Commons Sitting of 7 March 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Whitby Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Brymbo Water Bill; Great Central and Midland Joint Railways Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Sheppy Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
St. Marylebone Electric Lighting Bill. Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  BIRMINGHAM BISHOPRIC.
  Two Petitions from Birmingham, for establishment; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLLING).
  Petition from Woolwich, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Lewes; Crouch End; Dulwich; Berwick upon Tweed; Longton; Launceston; Bacup; Bishopsgato; Guildford; Clacton on Sea (two); Allendale; Lincoln; Bradford; Little Horton; Felingwm; Cariad Dyffryn; Penygroes; Reading and Henley on Thames; Ryde; Highgate; Poynton; Northampton; Dartmouth; Stonehaven; Patricroft; and Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
  PRASAD, MADHO.
  Petition of Madho Prasad, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  Copy presented, of Supplement to the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1902: Return of persons employed in Factories, Workshops, and Laundries:—Textile Factories, Laundries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Report and Papers relating to the Training of Teachers for the year 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of Mr. F. H. Dale, His Majesty's Inspector of Schools,

  269
  Board of Education, on Primary Education in Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  EAST INDIA (COTTON).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relating to Improvement in Indian Cotton [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 to 1903.
  Copy presented, of an Order, dated the 3rd March, 1904, revoking Order No. 6,794, defining a Foreign Animals Quarantine Station at Southampton [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Saddle-worth and Springhead Tramways Abandonment Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158B]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3124 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 4, 1904).
  Copy presented, of Agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain providing for the settlement by arbitration of certain classes of questions which may arise between the two Governments. Signed at London, 27th February, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Lancaster, Further Return relative thereto [ordered 8th August, 1898; Mr. Grant Lawson]; and Inquiry into Charities (County Borough of Bolton), Return relative thereto [ordered 22nd February; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 85.]

  TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM WITH GERMANY.
  Return ordered, "showing the value of imports into the United Kingdom from, and exports from the United Kingdom to, the German Empire during the last ten years, as recorded in (a) the German official Returns, (b) Reports of the Board of Trade; together with a Memorandum
  270
  explaining, as far as possible, the discrepancies between the German and British figures, and the method of collecting the data upon which the Returns are based employed in the United Kingdom respectively."—(Mr. White Ridley.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Dispensing of Medicines in Public Institutions by Unqualified Persons.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state what steps will be taken to carry into effect the rider of the jury in the case of the inquest held on 25th February upon the four female patients in Portsmouth Lunatic Asylum who died from the effects of careless dispensing; and whether the Local Government Board will cause regulations to be made requiring all dispensaries in public institutions to be in charge of persons registered under the Pharmacy Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have been asked by my right hon. friend to take this Question. There are several difficult points involved in this case, and for the present I can only say that I am in communication with the Lunacy Commissioners, and that the matter shall be thoroughly considered.

  Interference with Patients treated at the Macedonian Relief Hospital at Castoria.
  MR. MOON: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that sick persons have recently been molested on their way to, and on leaving, the temporary hospital of the Macedonian Relief Fund at Castoria; and whether instructions will be sent to His Majesty's Consul-General at Salonika to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) His Majesty's Government have not received any information to the effect stated in the Question; but His Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople will be instructed to make inquiries, and to take any steps

  271
  which may be possible to prevent the recurrence of such incidents.

  Navy—Repairs to Vessels.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what vessels are to be repaired and refitted for which £247,000 is asked in the Navy Estimates for 1904–5; what was the total first cost of each vessel; and what amount is estimated to be spent on each.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The vessels in question are the following:—First Cost (including Direct Charges and Incidental Expenditure):—"Goliath," £866,006; "Canopus," £866,516; "Argonaut," £545,756; "Crescent," £392,453; "St. George," £399,755; "Terrible," £708,619; "Highflyer," £280,182; "Rainbow," £187,740; "Pique," £188,589; "Warrior," £389,394; "Triumph," £274,121. All these vessels except the last four are already in hand, the refits having been commenced under previous programmes. In view of the special j character of the arrangement under which these repairs are being carried out, it would probably not tend to economy to publish beforehand the estimated expenditure on each ship.

  Repairs to "Circe," "Leda," and "Jason."
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the "Circe," "Leda," and "Jason" were repaired in private dockyards on the time and material basis; and whether the same basis is being, and will be, adopted in the case of the "Halcyon."
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The re-engining and re-boilering of these four vessels was contracted for at a fixed price, but the subsequent work of completing them for sea (which work it was originally intended to execute in His Majesty's dockyards) was contracted for on the system of "net cost plus percentage."

  Boy Seamen.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, is view of the supply of boys willing to
  272
  go to sea if effective means for their doing so can be provided, he will state what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the eleventh recommendation of the Board of Trade Committee to the effect that every encouragement should be given to training ships and to the training of boys on merchant vessels with the object of increasing the number of British seamen in the mercantile marine; what will be the total number of boy sailors carried under the reduced lights dues clause of the Merchant Shipping Mercantile Marine Fund Act of 1898, as compared with the number, 16,150, mentioned by the Member for Croydon as the number of boys which would be carried if his proposal were accepted.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Board of Trade have commended to the consideration of the principal associations representing British shipowners the recommendation of the Mercantile Marine Committee referred to, and with the co-operation of the other Departments of the Government interested in educational matters in the United Kingdom they have arranged for the circulation of a Memorandum inviting local educational authorities to give their assistance and encouragement to training ships. The number of boy sailors enrolled as probationers in the Royal Naval Reserve up to the end of last month is 3,217. A steady increase in the annual numbers is shown, and is especially noticeable in the figures for last year. If the same rate of progression is maintained, some 4,000 or 5,000 boys will have been enrolled by the 31st March, 1905, when the section of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Act, under which the scheme was established, ceases to be in force. The number mentioned by my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon was the possible maximum.

  Disposal of Bodies of Whales cast up by the Sea.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that whales along with wreck of the sea belong to the King, due precautions will be insisted on that persons killing whales shall bury, burn, or

  273
  in some manner dispose of the carcases so that they shall not float about the sea or drift back ashore, causing danger and discomfort.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I understand that the whales referred to are killed outside the territorial limits of the United Kingdom. If this is so, it would appear that they do not become the property of the King as Fishes Royal, even if, after being killed, they are brought within the territorial limits. In these circumstances the Board of Trade are not aware that they have power to give any directions on the subject.

  Imports of Flax Line and Tow Yarns into Ireland from France.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the weight and value in sterling of flax line yarns and flax tow yarns imported into Ireland, during the last five years, from France.

  IMPORTS INTO FRANCE FROM GERMANY GENERAL TRADE.

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  By sea.

  By land.

  Total.

  By sea.

  By land.

  Total.

  By sea.*

  By land.*

  Total.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Tons.

  Coal

  2,533

  767,358

  769,891

  65,951

  947,423

  1,013,374

  —

  —

  1,054,260

  Patent Fuel.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15,397

  15,397

  —

  —

  31,230

  Coke

  1,928

  768,464

  770,392

  54

  662,461

  662,515

  —

  —

  947,887

  Adulteration of Whisky in Warehouses under Government Supervision.
  MR. BLACK: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that revenue officials with the; knowledge that a false description is taking place do not prevent grain and foreign spirits being mixed with malt and whisky and labelled as pure malt whisky in warehouses under Government supervision; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) There are many reasons which make it undesirable to employ revenue officials in an attempt to regulate the trade descriptions that are placed upon goods in bond, the strongest of all being that any such
  *Information, not yet available.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) According to the official trade accounts, no linen yarns were imported direct from France into Ireland during the period named.

  Exports of Coal, etc., from Germany to France.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the quantities of coal, culm, coke, and patent fuel exported from Germany to France in the years 1901, 1902. and 1903, distinguishing between railway-borne and sea-borne exports of such commodities.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The German Trade Accounts do not distinguish between rail-borne and sea-borne exports The French Trade Accounts, however, give the following figures as to the imports into France from Germany of the commodities referred to in the years mentioned:—
  regulation would be perfectly futile, as it would only result in postponing the application of descriptions until after the goods had passed out of bond, and would afford no real protection to the public.

  Telephone Directories in Irish Post Offices.
  MR. WILLIAM M'KILLOP: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the telephone directories in many of the post offices in Ireland are three years old, and if he can state how many directories for 1904 for the trunk lines and of those of exchanges with the National Telephone Company have been provided this year for Irish offices, and at what cost per directory.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) A copy of the latest directory of the National

  275
  Telephone Company, containing a complete list of their subscribers, and a copy of the supplementary directory since issued, has been supplied for use at every post office exchange and call office in Ireland, as well as in other parts of the United Kingdom. Copies of the latest editions of the Post Office Telephone Directories have also been supplied. Instructions have from time to time been given that all obsolete directories shall be withdrawn from use; and I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me the names of any offices at which these instructions would appear to have been disregarded. The National Telephone Company's complete list of subscribers in the United Kingdom is published by the company at the price of 10s. per copy.

  Underground Cable between London and Scotland—Progress of Work.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEW: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state how much of the underground telegraph cable between London and Edinburgh and Glasgow has been actually laid; what further progress will be made with it during the present year; and when he expects that the work will be completed.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The line of pipes for the underground cable now runs continuously from London to Carlisle, and a section of nineteen miles has also been laid over the Beattock incline in Scotland. By the end of the financial year a double line of pipes will also have been laid from Manchester to Leeds. The permanent cable will be ready for use as far as Warrington. I cannot at present state when the underground line will be completed, but I fully appreciate the importance of pushing on the work as rapidly as possible, and a large sum has been included in next year's Estimates to provide for the extension of the line.

  Post Office Telegrams—Districts with Names consisting of more than one Word.
  SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in analogy with the rule that all names of towns and villages which are denoted by more than one word are counted as
  276
  one word each in a telegraphic message, he intends to issue instructions that the names of districts in the metropolis which are expressed by more than one word, such as Charing Cross, Bethnal Green, etc., should be counted as one word in telegrams.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am sorry that I do not see my way to propose any change in the method of counting in telegrams the names of districts in the metropolis which are expressed by more than one word, such as Charing Cross, Bethnal Green, etc.

  Norwegian Whalers in Scotch Waters.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, if, in view of the fact that the destruction of whales has been prohibited for ten years by the Norwegian Government, and that an influx of Norwegian whalers is expected in Shetland and the Hebrides, measures will be considered by which the danger to fishermen from floating carcases, the nuisance to crofters and others caused by decaying carcases drifting ashore, and the poisoning of mussel-beds, will for the future be prevented.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The whole matter is having my attention, and the proceedings and methods of those engaged in the industry are being carefully studied, with a view to preventing any serious cause for complaint. The Secretary for Scotland has no jurisdiction over floating carcases. With respect to the question of nuisance on shore the Local Government Board have communicated with the local sanitary authority, and directed their attention to the provisions of The Public Health Act, 1897, Section 32, which will enable them to impose suitable restrictions. No evidence of damage to mussel-beds by the industry has as yet been adduced, and there have only been two complaints in general terms: these are to be inquired into at as early a date as possible.

  Scotch Votes—Unexpended Balances.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary for Scotland, having regard to the fact that the unexpended balances surrendered to the Exchequer on Scottish Votes in the last ten years-amounted to £204,013 15s. 6d., will he.

  277
  specify the Votes from which this sum was derived.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I can only refer the hon. Member to the Appropriation Accounts, where the information he desires is given in detail.

  Treatment of Smallpox at Greenock.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been directed to the increase of smallpox in Greenock; whether he is aware that the hospital accommodation is insufficient and the buildings overcrowded; can he state whether patients are detained sufficiently long to avert danger of their spreading the disease after discharge; whether the reception house is well situated and sufficiently commodious for the proper isolation of all contacts; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure the provision of adequate hospital and reception house accommodation by the local authority.
  (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The hospital accommodation for smallpox in Greenock has been extended from time to time during the progress of the epidemic, and steps are being taken for the erection of another additional pavilion. The circumstances attending the occurrence of every case are reported to the Board, and there is nothing in these reports to suggest that patients are prematurely discharged. The existing reception house is suitable for the purpose, but has not been equal to the demands arising from the epidemic. The Board have called upon the local authority to provide additional accommodation. They understand that great difficulty is experienced in acquiring proper premises.

  Contracts for Post Office Mail Bags. Foreign Canvas.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Prison Commissioners have again given a contract for Post Office mail bag cloth to a middleman who in former years has supplied foreign instead of home made canvas; and, if so, will he state whether any security has been taken that this year's supply shall be home made; whether he is aware that the leading canvas manufacturers in this
  278
  country have storage accommodation in London and other large cities so that they can deliver even small quantities promptly if required; and, if so, will he say if the Prison Commissioners have ever proposed to make this one of the conditions for such contracts.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The contract for mail bag canvas has been divided between seven competitors, the lowest tender having been accepted (in accordance with the regular practice) for each description of canvas required. The competitors, it is believed, include both manufacturers and middlemen, and it is not known to the Commissioners whether any of them have supplied foreign canvas in previous years. The form of contract is the same as in previous years, and contains no stipulation as to the source or district from which material must be obtained. There is no condition in the contract requiring "storage," but the mode of delivery is governed by Clause 3 of the general conditions of contract, i.e., "the supplies shall be delivered at the contractor's expense at such time and place as the Governors, or other officers acting on their behalf, shall from time to time direct."

  Death Sentences on Women for Infanticide.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the fact that a sentence of death passed upon a woman convicted of infanticide is rarely, if ever, executed, he will introduce a Bill giving the Judge presiding at the trial and conviction of a female prisoner for this crime power in his discretion to record sentence of death against her, instead of actually pronouncing such sentence in open Court.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I presume my hon. and learned friend refers only to cases of women who have killed their own infant children, not to other cases, e.g., murders by "baby-farmers." It is true that in the former cases the capital sentence is scarcely ever carried out; but, on the other hand, the objections to the practice of "recording" death sentences are serious, and I do not,

  279
  at the present time, see my way to proposing new legislation on this very difficult subject.

  Licensed Premises Owned by Brewers.
  MR. PARTINGTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can say how many public houses and beer houses, licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors for consumption on the premises in England and Wales, are owned by brewers or brewing companies; and if be will grant a Return showing the number of such premises in each licensing district which are so owned.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no accurate information on this subject, but there is reason to believe that the figures for which the hon. Member asks would represent about 75 per cent, of the total. I am not aware of any means by which a Return could be made with accuracy, and do not think that the labour involved in any attempt to get the figures would be justified.

  Exemption of Savings from Income-Tax.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the possibility of making some concession to professional and business men enabling them to put aside a certain portion of their annual income towards making a provision for the future without including such portion in their annual return for Income-Tax.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Under the existing Income-Tax Act a person who insures his life or that of his wife, or who contracts for a deferred annuity for himself or his wife with an insurance company registered in the United Kingdom, is allowed a deduction from his assessment in respect of the annual premiums up to one-sixth of his total income; and no further concession in this direction seems to be called for.

  Authority to Deport British Subjects from China.
  MR. TOULMINTo ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been c lied to the fact that Major General Ventris has charged the editor of the China Times (Pekin) with inciting to a
  280
  breach of the peace in an article comdemning Russian ill-usage of defenceless Japanese, and that, in default of his giving security for good behaviour, his deportation is pending; will he state whether there is any British authority in China with power to deport a British subject under such circumstances; and, if not, under what authority the Court is acting before which the editor has been brought.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The attention of His Majesty's Minister at Pekin having been called by the General-Officer-Commanding, China, to certain virulent and defamatory articles against Russia, published at Tientsin by the China Times, Sir E. Satow directed that an information should be laid against the editor in His Majesty's Consular Court at Tientsin under Article 106 of the China and Japan Order in Council, 1865. Under this Article, should it be shown on oath, to the satisfaction of any of His Majesty's Courts in China, that there is reasonable ground to apprehend that the acts or conduct of any British subject in China are or is likely to produce or excite to a breach of the public peace, the Court within the jurisdiction whereof he happens to be may cause him to be brought before it and require him to give security to the satisfaction of the Court to keep the peace or for his future good behaviour as the case may require; and if the person required to give security should fail to do so, the Court may order that he be deported from China to such place as the Court directs. His Majesty's Government have approved Sir E. Satow's action in the matter.

  National Scholars and Associateship of Royal School of Mines.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the privilege hitherto I granted to National scholars to secure an associateship of the Royal School of Mines in mining and metallurgy has been withdrawn; and, if so, on what grounds.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in supposing that it is no longer possible for National scholars to secure an associateship of the Royal College of Mines. It is merely required that they

  281
  should, as a rule, take the division corresponding to the group in which they obtained their scholarships. The change in the regulations, to which the hon. Member refers, was made in 1902, with the object of enabling the Board to control the extent to which the tenure of these scholarships may be transferred to the courses for the associateship of the Royal School of Mines.

  Reduction in Values of National and Research Scholarships.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education if he will explain why the Board have recently reduced the value of the National Scholarship from 30s. per week to 25s. per week, and the value of a Research Scholarship from 30s. to 25s. per week; and whether, having regard to the desirability of keeping the scholarships open to students unable to supplement them by private means, he will advise the Board to reconsider their decision.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The change to which reference is made in the Question formed part of a readjustment of the amounts paid as allowances to students in the Royal College of Science, and was decided upon not recently, but in 1901. The allowances then were: to Royal Exhibitioners £50 a session of about forty weeks; to National scholars 30s. a week; and to students in training 21s. a week. The Board were of opinion that it was desirable to equalise these rates, and decided that for National scholarships and studentships in training alike, the rate should be 25s. a week. The new rates were duly announced in 1901, but did not take effect until 1902, and then only in the case of new scholars. The students to whom these awards are made receive also railway fares for one journey to and fro each session between their homes and London, and are admitted free to the lectures and laboratories of the Royal College of Science. There is no separate class of research scholarships, but exhibitions or scholarships vacated by the resignation of the holders are awarded for the residue of the time during which they run to former students who desire to prosecute research in the college. These awards are necessarily of
  282
  the same amounts as the original scholarships. The Board have never intended that these scholarships should be of an eleemosynary character. They believe that the amount of the scholarships is sufficient to attract good candidates, and that in the majority of cases they provide an adequate supplement to the other resources of the students, and they consider that in any cases where more is needed the assistance should be provided under the supervision of local authorities rather than from funds administered by the Board. The students who gain these scholarships have as a rule been for a period of years under the direct observation of local school authorities, who thus necessarily possess, or can readily obtain, a more intimate knowledge of the circumstances of each student than can the Board. The scholarships now provided by local authorities offer in many places the further assistance required. In these circumstances I do not consider it desirable that the decision of the Board be reconsidered.

  Financial Liability of a Publicly-Appointed Manager of a Non-provided School.
  MR. MCKENNA: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education what financial liability under the Education Act of 1902 attaches to a publicly-appointed manager of a non-provided school; whether such manager is personally liable for any expenditure incurred by the general body of managers, even though he was not present at the meeting when such expenditure was determined upon, or, if present, had voted against it; and also whether such manager is in any case personally liable for expenditure incurred by the managers in the upkeep of the school building.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) A publicly-appointed manager of a voluntary school can only incur personal liability for expenditure incurred by the general body of managers if he makes himself a party to a contract. Managers appointed by local authorities would therefore incur liability only if they joined in giving orders for repairs or other expenditure, or if they allowed the general body of managers to be regarded as their agents for the purpose. They

  283
  can communicate through the local Press, and record on the minutes of the managers' meeting the fact that they repudiate all such liability, and do not recognise their colleagues as their agents. If they do this it would seem that they might safely attend a meeting at which expenditure on repairs was voted, or might even vote in favour of a resolution that such expenditure was desirable.

  Cost of Changes in Dress and Equipment of Officers in the Indian Army.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will grant a Return of all changes in the regulations affecting the dress and equipment of officers in the Indian Staff Corps and Indian Army during the ten years ending 31st December 1903, showing the approximate cost of the changes in each rank to the officers concerned.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The Government of India will be requested to furnish the particulars asked for.

  Suggested Change of Uniform in Bengal Cavalry Regiments.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have had under consideration any suggestion or proposal for the abolition of tunics for officers in the Bengal Cavalry Regiments and the substitution of kurtas in their places; and, if so, whether, in the interest of economy, he will veto a change which would entail considerable expenditure on every officer of the Indian Army affected.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) No proposal to the effect described in the Question has been brought before the Government of India. If it should hereafter come forward for consideration the expense which it would entail upon the officers will be duly taken into account.

