rises superior to, but to a certain extent dominates the other two. To reduce the cost of the Army you must reduce the strength of the Army; and when you come to reduce the strength of the Army you must reduce A, B, C, D, B, or F—something already existing in the Army; and it is an addition to the problem which I have to attempt to solve that the reductions must

  1499
  be such as will commend themselves to the general feeling and general acceptance of this House, will make our Army efficient, and at the same time will be consistent with sound economy. I do not despair at all. I believe with my hon. friend that the problem is soluble. If I did not believe that I should not be here. I am quite well aware of the indulgence with which I have been treated, not only by my hon. friends, but by the House. The House may be perfectly sure that I shall not overstay my welcome. I am as convinced as my hon. friend can be that this question of the Army is one of absolutely paramount importance, and that it must be dealt with, and—for the reasons he has given and for many other reasons—drastically and soon. I am sanguine enough to believe that I can suggest a remedy which shall be fully acceptable to the House and the country. If I did not believe that I should certainly not trespass further on the good will of my hon. friend. But I will ask him, if he will give me that indulgence, not to press me unduly, and at any rate to remember that the problem is complex, and, if he finds me fail, to remember that I shall be as conscious of the failure as he can be. I shall, at any rate, not ask him to accept anything which I do not believe to be in the true interests of the Army and which does not conduce in every respect to its best administration.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken throughout in a tone which commands the sympathy and respect of the House. He only said one thing which I wish he had not said—when he implied that there was some section of Members who were treating this as a Party question and bringing it forward for Party purposes. I have known Motions on the Army brought forward for Party purposes and in a Party way, but I can lay my hand on my conscience, wherever it is (Laughter)—no particular organ has ever been pointed as the habitat of the conscience—and assert that I have never said a word which had a Party tendency on the subject, and I have even avoided saying things and bringing forward
  1500
  matters when I thought it was not my duty to bring the interests of the Army into the Party arena.
  I am very glad that my hon. friend the Member for Whitby has taken the step he did to-night, although it may have laid him open to the animadversions of some of his friends on the other side, because it is already justified by some information which the right hon. Gentleman has given us. The right hon. Gentleman said the Motion was of a double character; it dealt with two questions which were really to a large degree separate from each other. I would go further and say the questions raised are three. There is first of all the question of the failure in the drafts for India, a most serious and urgent matter, and in itself justifying the attention of the House being called in this somewhat irregular way to the circumstances of the hour. There is the question of the reorganisation of the War Office; and there is the question of the reorganisation of the Army, which is a totally different matter, although it is often in the minds of men confused.
  I will first say a few words with regard to the failure in the drafts. I think that ought to have been anticipated and indeed expected. The Secretary of State for India introduced the new term of service under the pressure of circumstances, but I think he introduced it merely as an experiment, not being himself perfectly sure what the result would be. For my part, I would say, I have never regarded the result as likely to be good from the first. I have always advocated, from this place and from the other, elasticity of engagement, elasticity of service, and the due admixture of long and short service; but I have always viewed with suspicion and apprehension any attempt to have a secondary engagement—a primary short engagement and then a secondary longer engagement arising out of that. The reverse is the course to take, the course that has been taken with success for years—that you should engage the man for the longer period, but let him away at the conclusion of a shorter period if the circumstances of his battalion or unit, as the phrase is, and his own conduct and the general requirements of the

  1501
  service admit of it. To engage a man for short service and to do so with the knowledge on his part that you are depending on him for the maintenance of your foreign Army—on his re-engaging for a longer term—is to place yourself at his mercy; and if you find, a great reluctance for any reason—it may be good or it may be bad, it may be the idea that perhaps a bounty may be extorted from the needs of the Administration, or any other motive that you like—that is in itself a fatal condemnation of the system. However, we need not discuss that much longer, because the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it has not succeeded and that it must be departed from. He has not told us what he proposes to put in its place. That will also be a part of the new organisation of the Army of which we have heard so much.