  Board of Works Advertisements for Tenders in the Enniscorthy District.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will
  284
  state what circulation the Waterford News and the Waterford Chronicle have in the Enniscorthy district of county Wexford; and if in future the Board of Works will advertise for the supplies for the Enniscorthy public buildings in the county Wexford newspapers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndhnm.) The two newspapers mentioned circulate generally in the county Wexford and other counties adjoining. I am unaware of the extent of their circulation in Enniscorthy district. The Board of Works will consider the suggestion of the hon. Baronet before inviting tenders on the next occasion.

  Excessive Drinking at a Hunting Match at Loughbrickland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 27th ultimo, in the neighbourhood of Loughbrickland, a hunting match was held in connection with the local Irish Hunting Club and the County Antrim Harriers; that as a result of excessive drinking two men have since died; and if he can state how many received hospital treatment as the result of the day's proceedings; if he can say who supplied the drink; and what action, if any, he intends taking in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I have received a report of the occurrences referred to. So far as the police have been able to ascertain there has been one death due to the effects of excessive drinking, and no person received hospital treatment on the occasion. I am making further inquiry into the matter.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the standard numbers laid down by the National Board for the different grades of teachers, and whether the Board has the right to increase or decrease these numbers; whether, in view of the fact that the Board has awarded increments for continued good service to some teachers who held a certain classification and received certain reports from inspectors for the past three

  285
  years, he will explain why they have so far disallowed increments to other teachers holding the same classification, having the requisite average attendance, and having as good, and in some cases better, reports from inspectors.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The number of teachers that may be recognised in each grade above third grade and in each section of the first grade is fixed from time to time by the Commissioners. They do not publish these numbers, nor do they consider it desirable that they should be made public. The standard numbers fixed at present, however, are in excess of the actual number of teachers in the second and first grades, and no teacher has been deprived of promotion on account of these "standard" numbers. The Commissioners have full power, with the concurrence of the Treasury, to change the "standard" numbers from time to time. The Commissioners have not treated any body of teachers exceptionally in regard to increments. If any specific case of alleged grievance is submitted it will be inquired into.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, previous to 1900, scholars in the Irish training colleges who had obtained over 65 per cent. at their final (col. 3) examination were ranked as second-class teachers on obtaining appointments as principals of schools; and if the Commissioners of National Education will consider the advisability of reverting to the old system and place in the second grade those teachers who are now principals of schools who obtained more than this percentage at their final examination since 1900, more especially those who have the advantage of having passed through the full course of science as laid down in the new programme.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Commissioners that, prior to 1900, teachers on leaving training colleges and having passed their final examinations successfully were placed in the second class. Classification of teachers was abolished, however, from the 1st April, 1900, along with the system of promotion by examination. After
  286
  the 1st April, 1900, all National teachers were divided into three grades These grades do not correspond to the old classes. The class of a teacher was an indication of his attainments as tested by examination, and his class salary did not indicate what his full income from State sources was, but only represented a small portion of his total income. The grade a teacher ranks in indicates the rank to which he has attained by good service and seniority, and his grade salary represents the greater portion of his income from State sources. Under the new system all teachers have to commence work at the lowest step of the ladder—the third grade, and work their way up by good service and efficiency. To act on the suggestion in the Question would be a departure from the principle of the new arrangements, and would entail a very large increase in the Vote for Public Education.

  Hearing of Land Appeals in the Midleton (County Cork) District.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the chief Land Commissioners will sit to hear appeals against the decisions of the sub-Commissioners in cases heard in the Midleton (county Cork) district over a year and a-half ago.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A sitting will be held at Cork on 10th May.

  Completion of Drainage of Gully River (Queen's County).
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a portion of the Gully River (Queen's County) was drained in 1902 at a cost of something like £1,400, and, in view of the fact that this outlay has been completely ineffective in consequence of the obstruction in the lower portion of the river, whether ho can state what steps it is proposed to take to complete this work.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Drainage Board of the Lower Gully district having refused to repair their works, the Commissioners of Public Works

  287
  have instructed their engineer to arrange for the execution of the necessary repairs.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the salary of the teacher of Lissey-casey National School, Roll number 10,321, Circuit 17, Section A, which has an average attendance of 104·8 pupils the inspector's report for past year good, and the teacher trained with special distinction, is only at the rate of £56 per annum; and, if so, will he say if this teacher has received the special consideration promised to such teachers when the new scheme of paying teachers was issued; and what approximately would be his salary under the superseded rules.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am informed by the Board of National Education that this teacher was appointed for the first time as a recognised teacher of a National School on the 9th October. 1902, and that, like all teachers on first appointment, he was granted £56 per annum consolidated salary and residual capitation grant, or a total of about £72 per annum. He will not be eligible for an increase of salary under the rules until he has served for three years from the date mentioned. No special consideration was promised to such teachers when the new scheme was issued. He might have earned £110 per annum had the old rules remained in force, but that would have been practically maximum and was liable to serious fluctuation, whereas his present income is progressive by triennial increments and promotion, and may reach over £200 per annum.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the advisability of allowing the salaries of National school teachers to be paid monthly instead of quarterly as they are at present.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I would refer to my reply, to which I have nothing to add, to the similar Question of my hon. friend the Member for North Down, dated 17th November, 1902†.
  †See (4) Debates, exiv, 1127.

  Condition of Warders' Rooms and Service in Tullamore Gaol.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the intern warders of Tullamore Prison have to sleep in a damp room without fire or heating pipes; that the dampness has been caused by the stoppage of rain-water on the roof; that these warders are locked up in this room at 10 o'clock each night until roll-call the next morning without any means of communication with the governor or chief warder in case of emergency; that the same warders are compelled to sleep in a room in the invalid ward when they are off duty, both before and after night duty, thereby depriving them of the comfort of the beds they had to procure at their own expense when joining the service; that the officer on night duty has to perform nine hours' duty, viz., from 9.45 p.m. till 6.45 a.m. on the following morning, having during that time to mark tell-tale clock every fifteen minutes and fire two furnaces during that period without any relief or the means of preparing food; and, if so, whether he will make inquiries into these matters with a view to having them remedied.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Prisons Board reports that the room in which the intern warders sleep is perfectly dry and comfortable; that on grounds of health fires are not allowed in warders' bedrooms except in severe weather; that on no occasion have the warders been locked up in this room, and that the means of communication with the night guard in case of emergency are adequate; that warders returning off night duty are allowed to rest in a room specially furnished for the purpose, an arrangement of which they have never complained and which was made in order to conduce to their own comfort; that the hours and duties of the night guard are common to all prisons and entail no grievance or hardship; that the night guard at Tullamore Prison has access to the kitchen and every facility for preparing food.

  Accumulated Funds in Hands of Crown Agents.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the

  289
  Colonies, if he will state what is the amount of the accumulated funds in the hands of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, whether it is a constantly growing amount, and whether it is under the control of the Colonial Office; and, if not, of whom.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) About £350,000. Yes. Yes.

  Ordinances and Regulations for Introduction of Coolie Labour in Crown Colonies.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he will state what Ordinances and regulations are now in force in self-governing or Crown Colonies respecting the introduction therein of coolie labour from India, and the dates of such Ordinances; and whether the Ordinance and regulations now under consideration for the Transvaal Colony have been submitted to the Indian Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The dates of the Ordinances and Laws are as follows:—British Guiana 1825/1891 16/94 6/95 11/95 27/00 19/01; Jamaica 23/79 1/81 3/83 18/86 4/89 14/91 2/91 22/96 12/97 13/97 2/99 13/03; Fiji 2/91 3/92 4/92 6/92 8/92 14/93 4/94 12/95 1/96 6/98 7/98; Trinidad 19/99 2/02 33/02; Saint Vincent 24/80 9/86; Saint Lucia 4/91 2/95 8/96 1/97; Natal 20/74 1/76 15/80 25/91 37/94 17/95 34/95 14/97 28/97 19/98 21/98 1/00 48/01 17/02 2/03; Mauritius 12/78 1/79 21/82 6/84 51/99 26/03. The Colonial Governments are being requested to supply information as to regulations under these enactments, and a Return will be laid before the House in accordance with the promise given to the hon. Member for Central Sheffield. In reply to the last part of the right hon. Member's Question, I have to refer to the answer given on 11th February by the Secretary of State for India to the Member for East Perthshire†

  Increase of Pay to Joiners in the Royal William Victualling yard.
  MR. KEARLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the joiners in the Naval Ordnance Depot have now been granted a similar increase of pay to that
  †See (4) Debates, cxxix., 1020
  290
  given to the joiners in Devonport Dockyard, a like concession will now be made to the joiners in the Royal William Victualling Yard.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The question of granting an increase of pay to the carpenters in the Victualling Yards (to whom the hon. Member probably refers) is now under consideration, and I shall be very glad to inform him of the decision as soon as it is arrived at.

  Publication of War Office Reconstruction Committee's Report.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that a communication was made to him asking whether there was any objection to the publication of the Report of the War Office Reconstruction Committee, and that in response to that communication that Report was published by him, by whom was that communication made.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I have no statement to make as to a proceeding which was quite regular, and for which I have already accepted full responsibility.

  Parliament and the Taxation of Food.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is prepared to give the House an assurance that His Majesty's Government will abstain from proposing to Parliament any measure involving protective duties or the taxation of food.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) It is not proposed to deal with the fiscal question during the currency of the present Parliament, and the declared policy of His Majesty's Government does not, as the hon. Member is well aware, include the taxation of food.

  Russian Warships and Neutral Ports.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the use which has recently or is now being made of the ports of Candia (Crete), Suez, and Port

  291
  Said, by Russian warships, he will consider the des rability of communicating to neutral Powers possessing territory upon the seaboard of the trade routes between Great Britain and the East, particularly upon the Mediterranean and Red Sea, the views of His Majesty's Government in reference to the duties of neutrals in regard to the treatment of ships of war of belligerent States which may seek to use neutral ports in connection with the operation of intercepting the trading ships of neutral Powers.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The hon. Member's Question raises points of great international importance which are receiving the attention of His Majesty's Government.

  Introduction of Government Alien Immigration Bill.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when the Bill regulating the immigration of aliens, referred to in the King's Speech as the first Government measure of the session, will be introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I hope the Bill may be introduced without any great delay.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Military Materiel in South Africa.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state what are the numbers of gun carriages, ammunition and transport wagons, in South Africa; and how many of them are in such a condition of repair as to render them available for immediate service.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): It is not usual or expedient to give detailed information of the nature alluded to in the Question. I can, however, assure the House that all necessary steps have been taken to make the equipments mentioned available for immediate service.

  Inoculation of Troops against Enteric Fever.
  MR. EUGENE WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many of the officers and men who died in South Africa from enteric fever had been inoculated against that disease; and what is the purport of the reports of the Medical Army Corps as to the success, or otherwise, of the process.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The examination of the medical records of the South African war has involved enormous labour, and is not sufficiently advanced to enable me to give the statistics asked for. The question of anti-enteric inoculation has been referred to a special Committee. It is one of great interest and will on no account be neglected. If at a later stage I can give the hon. Member the information he asks for I will do so.

  Strength of the Volunteer Force.
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the strength of the Volunteer Force on 1st January, 1903, on 31st October, 1903, and 1st January, 1904; what was the strength of Volunteer officers (combatant) on 31st October, 1903, and 1st February, 1904; and how many vacant commissions are there in the force.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures are as follows: All ranks, 1st January, 1903, 250,990; 31st October, 1903, 253,284; 1st January, 1904, 241,280. Officers, 31st October. 1903, 7,215; 1st February, 1904, 7,097. At the present date there are 2,385 vacant commissions (combatant), including 182 seconded and supernumerary officers.

  Military Expenditure.
  SIR CHARLES WELBY: On behalf of the hon. Member for Hythe, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state the nature and amount of the expenditure sanctioned by the Treasury to which reference is made in Section 3, paragraph 15, War Office (Reconstitution) Report, Part II.; and whether such expenditure

  293
  was disapproved of by the military advisers of the War Office.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There is no Report of the evidence taken by the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee, but I understand that the statement in the Report refers to the erection of a central office at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, which was recommended by an independent Committee, concurred in by the Director-General of Ordnance and approved by the Secretary of State. It appears that there was a difference of opinion between the Military and the Finance Departments as to the source from which the funds should be provided. The Secretary of State, after carefully j considering the question, accepted the view of the Finance Branch. The amount involved was £55,000.
  SIR CHARLES WELBY: Are we to understand that the military authorities approved of the erection of these buildings?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the erection or non-erection of the buildings was not the question. The point was the source from which the money could be obtained and the account in which it could be charged.

  War Office Council.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the patent constituting the new War Office Council was issued upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Committee of Defence and with the Cabinet; and what was the date when the Cabinet approved of the appointment of the Council.
  Mil. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The patent was issued in accordance with the advice of His Majesty's Government. It would not be usual, nor do I consider it desirable, to state in detail, the preliminary steps that were taken. The War Office Council was appointed with the full approval of His Majesty's Government.

  War Office Financial Administration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, do His Majesty's Government
  294
  propose to adopt the financial system recommended by the Report, Part II., of the War Office (Reconstitution) Committee, under which, subject to the control of the Army Council, the military members of the Council will be responsible for the administration of their respective Votes, and similar responsibility will be vested in General Officers for the administration of all sums allocated to their respective commands.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As the House has recently been informed, Part II. of the Report is under the consideration of the Government.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand that no decision has yet been arrived at?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

  New War Office Appointments.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Director of Operations and the Director of Military Training at headquarters, recently appointed, hold the offices recommended under Part II. of the War Office (Reorganisation) scheme, and how much of Part II. has been adopted by His Majesty's Government; and are the salaries of the above officers borne on the Estimates of the ensuing year.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The officers in question hold the offices recommended under Part II. of the War Office (Reconstitution) scheme, though pending the formal adoption of the Report, or such parts of it as may be finally accepted the exact allocation of duties to the respective officers is liable to review. The salaries of these officers will be met out of the salaries voted for the officers whose appointments they replace.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Are the salaries of either of these officers included in the present Vote?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It has been explained in the course of the debates that the salaries will be provided from the sums voted for the officers they replaced.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the reason of the omission from his Memorandum on the Army Estimates of all mention of the important changes and new charges placed on the Estimates for the salaries of the Army Council, the Inspector General, and other officers appointed in consequence of the adoption of Part I. of the War Office (Reconstitution) scheme by the Government.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Memorandum was what it purported to be—merely an explanation of the figures given in the Estimates. I think I shall be able during the course of my explanation this afternoon to give an answer to the hon. Member which he will regard as satisfactory.

  Military Telegraph Pole Contract.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, having regard to the fact that, under a War Office letter dated the 14th October, 1902, the Treasury was induced to assent to £1,321 10s. being paid as compensation for the cancellation of contracts for telegraph poles for South Africa, valued at £4,644, will he state whether, before suggesting the cancellation of the contracts at this cost, any efforts were made to ascertain whether the poles would be of service to the Post Office Telegraphs with a view to the transfer of the contracts to that Department.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The poles were specially provided for the field telegraph, and were not suitable for the purposes of the General Post Office.

  Naval Strength—Two-Power Standard.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the total number of battleships actually laid down from and including the year 1889 to the end of February in this year by Great Britain, counting in the Chilian ships, is fifty, by France twenty-two, by Russia twenty-six, by Germany twenty-seven; is he aware that while we propose a programme of two battleships the Russian programme embraces four battleships, and the German
  296
  programme two battleships; and whether the Admiralty, for the purposes of the two-Power standard, takes into account any ships other than battleships.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The numbers stated in my hon. friend's Question are correct. The two-Power standard has reference to battleships only, whether of this or foreign countries.

  Naval Manœuvres—Blockades.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state whether any evidence has been obtained from the experiences of naval manœuvres subsequent to those of 1888 which tends to establish the general correctness of the opinion expressed by Admirals Sir W. Dowell, Sir R. Vesey Hamilton, and Sir F. Richards, in their Report on the 1888 manœuvres, that to maintain an effective blockade of an enemy's squadrons in strongly fortified ports the blockading battleships must be in proportion of five to three, and that the proportion of fast cruisers employed in blockading should not be less than two to one of the blockaded.
  MR. PRETYMAN: Although the opinion of the Admirals quoted was well founded at the time it was formulated, the subsequent development of torpedo craft of all sorts, including submarines, renders it necessary to regard the whole question of blockade from a different standpoint to that on which they based their calculation. Blockades, if conducted at all in the future, must be arranged on other principles than those then advocated. The figures quoted by my hon. friend can no longer be regarded as applicable.

  German Navy.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state what was the strength of the German Navy in first and second-class battleships completed and building in 1895; what is its present strength; at what date the current shipbuilding programme of Germany will be completed; and what will then be the strength of its Navy in the said ships.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The strength of the German Navy in battleships in 1898 was five first-class battleships, four second-class, and twelve third-class, or I twenty-one battleships in all. Its present strength is fourteen first-class battleships, four second-class, and twelve third-class, or thirty battleships in all. The current German shipbuilding programme will be completed in 1920, when the total number of battleships will be fifty-five, including seventeen which will then be twenty-five years old or upwards.
  MR. YERBURGH: My Question was I as to 1895. I will accept the figures for 1898, however.

  Cotton Cultivation in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government have any information in regard to the suitability of British North Borneo for the cultivation of cotton.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I have ascertained from the British North Borneo Company that no Europeans have so far grown cotton in North Borneo, but that favourable reports on samples of native cotton lave been received. The company consider that the soil and climate of North Borneo are well suited for the cultivation of cotton; and they state that plenty of cheap labour is available, and that the directors are willing to do all in their power to encourage its growth. For further particulars I must refer the hon. Member to the company.

  Transvaal Labour Ordinance—No Time Limit.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, before sanctioning the Ordinance for the introduction of Chinese indentured labour into the Transvaal, ha will insert a clause naming a date at which such importation shall cease.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir.
  MAJOR SEELY: Am I to understand that the Government have abandoned
  298
  their intention of making this importation of a temporary nature as promised in the course of the debate on the subject?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That Question is irregular, inasmuch as it has reference to a debate of the present session, and, therefore, cannot be asked.

  White Unskilled Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that more than half of the total annual production of gold in the world is produced by white labour only, he will cause inquiry to be instituted into the possibility of the further employment of white labour in the gold mines of the Transvaal before sanctioning the Ordinance for the introduction of Chinese indentured labour into that colony.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I do not know whether the fact alleged as to the world at large by my gallant friend is accurate or inaccurate, but I am convinced by the evidence which I have received from South Africa, where, in the words of the right hon. Member for Aberdeen, "all unskilled work is done by black people," it is not practicable to employ white labour on unskilled work in the mines. I must therefore decline to give the undertaking suggested.

  Racial Problems in the Transvaal.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what course the Government is to pursue with reference to children of Chinese or mixed white and black and Chinese parentage born in the Transvaal; are they to be allowed to remain in South Africa, or are they to be sent to China; and, can he form any estimate as to the probable number of such children per thousand of the adult male Chinese introduced.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: In answer to the first and second Questions I do not anticipate that under the conditions proposed children of mixed parentage will be born. As to the third I am quite unable to follow the hon. Member into

  299
  the bewildering speculation suggested by his imagination.

  Chinese Labour—Transfer Regulations.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: T beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of Despatch 21, of 21st February, from Viscount Milner to the Colonial Secretary, published in a Blue-book just presented to Parliament, and to the statement in paragraph 4 of said Despatch that if the consent of the Chinese labourer to a transfer of his services were insisted on this might make the Ordinance in regard to the introduction of Chinese labour into the Transvaal of little value, coupled with the fact that the draft Ordinance received 27th February and published in the same Blue-book contains no obligation to obtain this assent from the labourer, and also, in view of Despatch 23, of 23rd February, from the Colonial Secretary to Viscount Milner, in which he states that His Majesty's Government has undertaken to secure that transfer from one employer to another shall be with the consent of the labourer, any reply from Viscount Milner has been received to this intimation; and if the assent of His Majesty's Government will not be given to the Ordinance until it has been altered in this respect, or, if not, how is the pledge given by His Majesty's Government to be carried out.
  *MR LYTTELTON: Though the matter was not wholly free from doubt I do not read the Despatch of Lord Milner referred to in the sense which the hon. Member has placed on it. I understand Lord Milner to mean that the contract should be made in China between the labourer and the Labour Association of the Witwatersrand; and that the Association should apportion the labourers to the several mines on their arrival in the Transvaal. I think that subsequent allocations into which no element of pecuniary consideration was to be permitted to enter would have been adequately safeguarded by the statutory supervision of the Lieutenant-Governor, a precaution which reflects the recent precedents in Colonial Ordinances dealing with coolie immigration which have been sanctioned by both Parties of the State. But to make quite certain I gave the definite pledge referred to; Lord
  300
  Milner has fully responded to it, and it will be embodied in the regulations before assent is given to the Ordinance.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will Lord Milner's Despatch be laid on the Table.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I think not.

  Labour Transfers.
  MR. SEELY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the alteration made in Section 11 of the Transvaal Labour Ordinance was intended to enable Chinese labourers to be transferred to an employer without their own consent on payment of a money consideration; and will he state what stops he proposes to take to ensure that the Transvaal Legislative Council shall not be allowed to carry out this intention, and whether he intends to allow the administration of the Ordinance to be entirely in the hands of the Transvaal authorities.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer my hon. friend to my Answer to the hon. Member for Northampton.
  MR. SEELYasked if it were not the fact that the sum to be paid had been stated at something over £20?
  *MR. LYTTELTONreferred the hon. Member to the Blue-book, and repeated that he had satisfactory assurances from Lord Milner on the subject.

  Labour Contracts in Transvaal Mines
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what would be the position of an indentured Chinese labourer in the Transvaal, with a wife or wives and children, who declared his wish to return to China before the expiration of his term of servitude, if he had not the means to return with or without his family; would he and they be obliged to remain in the Transvaal and to work in the mines.
  *MR. LYTTELTON: The labourer will have to carry out his contract, and continue to work to obtain the means of defraying the return passage of himself and family. It is not intended that the

  301
  wife and children should be employed on work in the mines.

  Repatriation of Chinese Children.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a statement of the Attorney-General of the Transvaal Colony that the children of Chinese subjects imported into the Transvaal Colony, under the provisions of the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance, 1904, born in the Transvaal Colony will be British subjects; and, if so, will he take steps to secure that such children can be repatriated under the above-mentioned Ordinance, or under the Transvaal Peace Preservation Ordinance; and will he lay the Transvaal Peace Preservation Ordinance, referred to on page 81 of Further Correspondence regarding the Transvaal Labour Question [Cd. 1941] upon the Table.
  MR. LYTTELTON: My attention has been drawn to the statement referred to, and as a question of law it is no doubt correct, but inasmuch as no child can be older than six at the time when the question of repatriation arises, I do not see how any practical difficulty is likely to arise under Section 33 (2) of the Ordinance, which will apply. The Peace Preservation Ordinance will be included in the next Parliamentary Paper on the subject. Meanwhile, I will cause a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Alien Labour in Rhodesia.
  MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Legislative Council of Southern Rhodesia has within the last two or three years passed any legislation dealing with the admission of alien labour into Rhodesia; whether such legislation received the sanction of the Colonial Office; and, if so, whether, under it, Chinese labour Can be introduced into Rhodesia.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I would refer the hon. Member to the Ordinance No. 18 of 1901, printed at page 113 of Cd. 1200, which was amended by an Ordinance No. 3 of 1902 in accordance with the pledges given at page 128 of the same Blue-book. Chinese labour can be introduced into
  302
  Southern Rhodesia as soon as the necessary notice has been issued with the consent and approval of the High Commissioner, and with the sanction of the Secretary of State.

  Coolie Labour in the West Indies.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can lay upon the Table a copy of the Order in Council issued by Lord Glenelg, Liberal Secretary of State in 1837, permitting West Indian planters to ship coolies from India, together with the Reports on the subject referred to in the Resolution of the late right hon. W. E. Gladstone, in 1840, and mentioned in the "Life of Gladstone" by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs; and if he can inform the House how many similar Ordinances have been sanctioned with regard to indentured labour, and in what years they were passed.
  MR. LYTTELTON: As the hon. Member has already moved for a Return of the Orders in Council as regards indentured labour from India now in force in British colonies, and I hope soon to be able to lay it on the Table, I do not think it is necessary to give a transcript of the Orders on the subject at so remote a date as 1837. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am unable to trace the Resolution in the records of the Colonial Office.

  Australian Governor-General and Preferential Tariffs.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Lord Northcote, Governor-General of the Australian Commonwealth, in opening the Federal Parliament on Wednesday, declared that preferential tariffs would secure to Australia an immense and stable market; and, if so, will he say if the Governor-General made this declaration with the consent and approval of His Majesty's Government; and, if not, what communication will the Government address to Lord Northcote.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have seen the statement referred to by the hon. Member in the Press. The Ministers of the Crown

  303
  in Australia are solely responsible for the speech made by the Governor-General at the opening of the Legislature, and I see no reason for addressing any communication to Lord Northcote on the subject.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the fact that partisan references to controversial topics are never included in the Speech from the Throne in this country, the right hon. Gentleman will call the attention of the Governor-General to that fact.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have no reason to alter my Answer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my Question and save me the trouble of bringing the matter up on the Estimates?
  [No answer was returned.]
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: All right.

  British Resident at Mysore.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state what was the previous experience in political service of the Bengal civilian who three months ago took up the appointment of British Resident in Mysore; how many officers in the first and second grades of the Government of India's Political Department will be superseded or set back by this appointment from outside that service; is this gentleman, the new Resident at Bengalore, identical with the Bengal revenue officer who in October, 1899, when Commissioner of the Patna Division, sought to interfere with the action of the Sessions Judge in a case then pending in the Court at Chupra; and, if so, what is the explanation for this appointment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): The appointment of a civil servant, without previous service in the Political Department, to the office of Resident in Mysore is in accordance with precedent, and the officers in the Political Department are not thereby superseded. It is the fact that Sir James Bourdillon was
  304
  Commissioner of the Patna Division in 1899, but his conduct was not reflected on in this matter by his superiors. He has since officiated for more than a year as Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, from which high office he was transferred to the Residentship of Mysore, on the ground that he was the fittest person for the post.

  Tibet Mission.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the prohibition by the Government of India Act, 1858, of the application of the revenues of India to defray the expenses of any military operation carried on beyond the external frontiers of India, without the consent of both Houses of Parliament, he will explain why the revenues of India have been applied to defray the expenses of military operations in Tibet without such consent having been obtained; and when do His Majesty's Government intend to ask for that consent.
  MR. BRODRICK: I informed the hon. Member on the 4th February† that no military operations have been undertaken in connection with the Mission. The fact that an escort accompanies the Mission does not necessitate any action under Section 55 of the Government of India Act of 1858.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in to-day's newspapers it is stated that fighting is imminent? Will not that be a military operation?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Assouan Dam.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the increased area of land which has been brought into cultivation by means of the Assouan dam; and whether it is proposed to make any alteration in the dam such as will admit of a greater storage of water.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): It is understood that up
  †See (4) Debates, cxxix., 338.

  305
  to the end of last year 170,000 acres of land had been brought under perennial irrigation as a result of the construction o- the dams at Assouan and Assiout. The Egyptian Government have not at present considered any proposal for making alterations in the Assouan dam.

  The Servian Regicides.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to resume diplomatic relations with Servia in the near future; and whether it has been ascertained whether those responsible for the murder of the late King and Queen have in any way been brought to justice.
  EARL PERCY: We are not aware that any steps have been taken to bring to justice those who were responsible for the murder of the late King and Queen of Servia, or to express public abhorrence of the crime. In these circumstances it is not possible to make any statement as to the prospect of a renewal of diplomatic relations.

  South African Railway Debt.
  *MR. AINSWORTH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that Lord Milner, in his presidential address to the extraordinary session of the Intercolonial Council for the Transvaal and Orange River States, admitted the claim of Great Britain for £1,250,000 on account of the Imperial military railways of South Africa; and whether, in view of the fact that this House has voted £900,000 in settlement of the account for the repairs of these lines, he will now press the Intercolonial Council for the prompt payment of the £1,250,000 above referred to.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): For the reasons which I have already given to the House I do not think it would be desirable or possible to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.
  MR. AINSWORTH: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to lay papers before
  306
  the House so that we may understand how the matter stands?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I have no Papers to lay.

  National Debt Reduction.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has observed the statement of his predecessor in introducing the Budget last year that 6·6 millions would be available for the reduction of debt; whether he can now inform the House if, after providing for the capital expenditure involved in the Army, Navy, and Civil Service Estimates, the total indebtedness of the country would be reduced by this sum or by any sum during the present financial year; and, if not, whether he will undertake in the next financial statement to make provision for the expenditure of all kinds, so that official statements made with regard to total I national outlay and indebtedness might be complete and accurate.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Questions which the hon. Member raises cannot be answered till the close of the financial year, nor do I think that it would in any case be desirable that I should anticipate the financial statement I which it will be my duty to make at the usual time.

  Scottish Steel Combine.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has I been called to a recent combination of Scottish steel makers, whereby a minimum price with heavy penalties has been fixed for Scotland, while these makers are delivering steel at lower prices in the Midlands; and, if so, whether the Government intend to take any steps to protect English steel makers against this form of competition.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I am aware of the combination alluded to in the Question. The matter is not one which seems to call for any action on the part of the Government.
  *MR. SPEAKER: This is the Question which on Thursday last the hon. Member

  307
  complained had been made incomprehensible by an alteration made at the Table without notice to him. I promised at the time to make inquiry. I have done so. I have ascertained that the Clerks at the Table did inform the hon. Member formally of the alteration they were making. I have seen the manuscript, and I find that the Question was rendered incomprehensible, not by any alteration made at the Table, but by the omission on the part of the printers of a certain word. I think when the hon. Member saw the Question on the Notice Paper, and before he made a charge publicly in this House against the Clerks, he should have communicated privately with me, then he would have obtained this explanation.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLORthanked Mr. Speaker for his courtesy. Of course, he had dealt only with the Question on the Paper, and he hoped the printers would be more careful in future.

  Gambling in Foodstuffs.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any official information showing that the rise in the price of bread is owing to the gambling in futures in the wheat markets; and, if so, whether he will make inquiries with a view to international co-operation to prevent corners in foodstuffs.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Answer is in the negative.

  Longford Postal Supervision.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why Longford town and county post offices have been placed under the charge of the surveyors of the Ulster district instead of, as hitherto, under Dublin and Sligo district; and whether any economy was the result of this change.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (LORD STANLEY,): Longford and other towns served by the Mullingar and Sligo Branch of the Midland Railway were recently transferred from the control of the Surveyor of the Midland District to the control of the Surveyor of the Northern District in order to equalise as far as possible the
  308
  size of the two Districts with a view to promoting greater efficiency and economy.

  Swansea Education Authority.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether correspondence has taken place between the Board of Education and the Council of the County Borough of Swansea in reference to the making by the council, and the approval by the Board, of a scheme for the establishing of an education committee for the County Borough of Swansea, under the 17th Section of the Education Act, 1902; and whether he will lay the correspondence upon the Table at an early date.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): Some correspondence has passed between the Board of Education and the County Borough of Swansea in reference to an Education Committee. This correspondence is in the hands of the Swansea Borough Council, and there seems no occasion for publishing it. I shall be happy to show to the hon. Member any letter which he may desire to see.

  Non Provided School Maintenance in Glamorganshire.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether correspondence has taken place between the Board of Education and the education committee of the Glamorgan County Council in reference to the maintenance of the non-provided or voluntary public elementary schools in the county of Glamorgan; and, if so, whether he will lay the correspondence on the Table at an early date.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: Correspondence between the Board of Education and the education committee of the Glamorgan County Council has taken place on the subject referred to. As this correspondence is still continuing it would not be desirable to lay it on the Table at the present time at all events.

  Carmarthen County Council and the Education Act.
  MR. BRYNMOR JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education have

  309
  made an Order for an inquiry, under Section 16 of the Education Act, 1902, as to alleged breaches of duty by the County Council of Carmarthenshire in administering the Act; if so, what are the terms of reference to the person or persons appointed or to be appointed to conduct the inquiry; and can he state the name or names of the person or persons who is or are to conduct the inquiry.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I shall have pleasure in handing to the hon. Member a copy of the printed notice which is in course of publication and which contains the answer to all the points in the hon. Member's Question.

  Glycerinated Calf Lymph for Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the proposal to establish a station in Scotland for the preparation of glycerinated calf lymph has yet been considered; and, if so, will he state the nature of the decision arrived at.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): So long as the general arrangements now existing between England and Scotland remain as at present, I see no necessity for adopting the course suggested by the hon. Member.

  Prevention of Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will consider the expediency of introducing legislation at an early date such as will render the penalties for illegal trawling of a more deterrent nature than at present.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: The question raised by the hon. Member is receiving my consideration, but the matter is complicated and I am not prepared at present to undertake on behalf of the Government to introduce a Bill in the direction indicated.

  Window Smashing in Dublin.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the proceedings in the Dublin Police Court on Wednesday last, when five cases of window breaking were heard and disposed of; and if the Government intend to give effect to the declaration of
  310
  the presiding magistrate that something should be done by legislation to abate the mischief.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): The matter is under consideration.

  Alleged Perjury by Policemen at Ballinrobe.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General of Ireland, whether he has yet received the necessary information to enable him to prosecute the two policemen whose evidence was of such a character that the magistrates at the Ballinrobe petty sessions recently unanimously dismissed the charges which they brought against a publican named Faby; and, if not, whether he can say at what date he will be able to take proceedings against the e officers of the law.
  MR. ATKINSON: I have already directed that a prosecution for perjury should be instituted against these policemen.

  Waterville (Kerry) Proposed National School.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that repeated applications have been made to the Commissioners of National Education for the erection of a school at Waterville, county Kerry, and that a suitable site has now been obtained; and, if so, in view of the fact that a number of Roman Catholic children in the village cannot be educated through want of the proper facilities, and that the Roman Catholic population is increasing, will the Commissioners now sanction a building grant.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,); I am informed that the Commissioners declined to make a grant in this case, because, in their opinion, the educational requirements of Waterville can be effectively met by enlarging the schools at Spunkane in the same district.

  Kerry Railway Guarantees.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to

  311
  the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in calculating the amount annually contributed to Kerry in relief of railway charges, he included a sum of £4,067, portion of the proceeds of the Limerick and Kerry Railway, money which is not a Government grant; and, if so, whether this county, half of which is congested, is paying for railway guarantees alone about 1s. per £.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The sum mentioned was taken into account in making the calculation. It represents a refund in respect of guarantees paid in the past for the Limerick and Kerry Railway. The poundage rate required to pay the net charge against each guaranteeing area in the county varies, according to the Parliamentary Return No. 376 of 1902, from a fraction of 1d. to 10d.

  Rae Estate, Keel, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board has received a proposal for purchase from the tenants of the Rae Estate, Keel, county Kerry; and whether any steps have been taken with a view to have the estate bought.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Board will make an offer for the purchase of this estate in the Land Judge's Court.

  Agricultural Distress in Ireland.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the loss of crops and farm produce generally in consequence of the bad harvest in Ireland; and will he say whether any effort will be made by the Board of Agriculture to introduce new seed into Ireland and assist farmers who may be unable to obtain seeds of a good quality to procure the same on easy terms of repayment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture does not consider it desirable to take the steps suggested. On the 3rd February I stated, in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for North Roscommon,† that having consulted the Local
  †See (4) Debates, cxxix, 192.
  312
  Government Board on the subject it was not considered that there were sufficient grounds for introducing legislation with the object mentioned.

  Drainage of the Inny.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state whether any complaint has been made to the Board of Works of the choked condition of the River Inny, in the vicinity of the town of Ballymahon; who is the superintendent in charge of the drainage district: how often does he get the outlets of the tributary streams cleaned up, and whether he gives any regular contracts for the work; and whether, as floods are constantly occurring in the district, an inquiry into the management of the drainage will be made.
  MR. WYNDHAM: That portion of the river at Ballymahon is not in a drainage district. No such complaints have been made to the Commissioners of Public-Works, who have no information on the second, third and fourth Questions. The Commissioners have called upon the trustees of the Inny Drainage District to maintain their works in proper condition, and have informed them that in default of their doing so the Commissioners will themselves take action.

  Mohill Loan Fund Board—Election of Clerk.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the present election of a clerk to the Mohill Loan Fund Board will be sanctioned by the Loan Fund Board in Dublin, having regard to the fact that the election was conducted irregularly, and a formal protest against the action of one of the candidates in presiding during a portion of the proceedings lodged.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; a fresh election has been ordered.

  Longford County Police.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland by how many men the police force of county Longford has been reduced since 1st April, 1899; whether the county is now contributing anything

  313
  for extra police over and above the normal number of former years; how many police barracks have been closed; and whether, in these cases, it is proposed to dispose of the barracks or keep them for further contingencies.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There has been no reduction. There is no extra force in the county at present, consequently no local contribution is payable. One barrack was closed and surrendered to the owner of the premises.

  Irish Education—Intergrade Teachers.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many intergrade teachers were in the service of the National Board on the 31st August, 1903; how many were promoted to the second grade, how many to the first grade, and how many to the first division of the first grade; will the National Board consider the claims of National teachers for promotion who in 1901 promoted all their pupils, though it was the year the revised programme took effect, and were awarded fair; will intergrade teachers who have been promoted to a higher grade lose a year's salary by making their promotion date from the 1st April, 1904, instead of the 1st April, 1903, like all other teachers who have got increments; how many intergrade teachers have not been promoted; and will they be given another opportunity of promotion.
  MR. WYNDHAM: One thousand nine hundred and eight, of whom 332 were promoted to the second grade, thirty-eight to the second division of the first grade, and twenty-three to the first division of the first grade. The promotions were made on the recommendations of the inspectors considered in connection with the departmental records and the reports for three years on the schools. The promotion of intergrade teachers will date, as a rule, from 1st April, 1903. One thousand five hundred and fifteen such teachers have not yet been promoted. The cases of those who are eligible will be considered from time to time.

  Clanricarde Estate—Evicted Tenants.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have received about 200 applications from evicted tenants on the Clanricarde Estate, county Galway, requesting reinstatement, under the Act of 1903, or equivalent holdings; and, if so, will he now state what has been done towards complying with their request.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number is 117. Inquiries are being made on till estates coming before the Commissioners from the county, with a view to the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

  Marquis of Ely's Estate, Fermanagh.
  MR. T W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, as a result of Mr. Justice Ross's decision stopping the sale of the Marquis of Ely's estate in county Fermanagh, the tenants are now being served with ejectments and threatened with eviction unless the full amount of rent, arrears, and costs is forthwith paid; and whether, in view of the amending Bill to be introduced, and the expressed intention of the Marquis of Ely to sell his property to the tenants, he can take steps to delay these proceedings until the amending Bill is passed and negotiations for sale can be renewed.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are no evictions impending on this estate. Proceedings in ejectment have been taken against six tenants for hearing at the April sessions, and a number of Civil Bill processes have been served for the payment of rents and arrears. The Government; has no power to intervene in the manner indicated. The Court is empowered to put a stay upon the execution of ejectments.

  Irish Queen's Colleges.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether there are any regulations or orders in addition to the Charters of the Queen's Colleges or any of them dealing with the question of the residence of the presidents of the colleges, and whether

  315
  continued residence on their part is required.
  MR. WYNDHAM: There are no orders or regulations, so far as I am aware, dealing with the question of the residence of presidents of the Queen's Colleges. No condition as to residence was made on their appointment.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: As a matter of fact, do any of these gentlemen reside permanently at the Colleges?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I believe so in the case of Belfast and Gal way, but not in the case of Cork.

  Evicted Tenants in County Tipperary.
  MR. CULLINAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many applications from evicted tenants in the county of Tipperary have been received by the Estates Commissioners; and what steps, if any, have been taken by the Estates Commissioners to make provision for them in accordance with the assurances given during the passage of the Land Act, 1903.
  MR. WYNDHAM: 158 inquiries are being made on estates coming before the Commissioners from the county, with a view to their reinstatement.