  Now I pass to the other question. The right hon. Gentleman has not carried us much further in what he has said with regard to the organisation either of the Army or of the War Office than where we were left at the beginning of the session. I think he began his recital on that occasion by saying, "Story, God bless you, I have none to tell, Sir." I think "Story, God bless you, I have none to tell, Sir," is very much what he has said to us to-night on the larger question, on which not only this House and the Army, but the country, is impatient to know the decision of the Government. Let me call the attention of the House to the position of the Government in this matter. This is no ordinary Government. This is not a Government which, finding itself in office, and some new subject and new anxieties arising, has to deal with them afresh. This Government came into power, or remained in power, on purpose to reform the Army, declaring to everybody that they were the only people in the world who could reform the Army. Have they had time? Have they been pressed? Has the Opposition, whom they have always treated with scant respect—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No," and "Withdraw"]—I do not mean personal respect, but scant respect looking upon it as an Opposition, regarding it as almost unworthy of their attention—has the Opposition put any impediment in their way? Has it pressed
  1502
  upon them to come to any premature conclusion? Has it interfered with them in any way? Not at all. They have had ample time. They have had an overwhelming majority in this House. They have had a docile House of Lords. They have had every opportunity, every advantage. Three years have passed, and it is not unnatural that we should expect that they should now be ready with some sort of scheme.
  I will not go into the question of the Royal Commission which sat and of the proceedings which followed their Report. But, however it arose, at the beginning of this session we were startled by the most revolutionary proceedings being applied to the War Office. Three gentlemen of great eminence were appointed who were able in a month to produce a new War Office and to lay down, with regard to almost every particular, all the details of the reorganisation of that Office; and, as the hon. Member opposite pointed out, they made it—what is surely unusual on the part of any Committee—a condition that every part of their recommendation should be adopted, otherwise the whole scheme would fall. This was a very startling event. It was a lightning-like revolution followed by action on the part of the Government, who accepted a large part of the recommendations of that Committee at once. I have ventured on many occasions to put before the public what seemed to me to be the comic side of this transaction. I see its comic side very strongly still—the almost unnatural and miraculous rapidity with which this little Committee was able to elaborate a scheme and the action of the Government in accepting a great part of it and proceeding summarily to eject from office in the War Office many of the most experienced and trustworthy men in it, civilian and military, with scant courtesy, I believe [MINISTERIAL cries of "No!" and OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] and to replace them by new nominees, entirely new men. I am one who, like the Government, approve of many of the recommendations of the small Committee; I have always been in favour of assimilating the administration of the military and naval forces of the country as far as it can possibly be done; but the two services differ materially in many respects.

  1503
  I do not see how their organisation can be made anything like identical, but so far as it can be done it ought to be done. There were, however, a great many other things that were open to doubt; and to those of us who had some knowledge of the working of the old system there were proposals which did not give promise of successful and efficient working. But, then, we wanted to know from the Government how much of this system they were going to adopt, and we do not know that to this day. The Committee was incited, or invited, or, at all events, allowed, to publish to the world these summary conclusions in a stand-and-deliver fashion. The Government ought not to have been a party to that proceeding unless prepared within a very short time to say how much of the recommendations they approved and how much they did not. But we do not know to this day what they approve. The right hon. Gentleman says they have no been idle. He says that the day before yesterday—which I think was a Sunday—they appointed a great number of new officers in the Intelligence Department. I am very glad to hear it; but I do not think it is such a wonderful thing to have selected a number of able men to fill these posts. What we want to know is the principles which they have accepted, the principles of organisation to which they have said Aye or No; and we are entirely in the dark to this day on that subject. Notwithstanding the extraordinary haste, as I have said, with which the recommendations were concocted by the Committee and issued to the public, the Government hung fire; and to this day we do not know what they approve and what they do not approve. That is the point on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been able to give some more information. He says that they have found the problem very complicated, but that is the problem of the organisation of the Army, and not the problem of the War Office.