  Macroom Labourers' Cottage Scheme Inquiry.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the recent Local Government Board inquiry into a labourers' cottage scheme held in Macroom there was an application from Richard Fitzgerald for an additional half-acre on the farm of David Buckley, in the townland of Rylane, electoral division of Mountrivers; and, if so, will he state whether there was any objection advanced to this application; and, if so, on what grounds; what is the extent of the farm in question and how many cottages on it; and will he state the recommendation of the Local Government Board inspector in connection with this application.
  MR. WYNDHAM: This inquiry only concluded on Monday last. The inspector's report on the scheme, which is a very extensive one, has not yet been received.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the Local Government Board inquiry into a labourers' cottage scheme for additional half-acres recently held in the Macroom Rural District, one of the councillors for the Candroma electoral division, Mr. Michael Lucey, appeared before the inspector on Monday, 22nd, and requested that his evidence in favour of the scheme should be heard, stating that he had received no official notification of the inquiry, and could not, owing to illness, attend on the first day of the proceedings; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds the inspector refused the evidence of Mr. Lucey at this inquiry.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Lucey's application to be examined could not be acceded to on the 22nd February, for good and sufficient reasons, but he was examined on the 29th.

  Irish National Library Staff.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state what action it is proposed to take with reference to the National Library and its staff, in view of the fact that the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into this matter has presented its Report.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The scales of salary of the librarian and his first assistant have been improved; an additional assistant will be appointed; the pay of the attendants has been improved and their number will be increased from twelve to twenty. The arrangements for cataloguing the books are still under consideration.

  Irish Pauper Lunatics—P. Morrisey's Case.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that ex-convict Patrick Morrisey, discharged from Maryborough

  317
  Prison on the 17th July, 1903, and sent on the same date to the Mountmellick Workhouse, is at present a patient in the Maryborough District Lunatic Asylum, chargeable to the local rates; and whether he will state what steps the Government is going to take to relieve the ratepayers of the King's and Queen's Counties of the burthen of Morrisey's maintenance.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The facts are as stated. There is no power to transfer this man to the Central Criminal Lunatic Asylum or to the asylum of the district of which he is a native. Legislation would be necessary to remedy the grievance of which the hon. Member complains, and I cannot give any undertaking in this direction. The usual capitation grant will, of course, be paid in respect of the maintenance of Morrisey in Maryborough Asylum.

  Gault Estate, County Tyrone.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what explanation, if any, the solicitor having carriage of the sale of the Gault Estate, Trillick, county Tyrone, has made before the Land Judge in reference to the delay of ten years in the sale of the estate; and if any arrangement has been made to expedite the transfer of the land.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The solicitors having carriage of the proceedings appeared before the Court on the 25th February. They satisfied the Land Judge that they were not in default, and that the delay was occasioned by the complexity of the title and inherent difficulties of the case. The Land Judge at the same time urged upon them the necessity of expediting the proceedings as rapidly as possible.

  Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution adopted by the Longford County Council calling for such amendment of the Land Act of 1903 as will restore decadal reductions on tenants' instalments; and whether he proposes to
  318
  give effect to this resolution in his forthcoming Amendment Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Bill. The same remark applies to Questions in the names of the hon. Members for South Sligo and East Cork, as follows:—
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Bill amending the Land Act of 1903, which is to be introduced this session, will contain a clause enabling future tenants to obtain through the Estates Commissioners the right of I having their holdings revalued before being required to sign purchase agreements in the case of sales of estates on which they may reside, though forming a I small minority of the tenantry.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that negotiations for the sale of estates under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1903, have been retarded owing to the doubts that exist as to whether the middleman is entitled to the bonus on the gross amount of purchase money agreed upon between him and his tenants, or only on the balance after redeeming the head rent; and, if so, whether he will introduce a clause to make this point clear in the proposed amending Bill.
  MR. FLAVIN: As in many cases negotiations are going on where this point is raised, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of his intention?
  [No answer was returned].

  Trinity College, Dublin.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Fellows of Trinity College, Dublin, have unanimously memorialised the Crown in favour of the appointment of a Roman Catholic to the vacant provostship; if so, will he ascertain whether the governing body would be agreeable to the appointment of a Roman Catholic clergyman as

  319
  provost, and when will the vacancy be filled.
  MR. WYNDHAM: No, Sir; no such memorial has been presented.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: In view of the announced desire of the Fellows of Trinity College to attract Catholic students to the college, cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to suggest that a Jesuit be appointed to the office of provost?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not know that that would greatly facilitate the object in view.

  Ballinrobe Alleged Perjury Case.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a report was forwarded by any person to the Irish Executive of the alleged perjury of two policemen at the Ballinrobe petty sessions recently, until asked for it; whether such a report, if any, was supplied by the resident magistrate who presided, and who dismissed the case on the merits after first investigating the matter on the spot, the clerk of the petty sessions, or if not by any of these officials, by whom was it furnished; and whether he will give the date on which it reached the quarter where such complaints are usually received.
  MR. WYNDHAM: It formed no part of the duty of the resident magistrate, who is a judicial officer, to make a report on this matter to the Executive. That duty devolved upon and was discharged by the district inspector of constabulary who was present and conducted the prosecution. On the 18th February and again on the 3rd instant, the Government, being desirous of supplementing the facts in its possession, invited the resident magistrate to furnish his observations. The case was dismissed on the 1st of February. The district inspector made his report on the 4th of February, since which date the case has received the attention demanded by its importance. The clerk of petty sessions has no duties to perform in this connection.

  Irish Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  320
  Ireland if he will state in what manner and from what persons the inspectors of the Land Commission make inquiries as to whether accommodation for labourers is needed on any estates for the purchase of which applications were received under the Irish Land Act, 1903; which is the estate on which the accommodation for labourers is reported to be insufficient but for which no scheme has yet been framed by the Estates Commissioners; and will he give the names and rural areas of the five largest estates on which accommodation is reported to be sufficient.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The inspectors inquire whether accommodation is needed for labourers on the estate. If they are of opinion that the existing house accommodation is insufficient having regard to the ordinary requirements of the district, they are instructed to specify how such accommodation may best be supplied. The information is procured locally. On the estate of Louis Perrin-Hatchell, in county Wexford, it has been reported that the accommodation is insufficient. The other five estates referred to are the Duke of Leinster's, counties Kildare and Meath; L. G. Kemmis, Queen's county; H. C. Gillman, Cork; J. H. Edge, Queen's county; and M. H. Hyndman, Tipperary.

  Marine Works, South Donegal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Killaghtee Branch of the United Irish League on the 28th February, urging the claims of South Donegal Bay to a share of the marine grant for the building of boatslips and landing places for the fishermen on the south side of St. Ulin's Point, especially at Cassan Sound, and for repair at Ballyricard and Ballyethuland, and pressing for some share in the allocation of the remainder of the funds of the Donegal portion of the marine grant for this district which has been overlooked in that allocation; and what steps, if any, will the Government take, having regard to the needs of this locality, to secure for it participation in this grant.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. In the allocation of the

  321
  grant preference was given to works according to their relative importance and after consultation with representatives of the county council. I cannot hold out any hope that a further allocation will be made in respect of the particular works mentioned in the Question.

  North Tipperary Land Court.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that there are a number of cases listed for the past four years for the Head Land Commission from the district of North Tipperary, he will say when the Court will again sit to hear these cases.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The Commissioners inform me that no date has been fixed for the next sitting of the Court for the hearing of fair rent appeals from this district. The last list disposed of by the Commissioners comprised all cases in which appeals were lodged prior to the 1st January, 1901.

  Sporting Eights on the Clanricarde Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants of the townland of Derrygoolan, county Galway, on the Clanricarde Estate, who asserted their claims to the sporting rights, have in consequence been processed, some for the hanging gale, being the only rent alleged to be due, and others served with notices to quit; whether, in view of the circumstances of the proceeding and the nature of the past season, he will undertake that the forces of the Crown will not be used in the execution of any decrees thus obtained.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have no information on the first part of the Question. The Government has no power to give an undertaking such as suggested at the end of the Question.

  Licence Duty.
  MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state what was
  322
  the gross amount of licence duty for the year ended 31st March, 1903, obtained from licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors, tobacco, and plate, and to carry on the businesses of pawnbroker, auctioneer, appraiser, hawker, and refreshment house keeper, in England and Scotland, respectively; the net amount paid over to the county and borough councils in respect to such licences in England and Scotland, respectively; the gross amount obtained from similar licences for the same period in the case of Ireland; whether these licence duties are allocated to the county and borough councils in which they accrue in the case of England and Scotland; and, if so, will he explain why the same rule of allocation is not followed in the case of Ireland.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The figures desired by the hon. Member are set out in the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. An amount equivalent to the net yield of the Local Taxation Licences in Ireland is annually paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Local Taxation Account at the Bank of Ireland under Section 58 of the Act 61–62, Vict. c. 37.

  Board of Works Estate, County Galway.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Board of Works are prepared to receive an offer of purchase from their tenants at Meelick, Eyrecourt, county Galway, under the provisions of the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: No, Sir: the Act does not apply to this class of tenancy.

  Limerick Fisheries.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is now in a position to supply the information asked for on the 30th July, 1903, as to how much money was paid to owners of fishery rights since the year 1834 between Castle Connell and the Lax Weir at Limerick, giving the parts of the river claimed for and the names of the claimants, whether for partial or total

  323
  loss, and the amount given in each case, also the names of those who were compensated for salmon fisheries and those compensated for eel fisheries.
  *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: The information is too detailed to be given in the form of a verbal Answer. If the hon. Member will communicate farther with me I will meet his wishes so far as possible.

  Kilworth Camp.
  MR. CULLINAN,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Government has purchased the estate of Lady Holroyd Smyth, around Kilworth Camp, in the counties of Cork and Tipperary, with the object of establishing cannon and rifle ranges; and, if so, whether this will necessitate the removal of families as well as the closing of public roads within the ranges.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. Lady Holroyd Smyth's property, Moore Park, has been purchased for the purpose of erecting barracks thereon, and as an extension to Kilworth training ground.

  Morning Sittings of Parliament.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that many Members of this House would prefer reverting to the former plan of holding the Morning Sitting on Wednesday instead of on Friday and whether he will give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I think there probably is still, as there was when the Standing Order was first proposed, some difference of opinion upon the relative convenience of having private Members' or morning sittings on Wednesday or on Friday; but I still believe that the balance of opinion, and the balance of convenience, lies in the direction of retaining the Rule in its present shape.

  Coal as Contraband of War.
  MR. LAWSON WALTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the
  324
  Treasury whether, in view of the declaration by Russia that she proposes to treat coal as contraband of war, his attention has been called to the declaration made by the Russian plenipotentiary at the West African Conference held in Berlin in December 1884, in relation to the neutralisation of the Congo, in which he stated that the Russian Government would never accept the interpretation that coal should be classed among the articles considered by international law as contraband of war, and that his Government would categorically refuse its consent to any article in any instrument whatever which would imply a recognition of coal (huille ou charbon) as contraband of war, either in relation to the Congo or any other district whatever, and, if so, have His Majesty's Ministers called the attention of the Russian Government to this declaration or made any communication to them on the subject, or do they propose to do so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government are aware of the declaration made by the Russian delegate to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called our attention. The matter is one of great importance, and we are taking steps to obtain more precise, information with regard to the interpretation of the Russian declaration respecting contraband of war.

  National Expenditure.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he now state whether any decision has been arrived at for giving the House an opportunity to discuss the advisability of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure by nominating an Estimates Committee for examination of and report on one class of the Estimates, and by appointing one day in the session for the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee Report and recommendations; and can he state the result of any consultation as to the form of the Motion on which such a discussion will take place, or give the terms of the Motion proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to say I have not yet been able to consult with the Leader of the Opposition on the

  325
  question of having a special Committee for inspection of the Estimates. If the House desires to discuss the Report of the Public Accounts Committee the best plan would be that, instead of three additional days for Supply, there should be two only, leaving the third for the proposed discussion. I am not in a position to say whether this would be agreeable to the House at large.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Of course the right hon. Gentleman is aware we could not discuss the Report of the Public Accounts Committee in Supply?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is so, and that is why I have suggested that we should take a day for it and only have twenty-two instead of twenty-three days allotted to Supply.

  Preferential Tariffs—Prime Minister's Pamphlets.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will now publish the document containing propositions embracing preferential tariffs and the taxation on food, which was brought by him before the Cabinet held on the last day of the session of 1903, as an alternative to the document on Insular Free Trade which he has already caused to be published.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is under a perfect misapprehension on this matter. I have stated more than once—I think I have stated it outside the House, and I certainly have stated it inside the House—that there was no alternative document presented to the Cabinet; and, there being no document of the kind described, I do not know that I need deal further with the Question.

  Cabinet Resignations.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the statements made by some of his late Cabinet colleagues as to the causes and circumstances of their resignation in September last, he proposes now to give the House a full account of the proceedings in relation to
  326
  such resignations and the consequent reconstruction of the Cabinet.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the House or the country can be very usefully occupied with the continuation of a discussion which has been going on steadily now since September last, but if an opportunity is given to me next Wednesday I shall have no reluctance to take advantage of it.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to try to intrude his explanation into the discussion, next Wednesday, of a Motion which contains no reference whatever to the resignations and utterances of Ministers?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I unfortunately was not here during the debate on the Address; but I confess I should have thought that an explanation such as I thought the hon. Gentleman desired was as germane to the Motion next Wednesday as the speeches made and the explanations given on these resignations were to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. It the hon. Gentleman prefers to discuss the Motion next Wednesday in its narrowest and strictest form it is quite a matter of indifference to me.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I shall at the proper time ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the statement of the late Secretary of State for India in explaining, by permission, the reason of his retirement from the Cabinet, that on the last day of the session the Cabinet was summoned to consider the fiscal question in connection with certain propositions put before its members by the Prime Minister, and that there were two documents under consideration, the one on insular free trade and the other a document which contained substantive propositions embracing preferential tariffs and the taxation of food; whether, having regard to the fact that the document on insular free trade has been published, the companion document advocating preferential tariffs and the taxation of food

  327
  will now be published; and what explanation, if any, is there for the publication of the one document and the withholding from publication of the other.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hoped I had already given all the information desired by the hon. Gentleman when I answered a previous Question.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No. I wish the Prime Minister to take special note of the statement referred to in my Question, that one of the documents was on insular free trade and that the other advocated preferential tariffs and the taxation of food. My Question is—What explanation, if any, is there for the publication of one document and the withholding from publication of the other.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has been misled by what I conceive to be a misinterpretation of anything that has ever fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. He seems to think that there were two documents similar in character except that they were opposite in opinion. That is not the case. There was no difference of opinion, and there was nothing similar in regard to their general form. One was, as he is well aware, a pamphlet written with a view to possible publication. The other was one of the ordinary confidential documents which one colleague constantly writes for the benefit of other colleagues, and was a part of the ordinary Cabinet procedure.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were both documents sent to the members of the Cabinet that they might take their choice? Would the right hon. Gentleman quote them?
  MR. BLACK: Did they embody contrary opinions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: They certainly did not, and I have said so several times.

  Army Corps.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if a decision has been taken to abolish the Army Corps system; and, if not, why the words,
  328
  Commanding Army Corps, have been dropped from Vote 1, Appendix 1, of the Army Estimates.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. friend the Secretary for War informs me that the omission of the terminology in question had nothing whatever to do with any question of policy at all and was determined on long before the War Office Reorganisation Report was made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the course of business for this week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Army Estimates will probably occupy the whole of the Government time this week.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: When will the Irish Bill be introduced?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope my right hon. friend will be able to introduce the Bill on Wednesday.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: Under the ten minutes rule?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When is it proposed to bring in the Scotch Education Bill?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unless progress in Supply is more rapid than I anticipate, I am afraid there is little chance of the Scottish Education Bill being introduced this week.

THE CABINET RESIGNATIONS— MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
MR. JOHN ELLIS, Member for Nottinghamshire, (Rushcliffe Division), rose 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 omission of the Prime Minister to give the House a

329
full account of the proceedings in relation to the causes and circumstances of the resignations of a number of the members of his Cabinet during last autumn, especially having regard to the statements made by them as to such causes and circumstances."
MR. GALLOWAY: On a point of order, may I ask whether the Motion is not precluded by a Motion on the Paper for Wednesday to call attention to the public utterances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other members of the Government on the fiscal question.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of order, may I ask whether, if permission were granted to the hon. Gentleman by the House to make a Motion, it would be in order to make the statement he desires on that Motion, for it seems to me, at first sight, that it would be out of order?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Nottingham had shown me this Motion, and I had considerable difficulty on two points. One was the question whether this might be construed as constituting a precedent for asking to move the Adjournment of the House whenever a Minister has not made a personal explanation which forty Members consider that he should have made; and I would point out that if I admit this Motion it should not be taken as a precedent for any such ruling. As regards the other point to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, I also considered that, and I believe there is a great deal to be said for that view as a strictly technical view. I am of opinion, however, that, as applied to the Motion for Adjournment, it would be too technical to treat that as limiting his speech. While I say this, I am not putting it as a precedent for a Motion for the Adjournment of the House when a Minister fails to make a personal explanation which some Members of the House might think it desirable that he should make. It is under the very exceptional and important circumstances that I think it right to leave it to the House to say whether they desire or not to have the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
And, the pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over,
330
under Standing Order No. 10, until this Evening's Sitting.

THE ORDER OF QUESTIONS.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLon a point of order complained that there had been a grave infraction of the rights of private Members on account of the way Questions were placed on the Notice Paper.
*MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The Notice Paper is quite in order, and if the hon. Member wishes to raise a discussion as to the way Questions are put down he cannot raise it as a question of order. The Paper is perfectly in order.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid there was no Rule of the House which provided for the Questions of the First Lord of the Treasury being placed last with the chance of being crushed out.
*MR. SPEAKER: It has long been the practice to place them in this position. I am not saying that the convenience of this arrangement is not an arguable point, but simply that it cannot be raised as a question of order, and it does not give the hon. Member the right to intervene in the business of the House now. The hon. Member may put down a Motion, but he cannot raise it as a question of order.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he did not think a Motion would be in order. Now that Questions had a time limit the First Lord's Questions were crushed out.
*MR. SPEAKER: There is a rule that no discussion can take place in this House without there is some question before the House, unless it is a question of order immediately arising. Therefore the hon. Member is not entitled to discuss a matter of this kind.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope I may be allowed to say that I particularly dislike any Questions put to me being driven over, because answering them in writing I find much less convenient. I should like to make arrangements for my Questions to come at a period when they would not be driven over.
MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked if Mr. Speaker could say exactly what the practice was. Were they put on the Paper in the order in which they were handed in?
*MR. SPEAKER: They are first grouped under the heads of the different Ministers' Departments, and subject to that I believe they are put in the order in which they are handed in.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid this grouping had only taken place since the institution of the new Rules.

COMMONS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider every Report made by the Board of Agriculture certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the enclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
Ordered, That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power in respect of each such Provisional Order to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament; and, if so, whether with or without modification, and in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Board of Agriculture.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twelve Members; Seven to be nominated by the House, and Five by the Committee of Selection.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That five be the quorum.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
William Parrott, esquire, for the County of York (Southern part of the West Riding, Normanton Division).
NEW BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894," presented by Mr. Cathcart Wason; supported by Sir William Arrol, Mr. Weir, Sir Andrew Agnew, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Alexander Cross, Mr. Harmsworth, Colonel Denny, Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. James Reid, Mr. John Dewar, and Sir J. Batty Tuke; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]
  SALE OF WHISKY BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Sale of Whisky, and to provide for the marking of casks and other vessels containing Whisky," presented by Sir, Herbert Maxwell; supported by Colonel Kenyon, Slaney, Captain Balfour, and Mr. Gordon; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 16th March, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
  Order for Committee read.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): In introducing these Estimates to the House I ask leave to make an apology. I am afraid for what I have to say I must claim indulgence, because I have really very little to recite that can I be of interest to hon. Members of the House. I feel like the needy knife-grinder, "Story, God bless you, I have none to tell, Sir." The Estimates I which I have to present are quite intelligible, and on the face of them they involve no new departure. They have no peculiar feature which distinguishes them unfavourably from any previous Estimates, and I feel that I can best perform my duty to the House by explaining such parts of the Estimates as are obscure, and then leave the matter to the judgment of the House. These Estimates are the last certainly that I shall ever present of this character. Hon.