  The problem of the War Office is a comparatively simple problem. It amuses me to find so much stress laid on the perplexity of the case. The Prime Minister, after studying the question for three or four years and having placed himself at the head of the Imperial Council of Defence because of his interest
  1504
  in the subject, only discovered between a Tuesday and a Wednesday that this was a very complicated problem, because, when he came to explain that the Secretary of State could not make his statement, he said, "I have to confess to the House that I find it a much more complicated problem than I expected." Well, I should have thought that the complexity was in full degree within his knowledge long before. Yet this day was appointed for the explanation by the right hon. Gentleman of this new Army scheme, and it was only at the last moment that the intention was abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman has told us nothing about it; we are left entirely in doubt and bewilderment as to what the cause of delay can be, because, as I say, the Government have been doing nothing else for the last three or four years but considering Army reform. They were put into power for nothing else, they were put into power to settle affairs in South Africa—I will not go back on the question whether the war was ended—and to reform the Army. Here they have been reforming the Army ever since; but between a Tuesday and a Wednesdays the right hon. Gentleman discovers that it is a very complicated problem. I think there must be some other cause besides that. I am not of a suspicious nature, but my ingenuousness does not carry me so far as to make me think that is the real reason. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War says there is no conflict of opinion at all. I did not understand among whom he meant, because he speaks for so many people. Does he speak as a member of the Army Council, or as a member of the Cabinet, or as a member of the Council of Imperial Defence, when he uses the word "we"? What particular "we" is it he means?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I speak for all three.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Then this is the most remarkable circumstance ever related by a Minister in the House of Commons, when he, belonging to these three separate bodies, who might be expected to take different views on the matter before them, says there is no

  1505
  conflict of opinion. If there is no conflict of opinion, then we may ask, "Why tarry the wheels of his chariot?" We are not allowed to-day, and it would not be profitable for us to do so, to enter on the merits of this question; I am not going; to say a word as to what I think of any possible scheme that may be adopted for the War Office or the Army; but surely, when all are agreed, we are entitled to be taken into their confidence, and as we have never hurried them—hustled them, I think, is the term used—we ought to be treated a little better than we have been treated. The right hon. Gentleman has not even indicated that some day during what is left of this session, be it long or short, a full statement will be made on this subject. I need not say it will have to be a full statement. The right hon. Gentleman has very properly said he did not wish, and certainly it would not be right, to bring this great question before the House in a partial way; but after three years of cogitation and after having fixed a day for the statement two or three weeks ago what on earth prevents the right hon. Gentleman from naming some approximate time when we may expect to receive the information we require? I think the hon. Member for Whitby is entirely justified, not only by what he has said as to the urgency of the matter, but also because of the nature of the speech we have just heard—entirely justified in the course he has taken in calling the attention of the House to this most important matter.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I do not propose to long detain the House with any reply that requires to be made to the speech just delivered; but some remarks I think I ought to make, and I begin by saying that I think the attack the right hon. Gentleman has made on my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India in connection with the alterations he made in regard to enlistment was surely made in complete oblivion of the circumstances in which the change was made. We were in the midst of a great conflict in which it was requisite, in which it was absolutely necessary for the interests of the country that recruits should be obtained
  1506
  for service in the Army. Everybody knows the difficulties under which any country labours which has to raise a large I army by voluntary enlistment, because that necessarily means the country must go into the market and can only obtain the commodity required at market price. My right hon. friend was face to face with the most difficult problems a Minister for War could have to deal with; and in such circumstances—if the House has sufficient historic memory to recollect to what straits the Government of this country was reduced during the Crimean War and to what devices they had to resort before they could obtain, I will not say recruits from England, Scotland, or Ireland, but the services of anybody at all to help them to carry on warlike operations—they will feel that the plan adopted by my right hon. friend in the situation in which he found himself did the highest honour to his constructive ingenuity. Whether it be or be not possible to continue it as part of our permanent system, it at all events got us out of a great national crisis without friction and without dishonour. Those who remember the circumstances in which this change was made will realise the difficulties to be met, and will be forced to do honour to my right hon. friend for the courage he showed. However, this part of the case, if I may judge by the general course of the debate, is not the matter in which the House is chiefly interested to-night. If I may judge from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down what he is anxious about is what I may perhaps, without offence, describe as the Party aspect of this question [MINISTERIAL cries of "Hear, hear!" and OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] by which I do not mean, and I hope the House will not think I mean, that the right hon. Gentleman is not earnestly interested in Army matters, genuinely interested apart from any Party purpose in Army matters, but the particular debate to-night has not been for the purpose of advancing an Army discussion; it was not for that the adjournment was moved.
  MR. BECKETT: After the speech of the Secretary for War I think the Prime Minister is hardly justified in making that remark.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite follow my hon. friend's interruption. The Secretary of State for War has made a most interesting contribution to the debate, and my hon. friend may have the whole credit of that speech to himself. I can assure my hon. friend and the House in general that whenever an adjournment of the House is moved I think there will be an interesting speech from this Bench. But I do not think that is an adequate justification for moving the adjournment of the House. If we are to deal with these larger Army problems, I do not think we can do so on a Motion for the adjournment of the House; and I hope my hon. friend will allow me to say that I had no intention of referring to him in the observation which I made as to the motives for a Motion for adjournment—I was alluding to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, quite justifiably in my opinion.[OPPOSITION cries of "He did not move it."] He made a speech on it, a very interesting speech; but I shall venture to observe to the House that it seemed to me quite naturally in the circumstances, not to be so much a contribution to the general solution of the Army problem—
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was not allowed to enter into the merits of the Army problem. What we have to allude to is the conduct of the Government.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has, as I should have expected, put what I was endeavouring to say in my stunted fashion in far more pointed language than I aspire to, and has given a complete answer to the hon. Gentlemen behind him. The right hon. Gentleman admits that it is not the Army problem that he called attention to, it is the conduct of the Government. [Cheers and counter-cheers, and OPPOSITION cries of "You are responsible."] I happened to describe that as looking at it from a Party point of view. I do not know whether that is an excessive phrase. When the Leader of the Opposition says he is calling attention to the failings of the Government—which is his duty—that may be described by many epithets, but I think that probably the best description of it is that
  1508
  he is taking Party view, and that is all I said.