  333
  Members may say that these are self-denying pledges on my part, but I venture to say they are likely to be the last Estimates of the kind that anyone occupying my place is likely to present to the House. My belief is, that we are standing at the parting of the ways with regard to the administration of the Army, and I have seen nothing, during the short time I have been brought face to face, officially, with the problems of the Army, to alter my belief that changes of considerable magnitude are necessary if this country desires to obtain the Army which it requires, and the Army which is appropriate to its needs. If I thought that these Estimates which I present to-day represented the last word upon War Office policy, I certainly should not be standing at this box now, but it is because I have the confident hope that it may fall to my lot—and if I have to abandon that hope that it may fall to the lot of some hon. Member equally solicitous for the welfare of the Army—to produce Estimates upon a totally different system, that I now ask the consideration of the House to these Estimates as interim Estimates only.
  It has been complained that the Memorandum which has been circulated to Members is too brief and lacking in particulars with regard to the future. The Memorandum was simply explanatory of the Estimates. I did not follow the laudable example of my noble colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty. I did not attempt to make any summary of the conditions of the past, or to make any brilliant anticipation of the hopes of the future. I thought I would be excused from dealing with either. There was nothing in the past to which I particularly wished to call the attention of hon. Members, and there was nothing in the future which I felt at liberty to anticipate with sufficient certainty to make it reasonable and proper for me to put it before the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition mildly reproached me for hurrying these documents on the House. I owe him and the House an explanation of what I did. I think the explanation is a sound one. I ascertained through the ordinary channels that it was the desire of the House that it should have an opportunity of discussing the
  334
  Navy Estimates side by side with the Army Estimates—that was, that hon. Members should have before them the contemplated expenditure on the Army, when they were discussing the important Navy Estimates which were dealt with last week; and as I have always been a firm believer in that doctrine—I have often preached it in this House—I thought I ought to be the first to give effect to it when opportunity offered, and I went out of my way to anticipate the Estimates by the presentation of the Memorandum, in order to put the main features of the Estimates before the House of Commons at the earliest possible date. That is the only explanation I can give of the fact that the Memorandum was rather hurriedly brought before hon. Members. Had I followed the ordinary course it could not have been presented until the Estimates were presented.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not complain of the hurrying of that document, but of the delaying of others.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman. I was not blaming him, but rather excusing myself. My view is that we should be able to discuss the Navy and Army Estimates together. These Estimates represent, so far as I have been able to control them at all, a redemption of the pledge I ventured to give that I would attempt to produce Army Estimates which would show some reduction on the Army Estimates which preceded them, but which would not give just opportunity for those who are anxious for the welfare of the Army, to reproach me with having made a new departure without carefully providing some machinery to take the place of that which I proposed to abandon. Nothing could be more unwise—and I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will be in agreement with me—than to disturb our present machine before we have another machine to put in its place. I think it would have been an act of madness to interfere with the due operation of that machine until we were prepared to substitute for it something better and more effective. That is, after all, the whole secret of the Estimates I

  335
  now present to the House. I know, or I think I know, what is in the minds of most hon. Members when they come to the discussion of these two great Estimates, the Navy Estimates and the Army Estimates. There is a feeling, which I do not affect to deny the importance of—a feeling, indeed which I share—that this is a burning subject and a very serious one in the mind of the country. I have not abandoned the view I have long entertained and often expressed, that the capacities of this country to spend money on its armaments are not infinite, and that if we are to have a readjustment, it must be a readjustment in the sense of first making perfect our naval defence, even though to some extent we are compelled to provide on a greater scale of magnitude than other Powers. Therefore the advocates of economy will find me to be a very sympathetic listener. Of course, I have my own ideas as to the way in which economies may be best affected. I think the first rule we have got to lay clown is this, that true economy exists in making a machine that will do our work, and that anything short of that is a waste of money, and that anything in excess of that is extravagance. But, of course, it is an obvious remark that that valuation is of no use at all unless we know what the duties are. Now I do not think that up to the present time, or until a very short time ago, this country did quite know what the duties were which the Army was expected to perform, and I believe that at this moment we have not that full information as to what those duties are which we hope some day to possess. But I think we are taking steps to bring professional judgment, combined with a knowledge of political exigencies, and combined with a knowledge of financial resources, to bear on the solution of this problem, and I feel that it is the duty of every Secretary of State for War, to whatever Party he belongs, to put into the forefront of all his calculations this matter of the duties which the Army has to perform. It is from my conception of those duties that I regard the whole question. In these matters, in the first place it is for the professionals, and secondly for the House of Commons, to give to the War Office the necessary instructions which will allow it to proceed.
  336
  I come now to these Estimates, which I confess do not represent my idea of what ought to be the character or the scale of expenditure on our Army, but they do represent, after taking all aspects of the case into consideration, what is necessary to carry on the Army on its present basis for another year. The hon. Member has reproached me for not having imported into these Estimates the decisions arrived at in connection with the Report of the War Office Reconstitution Committee. S I hope that point will not be pressed, for I think you will see that it is not a very reasonable or effective point. I should like hon. Members to bear in mind the dates of these accounts. I do not want to go back on the question when it is necessary to consider the Estimates, but anyone familiar with Government business knows what that means. I take the commencement of the current year, and I would remind hon. Members that the first sitting of this Committee was held on 29th December, that the first Report was received on 1st February, that the second Report was received on 29th February, and that the third Report has not yet been received. I think it will be admitted that it is not within the bounds of human ingenuity to provide in these accounts for the contents of those Reports. The dates of the accounts are regulated like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, and it is not within our power to take into consideration the changes likely to be involved by these Reports.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Your Estimates are signed by the new Council.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Of course they are signed by the new Council. What is it that this House requires? We have been trying to place the War Office on the basis of the Admiralty. We have endeavoured to get the responsibility for those Estimates shared by the I Council which the Government has created. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me still, to be a rational and inevitable step that the moment the Council is formed it should take the responsibility which has been thrust upon it. The hon. Member will say, "Ah, but why does a member of the I Council sign them when he cannot know

  337
  all about them?" Does he mean to apply that reasoning to every new member of the Admiralty Board? Are we to be told at this stage that the responsibility of a Council like that is to be absolutely interpreted to be the personal assurance of every member of it that he is cognisant with all the facts the Estimates contain? If so, you have to make another Council, you have to begin again, you have to destroy the Board of Admiralty, you have to destroy the Army Board. Let me come, after all, to the matter on which I ought to be addressing the House. The Estimates show, as hon. Members have already learned, a diminution of £8,300,000 compared with the gross expenditure last year. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the bulk of this reduction, is due to the cessation of war charges. The amount which I think is fairly chargeable in that way is £5,325,000. That sum accounts for not only the cessation of war charges, but for practically the cessation of the great expenditure on stores under the Mowatt programme, which was exceptional expenditure, and for the winding up of the accounts in regard to China. The Mowatt programme was a programme sanctioned by Parliament and involving a large addition to the normal Estimates of the Army for providing stores to make up a deficiency. Nearly the whole of these stores have now been provided and the necessity for continuing the expenditure has therefore ceased. There are other reductions which I will deal with later on, and which are set out in the memorandum I have placed before hon. Members, amounting to £1,480,000. After making all these reductions, what I call legitimate reductions, we have £280,000 less than what I think is the normal War Office Estimate. I think it is a matter which we may regard with some satisfaction that we have now reduced these Estimates by that sum below the normal War Office expenditure. For the moment I am taking the normal Estimates of last year as being £280,000 in excess of the Estimates of this year, which amount to £28,900,000, and considering whether this result is good or bad. I can only say, in view of the economy which some hon. Members are anxious to effect, that a reduction of £280,000 is not a large
  338
  reduction. But I think hon. Members must go a little further than that, and must look into the figures which make up the totals in the debit and credit balances. When hon. Members find whit they are getting for this sum of £28,900,000 I think there will be some reason for satisfaction.
  It is much harder to justify reductions than it is to justify increases. One has to be very careful, if one is responsible for the administration of the Army, before reducing any expenditure, for this reason—that every year the responsibilities of the Army are increasing. When you increase your business, it is the normal experience of men of business that you must increase your capital; and it seems to me that no Secretary of State should present to this House, without good reason and a very clear explanation, any decrease in the normal Army expenditure. Therefore I feel more called upon to explain my decreases than I do to explain my increases. I know I shall be criticised in this House, on both sides, by hon. Members who desire to see great decreases in our Estimates, and by other hon. Members who, knowing, as I do, the condition of the Army, believe, as I do not, that that condition can be greatly improved by the mere expenditure of money. I submit to this House—to this I attach some importance—that the decreases which I have sanctioned this year have in no way impaired the efficiency of the Army. It will be noted that there is a reduction of £50,000 in the Estimate for the Foot Guards. No one can regret more than I do that there should be any reduction in the personnel of the Guards. There are no better troops in the Army; they have maintained their discipline under most trying circumstances, and have been a model and example to the Army. I should be the last person to come down to this House and advocate a reduction in the establishment of the Guards if it were a question of my will. It is not a question of my will; this reduction is not a voluntary reduction. Recruiting for the Guards has fallen off, and we are face to face with a reduction of no less than 1,894 men since 1st February, 1903, in the Brigade of Guards. Therefore this reduction of £50,000 merely corresponds with the facts which I am compelled to contemplate. I will not

  339
  trouble the House at this moment with what I believe to be the reasons for this falling off. I believe the principal reason is that we have now sanctioned three years' recruiting for the whole of the Army, and what was before the privilege and distinction of the Brigade of Guards, has now become common to the whole of the Line. Coupled with that change there is the fact that the duties of the Guards are very heavy. This has contributed to driving recruits from the Brigade of Guards into the Line battalions. Whatever has been the cause, the result is to be regretted, but, however regrettable it is, it has compelled us to effect an economy of £50,000. There is a similar economy, having a similar explanation, in the infantry of the Line. I have been compelled to sanction a reduction of fifty men on the establishment of the battalions at home. There is a shortage in the infantry battalions of 4,776 men—that is the equivalent of seven or eight battalions. I do not consider a falling off of that kind is a matter upon which we ought to congratulate ourselves—it simply marks a failure in our system. There are many who think that a reduction of the battalions might be possible or desirable who will not view with satisfaction a reduction which is not voluntary, but is the result of inadequate recruiting. I think I am quite safe in making the reduction which I have made of £175,000 in respect of this reduction of infantry of the Line. It would require a great development of recruiting to enable us to catch up the whole of this deficiency during the coming year. There is an item of £100,000 for the discontinuance of the Militia Reserve, which was recently established, and was intended to take in men who were Laving the Royal Garrison regiments, and also Regular soldiers who had never gone into the Militia, but had left the Army for several years and had under twenty-one years service. I do not think that experiment has proved to be altogether satisfactory. Undoubtedly it has had the effect of inducing men who otherwise might have gone into the Militia not to go into the Militia. I am not quite clear that this additional force is a very great contribution to our military strength. At any rate, this I can say, with the full acquiescence of my military
  340
  advisers I have decided that the entrance to the Militia Reserve, except for the men of the Garrison regiments, shall be discontinued. Hon. Members will understand that every soldier well knows without my telling him that this Militia Reserve is a totally different body from the old Militia Reserve which was composed of men who were practically part of the Line battalions serving pro tem. in the Militia battalions.
  MR.COURTENAY WARNER: Will Militiamen not be allowed to join?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: This Reserve was for men who had not served in the Militia. The Stores Vote shows the large reduction of £750,000. This reduction is due to the fact that we have a great accumulation of stores, especially clothing, in this country, due to the South African War. I do not know that that is an item which we ought to regard with satisfaction, because it is a reduction which cannot be repeated in future years—as the stores become exhausted they will have to be replaced, and this plethora does not represent a normal condition. There is an item of £148,000 for deferred pay. Hon. Members know that the number of men who are entitled to claim deferred pay is being diminished. The total of these reductions is nearly £1,500,000.
  I should like the House to understand that pari passu with these reductions there have been some very important increases. I think it is rather a matter for congratulation that these very important increases, which I think do represent real gain to the Army, should have been possible without seriously increasing the normal Estimates. Under my right hon. friend who preceded me a most valuable and important addition was made to the pay of the Army—an addition which, I believe, has not yet borne its full fruit, but which is most advantageous to the Army and is fully justified. That addition will cost us £750,000 in the coming year. This cost comes, not unexpectedly, but practically for the first time on the Estimates, because the period when the full advantage of the new pay comes into force is 1st April of the year. There is also, I am glad t say, the large sum of £210,000 which will become payable on

  341
  account of the strengthening of the Army Reserve. The Army Reserve, owing to various causes, is much below what we should like it to be—it stands at 69,500 men—and in view of the great importance of the Army Reserve to this country it is obviously desirable that something like the normal figures should be attained as soon as possible. It may be asked—certainly it was asked by me—How do you account for the war, apart from the casualties, leading to this great reduction of the Reserve? Certainly it would seem obvious that two years of war service in a man's military career need not eliminate him from the Reserve. What has happened is this. During the war a great number of men on the establishment in India extended their period of service to twelve years on the inducement of the bounty. Every man so extending his service pro tanto diminished the Army Reserve. Fortunately, we are now, I think, rapidly increasing the total of the Army Reserve again, and that increase will be represented during the coming year by the sum of £210,000. Then there is the sum of £98,000 for the Military Works Acts annuities. There is also £70,000 for the full training of the Militia. After the war it was not thought necessary to bring out the whole of the Militia battalions for training, but a return to the ordinary practice during the coming year is contemplated. All these items, I think, are satisfactory, and it is satisfactory to be able to make these additions without increasing the normal total of the Army Estimates. Let me remind hon. Members that these Estimates include a sum of no less than £1,360,000, which is the figure necessitated by the maintenance of the garrison in South Africa. I do not mean to apologise for that. It is obvious that any country which extends its responsibilities must extend its expenditure, and, therefore, I think we must have anticipated that there would be that additional cost.
  All hon. Members who take a close interest in the Army will have detected the fact that up to this point I have made no reference whatever to a matter in which they are greatly interested, and that is the re-armament of the artillery. I gave, not a pledge, but an indication in
  342
  this House that if I were permitted I should make a proposal to the House with regard to the rearmament of the artillery. I am able to make that proposal now; but by a fortunate concurrence of circumstances I do not ask the House to sanction the cost of additions to the artillery on these Estimates. We have now practically decided on a type of new gun. I can assure hon. Gentlemen that that gun, the details of which I shall be able to give on a subsequent occasion, is a gun of which the country will be proud—they are a heavy field gun and a horse artillery gun which, I believe, will stand practically without a rival and certainly without a superior in Europe. We are now in a position to commence the manufacture of these guns, and the work will be begun next month. A number of these guns can be made during the coming financial year, and we shall give the manufacturers practically carte blanche to proceed as fast as they can. But the output during the first year must be limited because a great deal of time will be taken up with making the patterns and gauges which are necessary for securing uniformity in all parts of the gun made in different places. We propose to complete during the next year 108 field guns and eighteen Royal Horse Artillery guns, and to make considerable progress with the manufacture of a large number of additional guns. The Government of India had available and desired to expend a certain portion of its revenue upon an object which had long been contemplated—the re-armament and strengthening of the military equipment of the Army in India—and my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India has intimated to me that they are desirous of obtaining these guns as soon as possible. They will be paid for by the Government of India. I cannot conceive a more fortunate circumstance, because if it had been left absolutely to my own discretion to assign the place where these guns should go to, I would have assigned them to India. India is our only possible place of contact with a great European army. India is a place where long ranges are common, while in this country they are exceedingly uncommon. There are very few places in this country with a 2,000 yards' range.

  343
  There will be greater value for these guns in India than there would be here, and therefore we propose to assign to India practically the whole of the output of these guns for the coming year. The Government of India will initiate the manufacture, and the guns will be placed-where I think all of us would wish to see them placed.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Do the Government of India usually pay for guns?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Always.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the calibre of the guns?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I cannot give the exact calibre in inches, but I can give the weight of the projectile. It will be 18½lbs. and 12½lbs.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that what he desired to know was whether there would be a great number of calibres, or only one or two.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: They will be of the same calibre, with, as I have said, a 12½lb. and an 18½lb. projectile. We are also manufacturing a new rifle. This rifle has been in course of manufacture for some time, and we are going to adopt the same process with regard to a considerable number of these rifles as we are adopting with the field and Horse Artillery guns. The Indian Government are going to take 71,000 stand of these rifles during the coming year, and the upshot of these two transactions is that a sum of £700,000, in addition to the amount calculated in these Estimates, will be expended during the coming year to improve the armament of the British Army in the place where that armament is most urgently required.
  Hon. Members will perhaps wish me to say something about recruiting. The recruiting is not altogether unsatisfactory, yet it leaves much to be desired. The recruiting returns are vitiated as a document by the fact that recruiting has been closed for some time past for two important branches of the Army—namely,
  344
  the Artillery and the Cavalry. Those branches are still overborne, as the expression goes, on account of the number of men who passed into the ranks during the war and have not yet taken their discharge into the Reserve, and no doubt partly in consequence, the infantry has acquired a larger proportion of recruits. I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the quality of the recruits, or that I am confident that such recruiting is going to give us all we want. I do not wish to dogmatise on the matter one way or the other, because I believe the full effect of the reforms initiated by my right hon. friend has not yet been fully felt, perhaps, and that when it is realised how great has been the improvement in the position of the soldier we may rely not only on getting more recruits, but possibly recruits of a different class from those we have already obtained. I do not know whether the country yet realises how great has been the improvement in the position of the soldier; and I do trust that those, and they are many, who, like myself, believe that the Army offers a splendid career for a young man, will take the pains to ascertain what is the improvement in the soldier's position, or what will be the improvement in his position when the full change in regard to pay takes effect. I have before me a document which has been prepared in the War Office, which I believe accurately represents the emoluments, the total money received in one form or another by the soldier in 1904 as compared with his receipts in 1897. I find that the figure of £22 15s. 5d. represents the earlier year, as against no less than £35 19s. 7d. for a fully-trained soldier in the present year. And when the other reforms in respect of accommodation in barracks and so on are considered, I hope it will be realised that any one may confidently advise a young man in whom he is interested, and who has any inclination for a military career, to join the Army under the improved circumstances that now exist.
  I wish I could tell a satisfactory tale about the Militia. I am sorry to say that circumstances do not permit me to do so. The condition of the Militia, both as regards officers and men, is profoundly unsatisfactory. There has been a very heavy decline both in the number of