  What is this attack which the right hon. Gentleman is making upon the Government? I cannot for the life of me make out whether it is because we have been too quick or because we have been too slow. [OPPOSITION cries of "Both."] How is it possible to please an audience so fastidious? Whatever the particular velocity of your movement may be, it is either too slow for their taste or too quick for them. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that we have been incubating an Army scheme for three years, and therefore we ought to have it ready. Well, Sir, within the last six months there have been two important Reports of two great Commissions, putting the Esher Commission altogether on one side; there have been the Report of the War Commission and the Report of the Commission upon the Auxiliary Forces.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANinterjected a remark which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend, who came into office in October, came in immediately after the Report of that Commission was in the hands of the public. I ask, is it reasonable that he should bring forward a scheme which had been in incubation for three years, before he accepted office and before he saw that Report? Is it reasonable that the Government should have time to take into account all these recommendations and all the further information that has come upon us within the last six months? We have never suggested to the House, so far as I know, in the first two-thirds of the years to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, that in our opinion the time had come for a change in a system which, to do him justice, he has systematically and consistently defended from the time when he first had some experience of the War Office. Nor do I think that we should be well advised in recommending to this House any fundamental alteration in that scheme until we have all the available information before us, and until the fullest consideration has been given to the

  1509
  complicated problem that any such change necessarily involves. Sir, it is possible to reform an old scheme the principles of which are still accepted without very prolonged consideration, or without any very elaborate estimate of the relations between the various parts of the whole instrument on which we rely for Imperial defence. But when once you come to the conclusion that the old system requires something more than mere reform—requires alteration—then I do not think it for the interest of the country that we should unduly hasten our decision, and I do not think it would be for the interests of the House that we should make any premature statement upon the changes that we propose to make.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My point is that the right hon. Gentleman named the day. If all that the right hon. Gentleman says is true, why did lie promise to tell the House all about it on 15th June?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not notice that that point formed an integral part of the Motion for Adjournment. I am quite ready to deal with it. What is the day of the month? It is a fortnight since this breach of promise was committed. According to the right hon. Gentleman we have been incubating this scheme for three years.
  MR. KILBRIDE: When will you hatch the egg?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When the period of incubation is three years a fortnight makes very little difference.
  MR. KILBRIDE: The egg is addled then.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And that really is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman. Does it matter either to the House or to the country or to the Army whether a scheme is propounded to the public on 15th June or 15th July? It matters nothing whatever. It his no relation whatever to this year's Estimates. It has no relation to any action which has to be taken by the House during the course of the present session. It is a
  1510
  general statement of our views, which is as good in the month of July as it is in the month of June, and would be as good in June as it would have been in the month of May. All that this House need take to heart is this. We are doing our very best to deal with a problem the complexity of which I suspect most of the Members I am addressing have very small notion of. It involves something much more serious than a mere slight modification of this or that traditional plan; and the least I think that ought to be granted us is that, provided we can do so while the House is still an effective body, and before it has dissipated itself for the autumn recess, we should produce a scheme which represents our matured reflections upon this difficult subject. I have never suggested for one moment that there were any difficulties in the way of that except the complexity of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked the Government for a purely imaginary failure. He has fallen, as, perhaps, we are all apt to fall when we are not in the secret, into the illusion that the Cabinet is divided between those who like the old system and those who like the new system, and that it is because they are so divided that the scheme was not propounded on 15th June. I think the mistake is a natural one, and I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for making the best of it. But it happens to be a mare's nest. Cabinets have often been divided—as the right hon. Gentleman well knows—and they may have been divided upon very fundamental points of policy. This Cabinet is not divided upon any fundamental point of policy connected with the Army, and if it were not outside the terms of the Resolution I would let them into the secret that it is not divided upon any fundamental point whatever. But that is not what is before us now. What is before us is the insinuation or the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, made no doubt in perfect good faith, that we are divided on the question as to whether the old system should be retained or whether a new system should be substituted for it. We are all of one mind that a new system must be found in accordance with the new situation and the new difficulties which are confronting us at home and abroad. The old system

  1511
  —I have not a word to say against it—was well suited for the time when it was established and for the military and naval views—military views, at all events—that then prevailed. But that system, in our judgment, is not suited to the new lines and the new views. While that view is taken, certainly by myself and my right hon. friend, I can assure the House and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not on that point that any difference exists in the Cabinet. The difficulties are difficulties of detail and of detail alone; and if it is my unhappy fate to have to tell the House that we shall not be able to make any important disclosures on the subject either in the course of this week or next week, it is not to be taken as showing the smallest question of our power to give to the House a clear account of our genera] views as to Army reorganisation or as in any sense damping the ardour of my right hon. friend, who, I am confident, will at no distant date be able to address the House at length on this topic.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Prime Minister was under the impression that this Motion was not put down for the purpose of Army reform. Surely his hon. friend the Member for the Whitby Division did not deserve the taunt that this Motion was not brought forward in the interests of Army reform. His hon. friend it was who led the opposition to the Army Corps scheme of the Secretary of State for India. He was supported by a large minority of the House; and that minority was now a majority. All hon. Members now accepted the views which his hon. friend then put forward. His hon. friend was one of many of them who were prepared to give support to the Government in absolutely revolutionising the present military system; and he did not think his hon. friend deserved the taunt of the prime Minister or the cheers with which it was received. When his hon. friend asked leave to move the adjournment there was not a single dissentient voice, which was most unusual.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said No.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that Mr. Speaker did not hear any dissentient voice.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I heard the right hon. Gentleman say No.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he would withdraw that statement. Neither himself nor hon. Members sitting near him, however, heard any dissentient voice. The Motion related to the terrible deficiency in the Indian and South African drafts and to the urgent necessity for an immediate statement by the Government of their plan. With regard to the Indian drafts, they had no reason to suppose that the present Secretary for War had changed the views he had always expressed, and those were the views of his hon. friend opposite, and the views which the reformers in that House had always entertained. Those were the views which he believed would prevail. The problem, however, had been enormously complicated by the deficiency in the South African drafts, as to which not a word had been vouchsafed. In order to save the finance of South Africa we had ceased to employ there the force of constabulary which had been thought necessary, with the result that the Army at present, to the destruction of its efficiency and discipline, and to the infinite damage of recruiting, was being sent to South Africa to do duties which the constabulary were intended to perform. Those who had opposed the South African War, largely in Imperial interests, because they foresaw what a heavy drain would be made for garrisons after the war, had not foreseen that result. Half a battalion was posted here, in an unhealthy station, and another half battalion there, on the top of mountains; Sir William Butler himself had called South Africa the great recruit-killer of the British Army at the present time.
  The Prime Minister had fenced with the Questions of the Leader of the Opposition as to the change of intention on the part of the Government. At the beginning of the session the Prime Minister had volunteered the statement that they should have two considerable debates—one on the creation of the

  1513
  nucleus of the Committee of Imperial defence, and the other on the Government's Army scheme. Then came the occasion to which the Leader of the Opposition had referred, when the Prime Minister made his announcement, and alleged the Report of the Norfolk Commission as the reason for further delay. Now, the Secretary for War had stated that there were new facts, and had only very gently alleged the Report of the Norfolk Commission, because, of course, they all knew that the nature of that Report was known for months before the Report was made. The right hon. Gentleman had also alleged the presence in this country of the highest authority on India. Lord Curzon. But, with Lord Roberts, Sir William Nicholson, and Sir Ian Hamilton recently at the War Office, there could hardly be much that was new to be learnt from Lord Curzon. They knew that there was a conflict of opinion in the Cabinet. The Secretary for India up to the moment when he left the War Office held one set of views, and the present Secretary for War held a diametrically opposite set of views; and if that conflict was at an end it could only be by those who held the views which the Government held up to last autumn coming round to the views of the present Secretary for War. The Motion for adjournment was amply justified by the speech of the Secretary for War. In another place the Under-Secretary for War was authorised to say that the Government would adopt the suggestions as to the reduction of the Regular Army at home. The Secretary of State had attacked the problem from another side and had spoken of a very large reduction of the charge. Putting these two statements together, it was clear that the Government scheme was ready. The question was whether the whole Cabinet was for the scheme. He could not but think the difficulties were not really Army difficulties, but personal difficulties which prevented the scheme being put before the House. The matter did not involve the War Office alone. It involved the general consideration of the whole problem of national defence. And when the right hon. Gentleman told them that the Cabinet had decided to greatly reduce the cost of the home Regular Army, it meant that the opinion of the Admiralty had
  1514