  345
  effectives and in the recruiting. I will not give the figures as to recruiting at length, because I might mislead hon. Members by including figures for the war; but when I say that the nominal effectives are 92,000, and that the strength of the Infantry is only 75,000 men, hon. Members will see that the Militia has long ceased to be able to perform fully the important duties which I believe it might be made capable of performing for the country. I have over and over again given my reasons for believing that this fall in the Militia is due to causes which are preventable, which are obvious. I believe the Militia has long been regarded too much as an adjunct of the Line. It has had no independent existence. I believe the rule; which is common to any body or corporation applies to the Militia, and that, if you desire to restore it to a satisfactory condition you must make it feel that it is an all-important element in the defence of the country, that every battalion has individual existence, and that the prestige of the officer and the man in a Militia battalion is that which he earns for himself and for his battalion while he is in it. I believe it does not pass the wit of man to give to the Militia those conditions of service which I think are calculated to make it the force we all agree it can be made.
  I do not like to speak at length of the Volunteers, a force which is of enormous importance to the country—or perhaps I ought to say, is capable of being made of enormous importance to the country—and whose affairs are at the present moment being discussed by a Committee appointed for I this purpose. When its labours, which have already occupied a great length of time, are completed, I shall feel much more free to speak with regard to the Volunteers. My own views are very definite, and I do not think they will be found to differ very widely from those held by those who have the true interests of the Volunteers at heart. At the present moment I am confident the Volunteers are not fulfilling to anything like the extent they ought to fulfil the duties which the country hopes they may fulfil in time of war. I do not believe that that is to any large extent the fault of the Volunteers. I believe it is
  346
  because we have not yet thought out our problems. We have not yet learned to apply the special conditions of each service to that service. We have not realised what part we want each branch of the Army to take in time of war; and until we do all these things the Volunteers will continue to be what they are now—a body capable of producing a magnificent force, but which would be misdescribed at the present time if we said it was a force of a truly military character, with a quality corresponding to its numbers, and with an organisation corresponding to the zeal and energy of those who compose it.
  I must refer for one moment to another force, of which I can speak with the greatest possible satisfaction. That is the Yeomanry. I have been asked with regard to the Yeomanry whether it is not a paper force, because it has not yet obtained its full establishment. That question involves an entire misconception. There are two conditions in which a battalion or regiment can be—either it may never have reached its establishment, though always on the upward grade, or it may have fallen from its establishment. The Yeomanry is in the condition of never having reached its establishment though always approximating to it, and within a very few weeks, probably within a few days, the Yeomanry will reach its establishment. The progress of the Yeomanry under its reorganised conditions since 1901 has been uniform and satisfactory, and I believe the Force is now capable of doing a very large amount of very valuable service in any trouble, in which this country may be involved.
  I come back now to the question of broad finance, because if I do not hon. Members opposite certainly will. I have deliberately omitted from this calculation any Estimate for Somaliland. I plead guilty to the fact, and I think the only justification for it is the avowal that I have not left this matter in any uncertainty. I have not pretended that, if this war continues, as it may continue, we have an adequate amount of money for the coming year to provide for its needs. And if the war does continue, and as long as it continues, we shall have to ask the House for more money.
  MR. LOUGH: Have you any money for next year?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, we have not. There is no mystery about it—the fact appears on the face of the Estimates. We have taken money which will carry us on to the end of the present year. I do not want to enter into a discussion about Somaliland. I repeat what I said the other night, that in my opinion, an opinion formed on the advice of my counsellors, the situation in Somaliland is more favourable than it has been for many months past. But if our anticipations are once more disappointed, we shall no doubt be face to face with the necessity of forming a plan of campaign next year. What the form of that campaign may be I do not know. I think it will all depend on what may happen in the next few weeks. But I can assure hon. Members that if an opportunity be given, consistent with the safety of those who depend upon us, of winding up this campaign, I, at any rate, as responsible for the War Office—and in this matter I speak on behalf of the Government—shall avail myself of the opportunity. If it does not arise, then we shall have to ask the House for additional supplies.
  I have been asked during the course of this afternoon whether we have taken any steps to give effect to the Report of the War Office Reorganisation Committee. Sir, we have. We have taken steps which I believe have commended themselves to the House and to the country; and I can assure hon. Members that, so far as I am concerned, no day, no hour will be lost which, consistently with my duty and obligations, I can devote to ensuring that the recommendation of these Reports shall be applied to the service of the Army. [An HON. MEMBER: All the recommendations?] I said so far as my obligations permit. I have such absolute confidence in the value of these recommendations that I have very little doubt that they will be applied practically en bloc for the service of the Army. I do not go back for one moment on what has been said on behalf of the Government. I think it reasonable and obvious that the Government and the War Office should retain, at any rate, the right to read, examine,
  348
  and, if necessary, to criticise, what is contained in the Report.[Laughter.] The right Gentleman opposite laughs, but I am between two fires. The batteries are situated entirely on that side of the House. An hon. Gentleman on the other side has asked me why we were not putting into the Estimates the effect which might result from the adoption ox this Report. The right hon. Gentleman now smiles because I say we require a little time and claim the right to examine the propositions contained in the Report. I have quoted to the House what I call the salient dates in this matter. I think I have shown that there has been no loss of time in this House. I believe that the selection of the members of the Committee could not have been better, and that the work done by the Committee has been a model of close, scientific, and informed examination of a great subject. I believe that the Committee has done more by its example to show how some of our great national problems should be attacked than has any similar body for many years past. I also believe that, practically speaking, the general recommendations of that Committee are such as find favour with the country and with the Army. I believe that in the main we shall do well to adopt those recommendations; but I am not going now either to enter upon a criticism or a defence of the work of that Committee. I believe an opportunity will be given—I know it will be given if it be asked for, and I trust that opportunity will be taken—to discuss this Report thoroughly from beginning to end. I believe the whole essence and point of this Report are that from start to finish it is a coherent work based upon ideas penetrating every part of it, having a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion, directed to one purpose and inspired by one aim. There are one or two matters to which I must refer, because they are not future, but past, matters. I am going to ask the House to accept what we have done. We have acted in part upon this Report. The first part of this Report did advise us to make an Army Council; we have created that Army Council. The Report did advise us to create an Inspector-General of the Army; we have appointed that Inspector-General. My view is that in creating that Council, we

  349
  did exactly what the House desired and exactly what the country desired. We created the machinery which would alone enable us to give effective consideration to the various points we knew were to be raised in the remainder of the Committee's Report, and to give effect to the results of their deliberations. That is all I have to say at this stage either in explanation or excuse of what we have done. My belief is, that this Army Council will fulfil the expectations of hon. Members. I believe it will give greater efficiency to the Army as a weapon for the purposes of this country. I trust it will.
  I confess that I do not view with equanimity the condition of the Army at the present time. I believe that, important as it is that we should have this Army Council and that we should have these changes in the constitution of the War Office, it is still more important that we should carefully examine the condition of our Army to see whether it is really capable of performing those tasks which, whatever our politics, whatever our views may be, we fear may be imposed upon it on some occasion which may be, but we all hope is not, near. We have at this moment a great asset in the number of trained soldiers in this country, but that asset will not last for ever. It is being diminished every day. I have been compelled to examine the constitution, organisation, and composition of our Army. I am not satisfied that we can continue with advantage under our present organisation, or that we can do it without grave risk to the fortunes of this country. I am afraid my speech has been dull. I have avoided saying anything about my aspirations or entering into any detailed criticism of things as they are. I think nothing could be more unwise than to find fault with that which is existing, until and unless you are prepared to furnish a remedy. I think it is still more unwise and, moreover, most undignified to throw out suggestions with regard to possible remedies, unless one is fully equipped with the authority to place those remedies before Parliament, as a definite solution of the problem. I hope that occasion may arise, but I have excluded any remarks of that kind from my
  350
  statement now. I shall endeavour to explain, as well as I can, the details of these Estimates. If I am not as alert in doing it as hon. Members would desire, ii I am not as fully acquainted with all the matters of detail comprised in the Estimates as I ought to be, I hope hon. Members will bear in mind that I have not yet been made as familiar with all those items of account, as I was with the items connected with another Department. I have endeavoured to acquaint myself with all the salient points on which I know hon. Members who take an interest in the Army are likely to require information. In the meanwhile, I hope hon. Members will not suppose I have in this statement said all I should like to say upon the Army, or have made all those demands upon their sympathy and goodwill which I may have to make in the future.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is not my intention at this time to enter upon a general examination of the Estimates at large, but I do wish to call the attention of the House, and of I the Government especially, to the I position in which the House stands in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman made a speech, I think probably the most I extraordinary that has ever been made by a War Minister in this House, because the Government somehow—no one knows how—have created for themselves at this moment a position of such confusion with regard to the administration of the Army that it is almost impossible for a Minister to set clearly before the House the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying "Story! God bless you, I have none to tell, Sir;" but that is the complaint we make of this administration of needy knife-grinders. It is the story that we want. We cannot effectively and advantageously discuss these Estimates until we have the story. We want to know the history of this strange Committee that has been appointed to revolutionise, not only the War Office, but the Army itself. We want to know especially what are the relations of that Committee and of

  351
  their recommendations to the Government and the policy of the Government, and we have been able to get nothing hitherto out of the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman to-day told my hon. friend the Member for Northampton that the Government had decided upon a certain course and that was all he could tell. He would not say anything as to the action of the Cabinet. But we ought to know whose action has been used in this matter, and who has justified by his; action the phrases that are used in the Report and elsewhere with regard to the policy and opinions of the Government. The Government in this matter, as in others, appears to be a Government of no settled convictions. The Committee they themselves have appointed imputed certain definite opinions and policies to them, and they themselves partly repudiate and partly accept those attributions or imputations. I do not know whether there is any instance in our administrative history of a Committee such as this. I do not propose just now to discuss the individual recommendations of the Committee on their merits. Some of them may be good or some of them may be bad. It would not De advantageous, as I think, nor would it be decent, for the House of Commons to discuss the two sections of the Report which have been published before we know what the opinion of the Government is upon that Report and before the Government have advised the House one way or the other in the matter.
  Now, Sir, what is this Committee? We know what a Royal Commission is, and we know what a Departmental Committee is. But this Committee was appointed, so far as we know, not by the King, not by the Cabinet. It seems to have been a personal affair of the Prime Minister's, and it has reported to the Prime Minister. As far as we can make out, and I think this is probably the case, the Cabinet have had no de-liberations upon it. An hon. friend of mine behind me suggests that there was another body of a somewhat similar kind though a larger body. I suppose this triumvirate, this small Committee of three, did not sit at Birmingham. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] There has been most extraordinary alacrity and
  352
  hurry. First of all, of whom is this Committee composed? It is like a revolutionary committee of public safety—appointed and prepared to overturn anything and to guillotine anybody; and I do not think it would be going too far to say of the right hon. Gentlemen the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that if they have, not been decapitated they have run a very narrow risk of it. But upon this Committee, which is to settle the whole organisation of the War Office and of the Army, there is not a single person—there are only three of them—who has had any experience in the administration of the Army, and only one who has had any knowledge or experience of military affairs at all; and yet, setting aside all experience and all past precedent and all knowledge, they set themselves to make up a new heaven and a new earth. I have the privilege of being personally acquainted, and I have been for some years, with all the three members of the Committee, so I do not speak of them with any personal disrespect whatever; but really the whole circumstances are absolutely unprecedented, and yet the behests of the Committee are to be carried out without discussion in the House of Commons; indeed, a great part of them, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, have been carried out already. Their tone, I think everyone will agree with me, is somewhat peremptory and dictatorial and arrogant towards so important a body in the Constitution of the country as the Cabinet and towards the Prime Minister. Their code must be swallowed wholesale. It is everything or nothing. It is a most extraordinary circumstance, which must amuse any hon. Member who has taken the pains to read the Report, that almost every paragraph is said to deal with a vital question of the most urgent character which must be immediately dealt with. Talk about retaliation! That is nothing like this pistol presented at the head of the unfortunate Prime Minister. These three gentlemen, who presumably, until the day before yesterday, knew nothing about it, are dictating in this tone to the Government and the country as to the form, in the minutest detail, which the defensive forces of the country shall take.
  I give the go-by to all the recommendations of the Committee on

  353
  their own merits. There are some of them of which, as every one who knows my opinions knows pretty well, I should be in favour, but of others I cannot say the same thing. I am not discussing the details of the plan in itself; but I say that the manner of constitution, the whole procedure, is without any precedent, and I believe it to be an infringement in some respects of constitutional practice, and certainly of the decent conduct of public affairs, if the House of Commons and Parliament are to keep their rights firmly established. This Committee has a singular advantage in having its own organ in the Press, to which they communicate their desires and behests with a most unconstitutional and most improper association of the name of the King. When I brought the matter before the House at Question time the other day, the Prime Minister said that the name of the King ought not to be introduced; but the name of the King has been introduced, cither by the Committee or by some member representing the Government, or by some one acting on the authority of the Government, and we are entitled to know who it was that introduced it. Anything more improper cannot be imagined. It, of course, conveyed to the world at large the idea that His Majesty was personally recommending this scheme to the country. That would be a most unconstitutional arrangement if the matter had not been submitted to the responsible advisers of the Crown. But, of course, no such unconstitutional tendency was shown on the part of the King. It is the assumption that this body—or some one acting in collusion with them—have committed this outrage on constitutional practice.
  But why this extraordinary hot haste? From beginning to end we are told this and that must be done immediately. Men now serving the country in this Department or in certain offices must be ousted without delay. They even speak in one case of the matter being effected in a fortnight. What is the great hurry? I should think it was a most inconvenient thing, and one very much to be avoided, to have the matter brought up just as the Government were putting their Estimates before Parliament. The right
  354
  hon. Gentleman says that these Estimates are quite independent of the Report, and no doubt he thinks they do not commit the Government or the House to anything except some minor part of the scheme. If that is so, then there is no reason for this haste. Why was it that everything was hustled through in this way? The members of the Committee, who, as I have said, had no previous experience, make strong assertions, some of which will, I think, require a good deal of proof, and they say that they have consulted a great many military authorities of experience and knowledge. But they have taken no evidence, at all events we are not told whom they consulted, and in this random and slipshod way opinions are to be put forward as the basis of a new arrangement which perhaps could not be sustained if they were put forward by witnesses and subjected to cross-examination. What is the extraordinary haste that you should do away with every safeguard for prudent administration, and that you should depart from the established practice of not coming to a conclusion in so essential and important a matter as this, without; having considered the matter on all sides, and gained all the information you could and then formed your decision there upon? I cannot imagine what the intention can have been. It may have been to distract the public mind from other matters. We have seen other cases of the some process. Whatever the motive may have been it does not matter. I maintain that the 'House has the right to demand to be informed as to the circumstances of the appointment of this Committee, as to the I relations of the Government to the Committee, as to the manner in which the Government have considered the recommendations of the Committee, and as to the advice which the Government will give to the House and the country in the matter before we are asked to enter on the Estimates for the year; and I think it is not treating the House of Commons with proper respect for the Government to have avoided taking that very obvious course. I have brought the question forward at once because it is not a matter that would brook delay. I do not desire to proceed now to enter into other matters connected with the Estimates, of

  355
  which there are many, as I think, deserving of the closest consideration of the House and in Committee, because I shall have plenty of other opportunities of expressing my opinion upon them.
  *MR. J. F. HOPEsaid that in submitting the Motion standing in his name he desired to call attention to a question arising out of the Report of the late War Commission. He asked the House first of all to notice a note by Sir John Jackson, appearing on page 150 of the Report, to the following effect—
  "While signing this Report, in which I fully concur as a whole, I desire.…to express the opinion that if a few months prior to the outbreak of hostilities the War Office had had (as suggested by Sir Andrew Noble, Q. 20840) a sum of, say, £10,000,000 at its disposal, to be spent only with the consent of the Cabinet, but without the publicity of Parliament, preparations could have been made which would have reduced the cost of the war—even if it had not prevented the Boers from declaring war—by probably not less than £100,000,000 sterling."
  The evidence of Sir A. Noble there cited was as follows—
  "I may say upon that subject—(that is about preparation)—that I do not see how it is possible, unless our policy is changed, that we can ever be sufficiently prepared in the case of a war suddenly breaking out. I need not point out that in the great campaign to which I just now alluded, Frederick had his army chest full, and at his own disposal. We know further that at this moment Germany have a very large sum of money, over which the Parliament has no control, and which can be spent immediately without going to Parliament. It seems to me that the only way in which efficient preparation for war can be made, seeing the questions to which every Minister is now subjected, is that the War Office and Admiralty should have at their disposal a very considerable sum of money, not to be spent, of course, except with the authority of the Cabinet, but at the same time so that it would not be necessary to proclaim the fact to all the world. As things are now, all the world knows the next day what preparations we are making if the present system of questions as to raising money is allowed to go on.
  20833. (Sir George Taubman-Goldie.) Could they buy guns and other warlike material without its being known?—Yes, my firm has done that more than once for other nations."
  Sir Andrew Noble went on to say—
  "We were making, I may mention, for the War Office, shrapnel shell for field guns at the time the war broke out. I think we were manufacturing at the rate of about 200 or 300 a week. About five weeks after the war broke out I was sent for to the War Office, and asked what I could supply. I said that I thought in
  356
  time we should get up to 7,000 a week. But we might have been doing 7,000 a week at that moment if they had told us of their requirements six or seven weeks before."
  He submitted that that statement was of great importance, because the most serious thing disclosed with regard to the want of preparation for the late war was the shortage of military stores. And later on Sir George Taubman-Goldie asked—
  "When you suggest the Government having a considerable sum in hand for the purchase of material, have you given any consideration to the amount that you would consider necessary?"
  and Sir Andrew Noble replied—
  "Well, I have. I do not pretend in any way to be an authority upon these subjects, but I thought that if there was a sum of £10,000,000 at the disposal of the Admiralty, and the same sum at the disposal of the War Office, not to be spent at all, except when privately informed by the Cabinet that they might go on, efficient preparations could be made."
  Lord Strathcona asked—
  "You would always keep a reserve of £10,000,000?—Yes, that must be done.
  "20844. And you consider, although that is a large sum, that it would be insignificant compared to the enormous cost involved in entering upon a great war when unprepared for it?—Yes.
  "20845. And when money is invariably expended lavishly?—Yes. We need only go back to the Crimean War and others; there was two or three times as much wasted on the Crimean War as would have been necessary if we had been in a state of efficient preparation."
  So much for the evidence of Sir Andrew Noble. Now he came to the Report of the Commissioners, and they said—
  "And though, no doubt, the measure suggested by Sir Andrew Noble would go far to remove the chief difficulty which prevents the giving of orders in a situation of the kind, it is probably unnecessary to discuss a step which is so unlikely to receive the sanction of Parliament."
  He submitted that this conclusion of the Commissioners was somewhat disquieting and impotent at the same time, for it meant that the experience of unpre-paredness disclosed to the Royal Commission might be repeated at any time, and let them reform the War Office as they would, they would be as badly off as ever unless the fons et origo mali was attacked. The Government must be enabled to make preparations without prejudice to their diplomatic efforts. If Sir Andrew Noble was right, and the

  357
  Commissioners did not seem to disagree, they might be in the same plight again. If the Commissioners were right then it was hopeless to suggest a remedy at variance with traditional ways.
  During the last three years there had been three occasions of great crisis. In the first place there was a trouble with regard to Siam in 1894, and he was glad to mention this because he was far from wishing to make a Party point of the contention he was now urging. The Government composed of right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite was then in power. If the Government of 1894 had come down to the House and asked for a large vote of credit what would the consequences have been? His opinion was that as a Party they would have treated the question in a broad and patriotic spirit, but from what he knew of political human nature he was afraid that there would not have been wanting hon. Members who would have been unable to resist the temptation of asking a few inconvenient questions, and the effect would have been the same whether the questioners were few or many. The Government would have been asked why this money was wanted, why it was so much, and since when had it become necessary, and was it to be inferred that all hope of a peaceful settlement was at an end, and if so were the negotiations being conducted sincerely? The impression would have been given to the public and to a far greater extent abroad that the negotiations then going on were not sincere and that the country as a whole was not prepared to back the Government in that course. If that was true in 1894, how much more true would it have been at the time of the Fashoda crisis? They could easily recall the circumstances of that crisis and the amount of excitement there was at that time in the public mind, and to have called Parliament together in 1898 would have brought that crisis undoubtedly to a head. Public feeling was at that time sufficiently excited, and he did not believe, if Parliament had been called together, there would have been any reasonable likelihood of peace being maintained. If peace had not been maintained in 1894 and 1898, on those two occasions, could they say, from the experience they had
  358
  since had, that this country would have been in a position to carry on the war in which they would have been plunged? On the third occasion, in 1899, the state of things was much the same. During long negotiations the country hoped for a peaceful issue, and the Government did their best to secure it but failed, and they knew now that this country was not then adequately prepared for the struggle we had to undergo. It was a matter of inestimable benefit and it was a national asset simply invaluable, if they had the whole feeling of the country at their back, but they could not have that unless the people were persuaded that their quarrel was clearly and demonstrably right, and unless they were convinced that they had done all they could consistent with honour and safety to bring about a peaceful settlement. That, of course, must involve time, and during that time, while the preparation of the mind of I the nation was going on, the material preparations must necessarily wait, and when the crisis came the material preparation was to be made, and it would have to be made hurriedly and at once, and would be costly beyond measure as compared with what would have bee a involved if the material preparations had been taken in hand in due time.
  From our peculiar position and constitution this country was specially open to such a difficulty, but it was a difficulty which necessarily affected all other countries. I In Germany the difficulty was met in two ways. There was in the first place an institution called the Sechandhung Bank. It was not very easy to get exact or accurate information with regard to this institution, but as far as he had been able to ascertain it was nominally a private bank, but actually a great majority of the shares were in the hands of the Government. Then there was an actual reserve in specie of 120,000,000 marks, or about £6,000,000, actually deposited in the Julius Thuom at Spandau only to be used by the Government in case of a war-like emergency, but which was entirely beyond the control of the Reichstag. The actual Estimates voted by the Reichstag were as strictly under Parliamentary control as in England. In France this provision was

  359
  made by the Nomenclature Des Services, which included a kind of schedule of articles which might be ordered in time of necessity apart from the authorisation of Parliament. In Austria there was a different provision, and in all these foreign countries there was a provision made for this purpose which this country entirely lacked. Of course this was largely a matter for financial experts, and he did not attempt to dogmatise as to how it might be done Perhaps it might be enough to trust to the friendly assistance of great banking houses, whose services were always at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day or something might be done by the Treasury Chest Fund. That was a departure from the strict system of Parliamentary control exercised over the Estimates. It might be done by an extension of this fund, but this fund at the present time would not meet the difficulty, firstly because it was not large enough, and in the second place, because repayment had to be made during the course of the same financial year, and if the country was in stress at the end of the financial year this fund would not be available. Again, there was another possibility. As the House knew there was a system whereby unexpended balances of the Estimates at the I end of the year had to be repaid to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Personally he could not help thinking this was a very bad system, which had been contrived in the interests of a rigid economy, but which in practice led to very great extravagance. It had been condemned by the Dawkins Commission and he had heard Ministers condemn that system and complain of its operation, although they had to submit to it. Under that system a considerable sum was surrendered every year. He found that for the last ten years the unexpended balances amounted to no less than £1,100,000, and instead of that money going back into the Exchequer he would suggest that it should be devoted to a special fund to be used during a warlike emergency. If that were done those responsible for the spending departments would have an interest to save money which at present they had not got. As to constitutional objections to any step of this kind, it would be said that it was opposed to every tradition of Parliament, and that it
  360
  was contrary to the theory of the Constitution. But it was not more contrary to public feeling and Parliamentary traditions than the establishment of a standing Army itself. For many years there was a feeling against a standing Army quite as strong as that against the step he now advocated. On the broad question he would remark that the Constitution existed for the country and not the country for the Constitution, and if this change was on general and business grounds, and, in view of modern exigencies, wise and necessary, the fact that it would not have approved itself to legislators of the seventeenth century need not be taken into account. He thought there were some people who did not realise that good Queen Anne was dead, and that Charles I. had been even longer in his grave. To give a power like I that proposed, to Charles I. would have been dangerous in the extreme. Could it be said that the giving of such a power to King Edward VII. was to risk the danger of our civil and religious liberties being trampled underfoot? Ministers would have to render a strict account, if not next year, within a comparatively short period of time. What would be done would be that the Executive of the day would have power to spend this amount at their discretion. If necessary it might be done by an annual Bill, in which case it would merely give this contingent credit to the Executive of the day for one year only.
  If there was one lesson that the War Commission more strongly than another insisted upon it was that we; should adapt the machinery of civil life to the exigences of possible war. He submitted that to take such a step would only be to carry into the government of the country the common principle of businesslike action. Any large firm having great dealings at a distance would allow its agents some credit for common sense and would not insist upon supervising every step taken. They would not insist that their agents should not take a step involving the expenditure of money without asking the previous consent of the board, and still less without taking the shareholders into their previous confidence. We already gave I great powers to our agents in the making of treaties. That was not in derogation of the

  361
  ultimate power of Parliament, which had to sanction those treaties. If the Executive could be trusted in that department he submitted that they might be trusted in the preparation for warlike issues as well. We were at this moment using our best efforts to adapt the actual machinery of war so as to be of the best use in future. Should they not also do the same thing with the first motive power which set that machinery in motion. The same risks would almost inevitably arise in future as in the past. The Government would in future be in the same dilemma of throwing chances of peace aside, or being too late in the event of war. We could not too soon or too earnestly make some provision to meet the case. He knew from the forms of the House that his Motion was one which it would not be easy for the Government to accede to. By his Motion, as drafted, this power was given to the Government of the day. If it were possible to devise any other scheme whereby the same power should be given, and the same precautions taken to avoid the same difficulty and emergency, he would gladly see it given to some other body if it could be found. The United States had a Committee on Foreign Relations where foreign questions were secretly discussed. He presumed that any institution of' that kind was impossible here. He did not know anybody in the State except the Executive Government that could be entrusted with discretion of this kind. But in any case he would certainly limit the power he proposed to the initiative of the Sovereign, on the advice of his Ministers, and on the written recommendations of the new Committee of Defence. He presumed that his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for one reason or other could not accede to this Motion, but he would ask him at any rate to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to deal with the difficulty to which he had called attention. He would not attempt to insist on any particular reference on which the proceedings of that Committee should take place. He had drafted a reference, but he should be only too glad if a better could be suggested as long as the dilemma and difficulty
  362
  were really grappled with. He suggested the following possible reference—
  "To consider whether the restrictions on Supply and Expenditure involved in the present financial system of the country constitute a source of danger or prodigality in times of actual or threatened war; and to report whether any changes in the said system are required by the public interest, saving always the ultimate control of Parliament over tae raising and appropriation of Supply."
  COLONEL KENYON SLANEYcalled attention to the deserted condition of the Opposition Benches. They were now debiting a matter which was supposed to be of great interest to the country, but when he began to speak there was not a single representative of the Opposition in the House. Since he began two hon. Members had entered, so that there was a possibility of dual control on that side. His hon. friend who introduced the Amendment had covered the ground so well that it would not be necessary for him to add very much to what had been said. There was no phrase more constantly bandied about from lip to lip than "lessons of the war." What was the most absolutely clear and convincing lesson the war had taught? It was that first of all absolute preparedness for war meant successful war, that successful war meant short war, and that short war meant economical war. That was the lesson which above all others this country ought to lay to heart and learn in reference to its arrangements for future contingencies. There was plenty of one sort of preparedness for war. There was never an occasion when naval or military questions came before the House when they had not abundance of discussion. Under the present system every item of the Estimates was debated, every question regarding our armaments was debated, our weakest spots were indicated, our strongest points were also disclosed for the information not only of our friends but also of our possible foes. Borne hon. Members debated these things in the interest of efficiency, some in the interest of economy, some in the interest of peace at any price, and some from the point of view of trying to score a point over political opponents. He did not want to say a word that would be offensive if he could avoid it, but it was a

  363
  matter of common knowledge to this House and the country that on the last two occasions on which this country had been involved in war, and the preparations for war were discussed in this House, they had among them a certain body of Members who by their public declarations in the country and their public action in this House had signified their sympathy with the enemies of the country rather than ourselves, and from the point of view of public policy he finked if any country could be satisfied with preparations conducted under such circumstances as these. Those to whom he referred had as much right to take part in the discussion as the most patriotic. He was aware that the House of Commons would not part with its power in that direction, but what was desired was that they should be reinforced in some way which would make the preparations effective.
  The first requirement of the preparations was that the country involved in war should be able to strike with full power, instantly and without hesitation. In order to aid and abet our public preparation we wanted a system of silent unadvertised preparation, which was essential both for efficiency and economy. There need be nothing underhand or anything to be ashamed of in making this preparation silently with out advertising it to all the nations of the world. Let them suppose that a certain country was gradually developing hostile feelings against us and that in the course of eighteen months those feelings might be used against us, it would be unwise as a matter of public policy that any overt preparation should be made or that anything like a threat should be held out, though it would be extremely important that preparation should be made without public advertisement. At that very time we might be in possession of some invention—a new torpedo, gun, shell or rifle, and it might be that a certain pro-vision had been made for these in the h Estimates. But if we suddenly developed these preparations the Government might be exposed to a variety of Questions, as to why these were necessary and against whom they were intended. But supposing the suggestion of his hon. friend were acceded to, what would happen? The Defence Committee would be able to go
  364
  to the great manufacturing firms, such as the Armstrongs, or Vickers and Maxim, j and say to them—"Now, if you care to put on such and such a plant, or put on such and such a force of workmen that will enable you to turn out these guns, or whatever it might be, in such and such a time, we will give you a guarantee that you will not be losers." Imagine what the difference would be found when we were revealed to be strong where our opponents thought we were weak! That surely was a strong argument in favour of efficiency and effective warfare and if this country was to fight at all what was wanted was that the success should be immediate. It was also an argument for economic warfare, for the shorter the war the expense would be infinitely lessened. We could never hope to carry on our great Empire for an indefinite period without war. In spite of all the Hague Conventions there would be wars from time to time. With the best intentions in the world wars could not always be averted. He remembered not many years ago going over a great manufactory of warlike stores and saw on all sides guns in different processes of manufacture and war material being made at express rate. He turned to the manager of these great works and said to him, how did he account in a time of apparently profound peace for the activity in fulfilling all these large orders and the necessity for employing these, thousands of men? And his answer was the most bitter commentary imagin able on the Hague Convention. He said, "It is entirely the outcome of the Czar's rescript." That was the reason why we should be on our guard and armed against surprises. The object of the Motion of his hon. friend was to secure efficient, effective, and economic warfare. It was to follow out the advice of some of the best experts in the country—Sir Andrew Noble and Sir John Jackson, and to translate into action what was the real opinion of that famous Commission which they gave in that famous Report on the War. But at what cost did his hon. friend and himself wish to secure that object? They asked the House only temporarily to surrender some little portion of its prerogative and privilege. This House was not very backward in, demanding that some prerogatives of other institutions should

  365
  be curtailed, and why should it not be able to set an example in its own way to do something to meet this demand by making such a small surrender as was asked for in this Motion? They had heard a great deal not long ago from the right hon. gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—not for the first time—in his most excellent Tory speech, that he the right hon. Gentleman preferred old methods to new; but these old methods could always be adapted to new circumstances, and it was for that reason that he seconded the Motion of his hon. friend.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to insert the words, 'in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to enable His Majesty in times of Imperial emergency to raise money to an amount not exceeding £5,000,000 for military purposes without the previous consent of Parliament." Mr. J. F. Hope.
  Question proposed "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): My hon. friend has for a longtime taken an interest in our financial system, and anyone who heard his speech must have seen that he has devoted much time and attention in his desire to find a remedy for the deficiencies which he now believes to exist in that system. My hon. friend is so well known for the part he has taken in our debates on the Army and his constant efforts to improve the condition of the Army, that I am sure the House must be possessed with a great deal of sympathy not only in the object which he has in view but for my hon. friend himself in bringing forward the Motion now under discussion. But I venture to think that my hon. friend can hardly realise how great a revolution in our financial system would be involved in his proposals, and how little probability there is that the great powers he suggests should be willingly conferred on the Government by a majority chosen from either side of the House. I think there is some misapprehension in the hon. Gentleman's mind as to the amount of latitude which the Government does
  366
  enjoy even under present conditions, and that he is under some misapprehension also as to the actual advantages which would attach to his proposals if they were adopted in the form he suggests. The object to which the hon. Member for Bright side specially directed attention is the desirability of the Government being able, in a time of great emergency, to make secret preparations in the event of diplomacy failing to provide a satisfactory solution of the question at issue, without having that diplomacy hampered or its success menaced by the knowledge obtained by this House, this country, or by foreign Powers of the preparations actually in progress. I quite admit—everyone admits—that the Government in whose hands you place large secret funds to be used at their discretion, not only without previous leave of Parliament but without any Parliamentary question in the course of the negotiations, is in a position of very much greater freedom and greater power than a Parliamentary Government subject to the limitations to which we are now subject. But docs my hon. friend think that the money could be raised by the means he suggests without its becoming known, or that all these vast preparations could be carried out without eliciting any remark in the country where everything is open to the public, where we have a most active, enterprising Press which tells us daily not only everything in its power, but a great deal which is an anticipation, more or less intelligent, of what might happen. I hope my hon. friend will just consider more carefully the suggestion he has made. His Resolution is that—
  "It is expedient to enable His Majesty in times of Imperial emergency to raise money "
  Of course, the Government must be the judge of whether an Imperial emergency has arisen or not; and therefore the only security the House and the country would have for the due expenditure of money would be the honour of our public men and their sense of responsibility. In the second place, the Estimates of the cost of the number of men employed would have to become known, and an Act of Indemnity would be required. But when this Imperial emergency arises, my hon.

  367
  friend suggests that the Government should have power
  "To raise money to an amount not exceeding £5,000,000 for military purposes without the previous consent of Parliament."
  He suggests that what should be done is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day should, by inquiry of the great City houses, whose advice and assistance have always been given to those who hold my position—
  *MR. J. F. HOPE: That is only one alternative.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. friend made two or three suggestions that were entirely distinct, and I cannot deal with all of them in the same breath. We are told that we should approach these great City houses and ask them to lend us £5,000,000. My first observation on that is—does my hon. friend really think that it is possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to borrow £5,000,000 from the great City houses without the matter becoming the common knowledge of the City It would be impossible to keep a secret like that. But on what security are these great City houses going to lend? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to raise money from the public his security is the Act of Parliament which authorises him to do so; but it would be quite different to raise money from the City houses where he had no security. It could not be done secretly, and I am not sure that it could be done at all. Then my hon. friend says he has another alternative, which is that in some unexplained way the amount of money in the Treasury Chest is to be so largely increased as practically to give the Government a great war fund. At present the Treasury Chest is merely a banking balance, practically a cash balance in the hands of Treasury officials throughout the world, to enable the current financial transactions of the Empire to be carried on. My hon. friend must have thought that the Treasury Chest was something different from what it is. He suggests that we should create a great gold reserve, for use in emergencies, similar to the great reserves possessed by Russia and several other Powers. That might be a
  368
  great convenience when a great war broke out, as it would relieve the immediate pressure, but we could not use such a fund as that secretly.
  That brings me to the other point mentioned by my hon. and gallant friend, who suggested that it could be used for the purchase of stores and in giving orders to contractors to go ahead at full speed when only sufficient money was provided to pay them for perhaps a small proportion of the ultimate output. But the moment we give those orders for stores my hon. friend's other object of secret preparation during diplomatic negotiations would be lost. The placing of those orders, and the sudden pressure a tall the great contractors' works, as well as in the Government arsenals, would at once become known; would at once be open to exactly the same adverse comment; and would throw in the way of our diplomatic negotiations exactly the same difficulties which I admit we suffer from now. But if the real object of obtaining this war reserve is that we should have a proper supply of stores when war breaks out, I think there is a better way of obtaining it. It is the way which the Government have already adopted, and which, as explained by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War, is almost complete. It is the way of fixing the proper and definite reserve of every kind of stores and filling those reserves, I might say almost automatically, as fast as anything is drawn out of them. That is the only kind of preparation for war which can be steadily maintained in peace, and which will give us the great reserve we want without any sudden action during diplomatic negotiations, and I hope that once we have got those stores they will never be allowed again to fall below the level which is considered necessary. What the witnesses before the Committee spoke about was, as I understand it—I hare no title to interpret their thoughts—was more of military preparations, such as the movements of troops. They thought that if troops could be moved quickly, and without observation, it would be desirable, but with such an active newspaper Press as now exists it was impossible that that kind of preparation could be made without becoming public.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: Sir Andrew Noble referred to the preparation of stores and not to the movement of troops.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, sir, but you cannot place orders for £5,000,000 worth of stores, or any quantity of that kind, without it at once becoming known in the districts where the orders are being executed, and from these districts the news spreads to the world at large that great military preparations are in progress. What can be done in the way of placing orders in an emergency can be done, I venture to say under our present financial system. Events might take a good turn, or a bad turn, and it is impossible for any Government to know with certainty whether the negotiations will have a peaceful or a warlike termination. It must be for the Government of the day, with a full sense of its responsibility, to decide whether it ought to make special and abnormal preparations for war, and, if so, to what extent. The Government have the means to do that, within such reasonable limits as can possibly be compatible with the preservation of secrecy, under our present financial system. As an illustration, I would put a case which happened the other day. Two Chilian warships were in the market. His Majesty's Government thought it necessary to buy them. That we did on our own responsibility. We made the contract, and in buying them we put on tin country an obligation to pay £1,800,000, and we actually paid some £750,000 of that amount before Parliament was consulted in the matter. That is the sense of responsibility which every Minister has to bear in difficult negotiations, and under those circumstances every Government can have under its control a certain amount of money sufficient to make urgent preparation, though, of course, it must come to Parliament and ask for sanction for the appropriation of the money. Such expenditure cannot be long concealed from Parliament, even if any Government wished to do so; neither can the use to which the money has been applied. I give that as an illustration to show that even under our present system we still have the power, if we feel that the
  370
  necessity justifies it, to exercise our responsibility and apply money under our control to purposes for which Parliament has not specifically voted it.
  My hon. friend the Member for the Brightside Division endeavoured to work into this question another matter in which he has taken a great interest for many years. He attacked the system under which Departments surrender unspent balances at the end of the year, and he said that that deprived the Departments of any incentive to economy. For some reason my hon. friend always cites the Army and Navy Departments as illustrations of his theory, and does not appear to think that the Civil Service Department successfully illustrates it.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: Sir Clinton Dawkin's Committee specially called attention to the matter in connection with the Army. No doubt a Committee on the Post Office would arrive at a similar conclusion.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not mean to say that the money is always spent to the best advantage, and that sometimes a Department may not be tempted to buy stores when they might have done without them a little time longer; but I believe that this system has not led to any such general waste of money as my hon. friend supposes. My own experience, both in the spending Departments and formerly as Secretary to the Treasury, is that the power which the Treasury has and uses to transfer money from one Army Vote to another, or from one Navy Vote to another, or to allow a surplus on one head to be applied to a want on another does directly make for true economy and is useful in that respect; but if the money instead of being used in that way is to go into another fund not under the control of the War Office or of the Admiralty, but which is to be a special war chest only to be touched by the Cabinet, I fail to see how that will be any greater incentive to economy than the present system. The amount will pass out of the control of the spending Departments, and they will no longer have the power to spend it. If there is a surplus on the year these surrendered balances go to swell it; and are

  371
  ultimately applied to the Old Sinking Fund for the reduction of the National Debt. If at any time I would have been inclined to divert a surplus to other purposes. I do not think that the present is an opportune moment. After all, my hon. friend and the House must remember that our resources for war are of three kinds; namely, our military resources, our naval resources, and our financial resources. The Sinking Fund is one of our financial reserves against the contingency of war, and I should be very sorry to see it interfered with. Certainly the present time would be a singularly inopportune moment to choose for altering our financial system in this respect. On that ground alone I am unable to assent to my hon. friend's proposal. I hold, in the first place, that the objects which my hon. friend particularly wishes to attain, in so far as they are attainable at all, can be obtained tinder our present financial system. After all, in these matters of special preparation, when an emergency arises, we must rely on two things—a sense of responsibility in the Government of the day, and the patriotism and good sense of this House at large. The Government of the day must make up its mind and discuss in this House what line it will take in an emergency, and this House will support it.
  MR. BLAKEsaid he thought there could be no doubt whatever that secrecy for a length of time in raising, and still more in spending, large sums of money was absolutely impossible; but even if it were not, under cur existing system as understood, and under the feeling which prevailed in this House, the power of raising money for an emergency or of using money for an emergency which had already been voted for another purpose did not exist in too small but in too large a form, and if they ere To examine the transfer of Votes from one sub-head to another, they would find greater ground for restriction than for any enlargement of the Government's powers in this direction. As for any danger to this country from the supposed deprivation of the Government of such powers, that was absolutely unfounded. There was the case of the purchase of the warships recently. The Government
  372
  thought, rightly or wrongly, that the condition of affairs in the East rendered it desirable to purchase two warships, and used money for the purpose that was not voted for it. The vitally important thing in these matters was that the Government should be kept ever in mind that they were acting solely on their own responsibility, and any Bill that would place a fund in the hands of the Government, or which would enable the Government to raise such a fund, would amount almost to a direct invitation to the Government to act—an invitation on which they might act to the detriment of the country. Our Constitution was not, more than any other human institution, perfect. It had its advantages and its disadvantages; but in the days when people struggled for real liberty, it was the question of Parliamentary control for which the English people struggled. Let them not now, in the heyday of freedom, abandon the primary security for that freedom itself. Who was to judge as to the Imperial emergency? Were they not told of an emergency to-day in this community—an Imperial emergency far more close to our doors, and far more likely to affect the welfare of the country, than the question which the hon. Gentleman had brought up, and yet there were very different opinions as to whether an Imperial emergency existed or not. He should not have risen but he desired to say a word for the ancient English liberties on which the modern English liberties depended, and his principal reason for supporting the views of his right hon. friend against this Motion was not merely that there was no practical inconvenience in times of supposed great emergency when Parliament was not sitting, as when the Suez Canal shares were bought, and as when these two Chilian warships were bought, but the fact that we had to balance the advantages and disadvantages of such a scheme, and as he felt the disadvantages greatly exceeded the advantages he declined by his voice or his vote to shake the foundations of English liberties.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONsaid he was a little surprised when the hon. Member for Sheffield brought this matter before the House that it should have attracted so little attention from