  really prevailed over the opinion of the War Office on the question. He thought the Prime Minister was largely to blame for the confusion to which the question of Army reform had been reduced. The right hon. Gentleman at the time the Army Corps scheme was promulgated declared that the problem which had to be met was the invasion of the country. Now the right hon. Gentleman pronounced views of a diametrically opposite nature. If the Government had from the first accepted the view of the Admiralty, that the country was free from the fear of invasion owing to the predominance of the Fleet, this confusion and the cost to the taxpayer of the chopping and changing from system to system would have been avoided.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid that the difficulty was to obtain the Indian reliefs under the three-years system. They knew perfectly well that if a man with ten months service was sent to India, and then brought back at the end of a year, that the country could not stand the cost. When the soldier had been acclimatised it would be time to bring him home. The man whom the Government wished to re-engage knew his own value, and put up his price to an impossible extent; and, therefore, he had to be brought back. No one could blame the present Secretary of State for War in this matter. It was not his ewe lamb at all. He did not think that the present Secretary of State for India could be blamed either. The right hon. Gentleman found that the three-years service worked well in the Foot Guards. The men re-engaged without bounties; and the right hon. Gentleman naturally thought that he had only to hold up his hand to get as many men as he wanted. He was wrong; but the mistake was a pardonable one. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, forgotten that it was one thing to ask a man in the Foot Guards to re-engage where his duties were at Wellington Barracks or Hyde Park, and another to ask a man to re-engage for service in the tropics. The difficulty could only be met by the scheme which had been propounded again and again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean—a long-service Army for

  1515
  India with higher pay, and a short-service Army for this country. Several plans had been propounded as to how the men were to be got. Lord Wolseley the other day said that the men must be paid the average wages of artisans in this country. That was, however, a counsel of perfection. Then the Commission suggested conscription; but he thought that the water was quite hot enough already. There were, however, other plans. The resources of civilisation were not exhausted. It was not at all necessary to pay enormous bounties in order to get the men to re-engage. It would be a great step in the right direction if the soldier serving in India were given to understand that after long service or good conduct he would be absolutely entitled to demand civil employment from the Government. He knew it would be difficult; but he did not see why it could not be done. Again, it ought to be right well rubbed in that the soldier led a decent, clean, and honourable life. Further, all State schools ought to have drill—not necessarily military drill—in order to accustom boys to soldiering in a harmless kind of way. He knew there were objections. For instance, that august body the London County Council—
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. and gallant Member was going beyond the Motion on the Paper.
  SIR CARNE RASCHsaid he would not pursue the matter. Another point was that employers constantly refused to employ men because they were Reservists. He suggested that they should be told that if they continued to do that they would have to shoulder the rifle themselves. The only way to avoid conscription was to make the service popular in these small details. There were two other matters he was almost ashamed to bring before the House, because they were so absolutely trifling in themselves, but they carried great weight with the soldier, viz., "bell-bottoms" and "quiffs." When a man went on furlough, in order to improve his appearance he frequently cut a triangular piece out of the end of the trouser leg so that it would shape over the foot. On his return to the regiment the adjutant would make him either have
  1516
  a new pair of trousers or get the old ones altered back to their original state, an operation which meant probably a couple of months pay. Why should not the soldier be left alone in regard to these small details? A "quiff" was the fringe of hair worn under the forage cap. It did no harm to anybody, and why should not the colonel allow it to be worn? These were wretched details, but they exercised a considerable influence on recruiting. The Secretary of State for War had a long and hard row to hoe. He had to keep a large Army in the tropics; he had a small Army at home, which, according to many people, left much to be desired; and he had to deal with an unwarlike population. Having to work with these unpromising materials, the right hon. Gentleman deserved all the time the House could afford him and all the consideration he could get.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid the House had listened to an interesting and pleasant debate. It was satisfactory that the Prime Minister had assured them that the Cabinet were not less united on the subject of Army reform than they were on any other great question now before the country. A pleasing feature of the debate had been the frank and manly speech of the Secretary for War which was admirably calculated to disarm criticism and to produce such an effect on the House that it almost seemed ungracious to press the indictment against the Government. But he did not think that they ought to allow the effect of that speech to blind them to the real issues raised by the Motion. The Secretary for War had not any direct reponsibility for the circumstances that produced the present situation, and he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman did not attempt to deny how grave those circumstances were. The Motion raised two distinct issues—first, the delay in presenting to the House the new Army scheme, and, secondly, the question of the reliefs for our foreign garrisons. It was surely not unreasonable that the House should be anxious about the production of the Army scheme. They were told at the beginning of the session that the question of the reform of the Army was of such urgency that in order to bring the matter forward with the least possible

  1517
  delay, officers in high positions had been removed from their appointments; and, moreover, the House was induced to vote Estimates which were practically Estimates in dummy, containing Votes for offices which had been abolished, and for new offices which had been created, but in regard to which no explanation had been forthcoming. The breakdown in the reliefs for India was perhaps even more urgent and important. The supply of drafts for India was the first and most vital duty of the Secretary for War, and it was admitted that there was a grave difficulty in the way of carrying on that supply.
  How had the difficulty arisen? He had heard with amazement the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the alteration in the system of Army service was made for the purpose of finding men to continue fighting the South African War. He saw the Secretary for India opposite. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would assert that he made the alteration from seven years to three years colour service with that primary object. If hon. Members would read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman on the introduction of the change, they would find that the war, which had been put forward by the Prime Minister as the one cause of the change, played a very small part, if any, in the right hon. Gentleman's argument. But they knew the rhetorical ability of the Prime Minister, and the case with which he could turn such a point to debating advantage. He had employed it to pass off this great Army change as one of the disorganisations that resulted from the struggle in South Africa. The present situation was the logical and the inevitable result of the Army scheme of 1901. When the scheme was introduced it was prophesied that the men would not be found to fill the cadres. The right hon. Gentleman proposed two great alterations which were the sources of our immediate difficulty—increase of pay and an alteration in the period of service. In so far as any general approval was given to the scheme by unofficial Members, it was extorted by the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman that so far as human
  1518
  prescience could foretell the men would re-engage when the time came. The actual facts had singularly belied the forecast. Both proposals had been an utter failure. The increase of pay had not brought more or better men into the Army, and the alteration of the period of service had not fulfilled the expectations which had been held out. The House realised at the time the great burden that would be cast on India. The right hon. Gentleman looked at the matter from a very different point of view now. A burden of£700,000 or£800,000 was cast upon the finances of India, and there was now the charge of bringing men home from India frequently within a few months of their arrival. If the administrative deadlock continued he would not be surprised if India were called upon to pay a further bounty to tide over the difficulty.
  All these things had been foreseen. A year and a half ago the hon. Member for Whitby described the whole proceeding as a gamble on a sixpence. Last year a proposal was made to reduce the Army by 27,090 men, and the right hon. Gentleman described it as the most reactionary proposal of the last fifteen years. Would he repeat that statement now to the Secretary for War? If so, he imagined the House would shortly be able to estimate the unity of the united Cabinet on Army reform. The responsibility for the difficulty which had arisen lay entirely upon the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for India. Through no fault of his own, the Prime Minister was not present. He did not wish to attack the Prime Minister in his absence, but when they reflected on the contradictory positions which he had repeatedly assumed, when they remembered that at the beginning of the session he sent the Report of the Esher Commission to the papers on account of its urgency and the immediate necessity for considering it, and that now he expressed surprise that anyone should want to discuss it at all, when they considered that last year he resisted all reductions in the strength of the Army and suggested that those who moved it were unpatriotic—when they remembered how he had used menacing language about the threatened invasion of India by a

  1519
  Power upon its north-west frontier, and before the year closed had defended a much larger reduction of the Army than had been proposed in the Committee—when they reviewed all these contradictory positions, assumed as the exigencies of Party politics dictated, he submitted they were bound to admit that the Prime Minister had no right to pose in the country as an Army reformer. No part of the indictment which could be framed against the present Administration was stronger or more capable of coherent statement than that which related to their Army policy. Rather than admit that the scheme introduced in 1901 was wrong, they had been willing to cast the whole service into the melting-pot, to spend any quantity of public money, and, when occasion required it, even to break generals according to their convenience. There was confusion at the War Office and widespread unrest and uncertainty throughout the Army. Regimental officers hardly dared to embark with care and patience upon the task of training their men, because they were in a state of uncertainty as to whether the whole service would not be changed from top to bottom. He had heard more than one great officer say that he had no certainty that his appointment would not be cancelled if the cancelling were likely to improve the position of the Government in a division in the House of Commons. The phantom Army Corps remained phantom Army Corps; the skeleton units were still unclothed with flesh, although largely increased sums had been spent on the service; the Army was still deficient in artillery and intelligence.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question of Army reform is not before the House. The question is whether or not the Government ought to be ready with a scheme.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid he was merely endeavouring to justify the Motion, but he had now finished with that part of the case. The cause of the present position was not far to seek. At the very time when the Army needed most of all a period of recuperative repose after the great strain to
  1520
  which it was subjected in the war it had been made the victim of a number of vast and reckless experiments. He admitted that those experiments were dictated partly by ill-directed zeal for the Empire, and partly by an unfounded apprehension as to the security of the dominions beyond the seas, but they were also dictated by a desire to have something which could be put before Parliament session after session in order to distract attention from administrative shortcomings—experiments rendered possible only by a willingness on the part of the late Secretary for War and the Prime Minister to use, when occasion made it convenient, the interests and the fortunes of the Army as a pawn in the Party game.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have heard a good many speeches which at different times during this session have made reflections on the policy which I have at different times introduced to the House; and I should not have risen now to reply to the hon. Member for Oldham, who has spoken in so different a strain from that of many who have preceded him, if it had not been for his last accusation against the Government, that changes in the Army which have been called for throughout the country, and called for by nobody more loudly than by the hon. Member himself, have been brought forward solely with the desire to put something before the attention of Parliament—a charge which might perhaps be applied to the speech we have just listened to—and not from any patriotic motives. The hon. Member has singled me out for special comment, but he has left me the minimum of time in which to reply. In the few minutes at my disposal, I may just recall to the House what was the position with which I had to deal when I introduced the three-years system on which the hon. Member has poured so much scorn and contempt. The hon. Member said that it was in order to sustain the inflated armaments that I had urged the House to adopt. There is not a shadow or shred of foundation for that statement. In 1901 I was responsible for the new Army scheme. As far as I know I did not add a single man to the regular

  1521
  establishment of the Army. The whole of my policy was directed to the troops that were in need of recruiting. I had two problems before me—to maintain a largely increased establishment which, by a succession of War Ministers and by the unanimous call of the House and the country, had been added to the Army, and at the same time to carry on the war. In 1901 and 1902, when I introduced this particular change, we had actually 240,000 men in the field. The ordinary recruiting of the Army amounted to between 30,000 and 40,000 men, taking every "special" we could—30 per cent, of "specials"—up to the time when the war broke out. I had to meet a deficit of 10,000 in the number of recruits which was not of my creation and not due to any scheme of mine, and which was supplemented by the enormous drain of the war. I adopted the three-years system which had long been pressed upon the House by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean.
  Sir CHARLES DILKE: Not in that connection.
  MR. BRODRICK: Excuse me, I cannot give way as I have only two or three minutes in which to speak.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: But I must protest against the statement expressed in that form.
  MR. BRODRICK: It was a system the weakness and dangers of which I had repeatedly pointed out to the House. But I adopted it with the additional advantage of an increase of pay, which enabled the men who re-engaged in 1904 to draw 1s. 6d. against a net 7d. enjoyed by men in the same service at the time I addressed the House. The effect of that change was that in the first year we took 52,000 recruits. In the second year, stopping all "specials," and not recruiting for the cavalry or artillery, which were more than full, we obtained over
  1522
  40,000; and this year we are more than maintaining the increase. I have not time to complete my case; I hope on a future occasion to refer to the numerous criticisms that have been made, but I point out now that the changes in the terms of enlistment had nothing to do with the Army Corps scheme. They were merely to maintain the establishment of the Army and to provide for the drain of the war. If any hon. Member will consult the newspapers, Lord Kitchener's despatches, or the representations made to me by the military authorities throughout 1901 he will see that it was absolutely impossible to do this under the old system. Whatever defects the present system may have, whatever excellent reasons my right hon. friend, in a time of peace, under different circumstances, and under the necessary review of the military and naval position which the First Lord of the Admiralty and I were the first to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister, may have for making changes, I say that the changes made in 1902 to meet the emergency then existing had the effect they were intended to produce. We had to find the men and we found them to meet an emergency. We had to give them a chance of re-engagement, and if the men have not re-engaged in sufficient numbers my right hon. friend is amply justified in coming before the House with a different scheme.
  Mr. BECKETT: Against the valuable speech of my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, I am prepared to withdraw the Motion if he will give us a pledge [Cries of "No!" and "Order!"]—
  Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order! the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the day.
  And, it being Midnight, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.