  373
  hon. Members. It was not a matter to be lightly dismissed. He did not understand that the Motion could be regarded as interfering with that financial control of the House of Commons, which everybody was anxious to maintain, it merely acknowledged that there might be occasions when Ministers of the day might take important steps without the previous consent of this House. It was easy for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take exception to the proposal on financial grounds, and to point out the difficulties in the way of carrying a proposal of this kind into effect, and he did not think that the House would affirm a general Resolution of this kind. The alternative that his hon. friend indicated towards the close of his speech was a most necessary preliminary, namely, that the particulars of the remedy proposed should be considered by a Committee. There was one subject in regard to this Motion that had not been touched upon, and that was the timely provision of field transport. One of the chief causes of our soldiers being unable to take advantage of their early successes in the South African War was the absence of field transport. The troops were tied to the railway and were unable to make the simplest flank movements owing to the want of transport. Every other Power purchased largely animals for field transport if there was any idea that war was about' to take place, and if, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, the Government had ample powers to make such provision at the time of the South African War, then the responsibility of the Government in 1899 was greater than the House had yet been acquainted with, because one of the chief reasons given for our being so unprepared to, meet the Boer invasion was that we could not make adequate provision without pointing so directly to war as to endanger peaceful negotiations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid that was exactly what he had stated. It was not the want of money but the impossibility of making preparations secretly. The mere fact that they had £5,000,000 in the Tower of London would not enable the Government to make
  374
  preparations without the fact becoming known.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONasked whether his right hon. friend contended that the Government could hive made adequate purchases of animals in various parts of the world without powers which they did not at present, possess.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid his contention was that they could not make adequate purchases of field transport all over the world without the world knowing what they were doing. The object, of secrecy, upon which so much stress had been laid, would not have been attained by the mere fact that they had a great reserve of money.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSONwas of opinion that measures might be taken for the purchase of transport in many parts of the world without attracting such notice as would endanger peaceful negotiations. In fact, it had been done over and over again by military Powers who had the greatest interest in preserving peace. He had known times when those who were best informed were of opinion that war was imminent, and Governments were known to be preparing so that if occasion arose they might hive the necessary material for moving troops. But the knowledge that those preparations were being made, so far from endangering peaceful negotiations, actually prevented war, by bringing home to other nations the danger of precipitating hostilities. He did not believe it would be possible for any Government with their existing powers to enter into the arrangements or to become answerable for the large amount of money necessitated by preparations for war. The Russian Government had a great war chest, and all the other great military nations had special means by which they could make warlike preparations and avoid the danger of war coming upon them unprepared. The subject was deserving of more consideration than it had yet received, and circumstances could be conceived in which the House would regret that greater attention had not been given to the matter.
  MR. O'MARAsaid the Amendment embodied the most foolish

  375
  and extravagant proposal to which he had ever listened, and he doubted whether its proposer or seconder would press it to a division. It was a great pity the hon. Member for the Bright side Division had not devoted to an inquiry into the present financial position of this country a portion of the considerable time and labour he had spent in studying the condition of things obtaining in other countries; he would not then have been under the impression that the recent loss of credit had rendered Great Britain unable to raise £5,000,000 should circumstances require it. That these additional powers were not necessary was shown by the fact that £4,000,000 was expended on Suez Canal shares without this House being taken into the confidence of the Government; and there were the more recent cases of the purchase of Chilian warships, and the expenditure of £900,000 on the Cape railways. With all these precedents he could not understand how the hon. Member could really suppose that it was impossible for the Government to raise £5,000,000. The fact that these powers were not necessary made him believe there was something in the Resolution which did not appear on the surface. In that case he marvelled at the moderation of the proposal. If it was intended to take expenditure from under the control of Parliament why was the sum fixed at they came into power the present Government had taken from the control of Parliament the expenditure of £16,000,000 on the naval service, and a somewhat similar amount on the Army, and this was a proposal to take away another £5,000,000. Reference had been made to unpreparedness for war, but, seeing that the present year's Estimates amounted to £42,000,000 for the Navy, and £28,000,000 for the Army, he thought that such references ought to be unjustifiable. He was afraid that if the Government remained much longer in office, they would, urged by private Members behind them, still further infringe the privileges which had been bought at so heavy a cost in the past.
  COLONEL SANDYSagreed with the view that the matter under discussion was well worthy of consideration, and that the mover of the Resolution
  376
  might be congratulated on having taken one step further in the direction of the military efficiency which now seemed to be in the air. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had somewhat missed the point of the proposal. It was not that the Government should wait until the moment of national stress arrived before they endeavoured to raise the money, but that they should have it immedateliy under their control in the Treasury Chest, so that they could expend it in a way which would attract the least notice, and without imperilling the success of any negotiations that might be proceeding. If those who had the well-being and efficiency of the Army of this country at stake would only carry their minds back over the wars of centuries past they would find one unfailing fault repeated, and it was that this country was never ready for war, and while he had the power to speak in the House he should never lose an opportunity of impressing upon hon. Members and the public that they must not wait for the emergency to arise, but be prepared for eventualities beforehand. He rejoiced to see that I efficiency was in the air at the present time, and he did not think there was any danger of that efficiency being curtailed by the action of any future Government, or by the present Government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Main Question again proposed.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Motion of which he had given notice was one which I he could not move under present circumstances. He noticed that two of his hon. friends had also given notice of Motions connected with the same subject, and he had no doubt they would address the House. Probably they would be able to have a debate on both sides of the present position of the Army problem, which, the Secretary of War to-day was rather obliged to avoid and unable to face. The subject of the particular Motion on the Paper was a limited one, although it was one of importance. He, for one, should not take part in any general attack upon the Report of the Committee on War Office Reorganisation because it

  377
  was a revolutionary Report, and he had always believed that War Office reforms must be revolutionary to be of any use at all. Although there might be much in it that he should take exception to, nevertheless he could not join in any general attack upon it. The Report had been acted upon to a great extent already, and they would in the course of this debate have comments made upon the portions of the Report which had been carried into execution, and which were contained in the Estimates now before the House. Some hon. Members might be inclined to attack the appointment of the Inspector General, but as he had been made subordinate to the War Office Council the appointment was free from many objections which his hon. friends might have been inclined to make to it. The War Office Committee had made a great number of recommendations, which, up to the present, had been partly accepted and partly shelved for the moment, and with regard to which the language of the Government was most peculiar. Two years ago they had great debates upon the Army Corps system in the House upon the proposals of the then Secretary of State for War. The Secretary of State for India was present to-day during the statement made by the Secretary of State for War and he sat by his side. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the Secretary of State for War in this matter. Did he agree with the Report of the Committee? Did the Prime Minister agree with the Report of the War Office Committee upon reorganisation? This Committee stated that the time had come when they assumed that the linked battalion system was to be got rid of, and a more portentous change than that could not be made. They assumed that the present Secretary of State for War had been put into office to carry out the views he had always entertained, but those views were diametrically opposite to the views stated last year and the year before by the then Secretary of State for War.
  The Motion he had placed on the Paper was confined to a single point, although it raised a matter of some importance. It was the statement contained in the covering letter to the Prime Minister that the Defence
  378
  Committee of the Cabinet was to be reorganised, and was to form a General Staff, as a General Staff was understood in every country in the world. That letter they were told was an informal one, but this statement was repeated in the formal part of this Report, the whole of which the Government had approved of, and it was to some extent repeated in the second part. He did not know whether he needed to detain the House at length upon this question, because he doubted whether anyone would defend a proposal that the Defence Committee should be anything in the nature of a General Staff. Surely it was not necessary to try and explain to the House the nature of a General Staff, but there were obvious reasons which made it ridiculous that any such term should be applied to the proposed new Defence Committee, and he did think that this was a matter of importance, because it was calculated to give to the staff of tint Committee an altogether exaggerated notion of their own position. It was important that they should at once snuff out any such suggestion, if indeed anyone was prepared to defend it at all. They were in a great difficulty not only with regard to that particular position but altogether as to the Report of this Committee. The whole of the first part of the Report he understood had been approved by the Government, and he should like to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to this point. The Prime Minister was asked a question about this, and he was inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman had been misreported in Hansard and in the papers. At all events, the Prime Minister said, in reply to a question, that the first part of the Report had not been adopted by His Majesty's Government. Those words were diametrically contradicted by the Report of the Committee. The Committee themselves twice over went out of their way to say that the Government had approved of the whole of the first part of their Report. Did any one doubt that fact? The Committee used those very words. The second part of the Report, in the third line of the third page, also stated that His Majesty's Government had already approved of the whole of the first part. Surely the House could not discuss those the Prime Minister that the Defence Estimates without knowing whether that

  379
  was the case or not. The Committee laid before the House of Commons the second part of this Report and there the direct statement was made that the Government had agreed to the whole of the first part of the Report, and that assertion was made twice over. Under these circumstances how could they discuss the Estimates, or avoid moving to report progress on Vote A if they did not know exactly how this matter stood? They must press to know what portion of the first Report had not been approved by the Government, if, indeed, they had not approved of the whole of it. He thought they would be able to prove by the Estimates how far the Government had yet gone in their actual approval of the Report.
  He condoled with the Secretary of State for War to-day—holding the opinions he did and the opinions of the Army reformers below the Gangway and the opinions which he himself held on the main lines of Army reform—at having had the most ungrateful task of defending somebody else's Estimates which were the Estimates of the old system, and the Estimates of the Secretary of State for India, against which they fought two years ago and against which they must fight again this year upon the very same grounds they fought last year and the year before. The Government were not agreed amongst themselves on this question up to the present time, and yet the House was expected to accept these enormous Estimates which had been presented, which showed no real reduction upon the Estimates of two years ago, and which last year were accepted in the dark without the slightest idea of what policy was to be carried out. Several Questions had been asked at Question time upon this subject, and the hon. Member for Perthshire pointed out that a number of officers had been appointed in addition to the Army Council, and they were told that they were to be paid out of the salaries put down to other officers performing other functions which were condemned by the first part of the Report. Was that a position in which the House should be placed? Could they accept those Estimates and usefully commence their discussion in that position?
  380
  They did not know for what services, or in pursuance of what policy, they were asked to vote this money. He asked the Prime Minister to-day whether the Army Estimates abolished or continued the Army Corps system, and he pointed out that there were words in the list of generals which read "Commanding Army Corp." Why had those words been dropped out altogether. They were told that they were dropped out before the inquiry was made by the Committee. These words must have been dropped out in pursuance of some policy. He believed it was a matter of public notoriety long before the Committee was appointed that it was not intended to carry the Army scheme into effect for the six Army Corps. There was a great deal of evidence given on the Army Corps system before the Royal Commission on the War, and it was a remarkable fact that Lord Roberts in his evidence before that Committee condemned it on the same points on which it was condemned in this House. Lord Roberts, in his evidence, spoke strongly against the mixed corps of Militia and Volunteers, and, when asked how far his authority could be vouched for the Army Corps system, said the scheme was brought into existence with his concurrence. But Lord Roberts's concurrence, expressed by telegram from Madeira, was a very different thing from the representation made to the House two years ago, when the gallant field-marshal was vouched as being in favour of it by the Secretary of State for India. The Secretary of State for War was asked on Friday a Question regarding the linked battalions, and he drew this distinction—he suggested that the Government approved of the view of the Royal Commission against the Army Corps system of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, and the view of the Commission against the linked battalion system, but he said that they had not yet taken any specific act of policy pointing in the direction of a definite confirmation of that approval. That was rather a fine casuistic distinction to draw, and the House would not be doing its duty if it allowed the Government to force through these Estimates without having definitely declared to the House of Commons that it had abandoned the Army Corps system,

  381
  which had been so justly attacked by the Council, Committee as well as in this House, and also abandoned the linked battalion system.
  The comments of the War Office Reorganisation Committee, which the Secretary of State so justly praised to-day upon the Army Corps system were surely deserving of the attention of the House. It was put before the House by the Secretary of State for India when of State for War as a great decentralisation, and last were told that an important portion of the decentralisation had already been accomplished in fact. Yet the Committee appointed by the Government said that the Army was still as centralised as it was ten years ago. That was exactly the contention of himself and his friends two years ago, and it was the contention of the Prime Minister, who argued with all his strength when he vouched to the House that three Army Corps might be required and probably would be required for the defence of the Indian frontier. That was absolutely condemned for ever in these Estimates. They were asked to pass Vote A and Vote I without the Government deigning to tell them that they accepted this second Report of the Committee, and that they were going to abolish the Army Corps system. The House of Commons had never before been asked to take a step of that kind and to pass Estimates in the dark in this fashion. He need hardly go through the final words of the Report in which the Committee asked whether the corps ever existed otherwise than on paper. The Secretary of State now implored the House not to disable the machine; but, according to the Committee, the machine was absolutely disabled at the present time. He assumed, as the House must assume, that the Government were going to carry the new system into effect. He did not know what view the Secretary of State for India took on the matter, but a year ago his view, in which he had the support of the Prime Minister, was diametrically opposed to that of the Committee, which he understood the Government were going to adopt. All the names of the War Office administration were changed in a day on the first Report of the Committee at a meeting of the War Office
  382
  Council, hurriedly got together while two of the chief military members were not yet in this country. In a single day the ordinary forms received by soldiers and by Members of this House were altered. He himself received a letter in which the usual formula, "I am directed by the Secretary of State" was struck out, and the phrase "I am commanded by the Army Council" substituted. This was no trivial matter, seeing that the Estimates were signed and presented on the responsibility of these individuals. He did not understand what responsibility should attach to the inferior military members of the Council in the absence of their military superiors. It was a sham responsibility. These Estimates, so far as they continued the Army Corps system and did not abolish the linked battalion system, were condemned in advance by the Report of the Committee, and it was almost foolish to vouch the responsibility of the newly appointed men who probably shared the opinion of the Committee in regard to the system they condemned. There was a large amount of additional staff placed on the Estimates in connection with the new system—how large they did not know. The Members who made so gallant a fight against the Army Corps system were bound to take up the fight again on the first Vote. The whole of the Committee's Report appeared to be accepted by the Government. They had not protested, so far as he understood, against any portion or the Report. The Estimates which had been thus placed before the House had, he thought, been prepared in connection with a hopeless task. The Secretary of State had imposed on him a hopeless task because he had to defend in a sort of way Estimates which were prepared for the Army Corps system, and, therefore, he had to defend Estimates which he did not personally approve of.
  In connection with the change there was supposed to be a saving which the right hon. Gentleman explained very elaborately in his speech to the House. In these days of economy many hon. Members had only been able to support the large and increasing Estimates for the Navy because they hoped there would be a reduction in the military

  383
  expenditure. It was necessary to examine carefully the nature of these savings to see whether they were or were not illusory. The Secretary of State had explained to the House the curious operation which was proposed with regard to the rearmament of the Army with quick-firing guns. This was a question in which the Prime Minister had taken great interest, and he had argued that this rearmament had already taken place. The right hon. Gentleman had put it in the list of great Conservative reforms. Now it was going to be begun and done entirely at the expense of India in addition to the reduction of three batteries of Artillery in this country, and the addition of three batteries in India. He thought this re-armament ought to have been undertaken before we went to war. It ought to have been done in 1899. The fact was that there was an immense real increase in the Estimates though there was a nominal decrease, and the whole of the increase was charged to India in the present year, and three batteries of Artillery were also to be charged to that unfortunate country. The words of the Secretary for War in his memory were—
  "It will not be possible to secure delivery during 1904–5 of more than the number of complete batteries assigned to India; but manufacture will be in full swing in the latter part of the year, and rapid deliveries of batteries for the home Army will take place throughout the following year. Arrangements are being made to complete practically the whole rearmament, together with a large number of reserve batteries by the 31st March, 1907, at a total cost of about £3,150,000. This will involve a considerable increase on the Army Estimates of 1905–6 and 1906–7."
  When they considered the cost of the Army in connection with the cost of the Navy, a proposal of this kind could not be forgotten. He maintained that the savings shown were illusory. The Secretary of State for War very frankly admitted to the House that the reduction in the number of men was a necessary one, because the men could not be recruited, and that very point confirmed his views and those of his friends upon the linked battalion system, and in favour of the great change which the Committee recommended, or rather which they assumed that the Government had already prepared for. He thought that he with his friends, had some right to
  384
  complain that the Government by their divisions of this subject had not been able to place Estimates on this basis before the Committee, but they had not been able to give the Committee, either in the Memorandum or speeches, a promise that they were going to deal with this question in a fashion which would enable them to pass the Estimates.
  Then in connection with these supposed reductions in the Army, it must be remembered that there was a very large increase in the loans for Military works. The one point to which those of them who had long entertained the revolutionary views which the Secretary of State had so persistently placed before the House, and which he now held, and which had been given general approval in the Report of the Committee—the one point to which they looked as the eventual means of saving a large sum of money was the abolition of the linked battalion system, and the substitution for it of reliance far more, for anything like home defence, on the Auxiliary Forces, and the maintaining of the home Regular Forces only as a depot for the supply of Regular troops abroad That was the only way of salvation. The Government were putting off the carrying out of the one definite recommendation of the War Commission conveyed in the very strongest terms of warning, in favour of the increase in the number of horses and mounted men. The Government could not face that necessary increase unless they took the bold step of the large reduction which the abolition of the linked battalion system would give them.
  The cost of the Army as it stood was always decreased to the House and the country by the refusal to count into the expenditure the expenditure on the Indian forces and on the land forces under the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, and the expenditure in the colonies themselves, some shown and some not shown in the Appropriations in aid. It was necessary to bear in mind the gigantic total cost of the land forces of the British Empire, because otherwise they could not make a fair comparison with the cost of the Fleet in which they were indulging

  385
  so frequently last week. The cost of the land forces at the present time was officially placed before the House at £32,500,000, including the Works Vote for the previous year to that for which the Estimates were given—i.e., the Works Vote for 1903–4. To this had to be added about £500,000 for allowances from other Departments, shown in the Estimates, but not included in the official figures, making £33,000,000 at home dispensed by the Army. To this must be added for the Empire, the Indian military expenditure officially known as £17,750,000, and the expenditure, not officially stated, on land forces by the Colonial Office, as for example the West Africa Frontier force; by the Foreign Office, as for example in British East Africa and Uganda, and by the Colonies, Crown and self-governing, so far as they paid their own and did not appear in notes on the Estimates. The best estimate he had been able to make of this was £3,250,000, making £21,000,000 on land forces other than those directly administered by the War Office, and, with £33,000,000 so administered, £54,000,000 on land forces in the Empire without counting supplemental Estimates. This enormous sum might be contrasted with the Naval expenditure of the Empire, officially stated at £42,000,000, from which, however, more than £500,000 for annuities ought to be deducted, or else this money would figure twice over in the Works Account. £54,000,000 for land forces and £41,500,000 for sea forces made up an expenditure of £95,500,000 on defence in a normal year of peace. Now, that sum was vastly greater than the combined military and naval expenditure of any two Powers in the world—say France and Germany. Though he for one supported the Government in the enormous Naval Estimates which they had placed before the House, he could not, on such Estimates as had been placed before the Committee this year, blindly support their military expenditure.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the Committee last year a pledge, which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer repeated this year, that the Government looked forward confidently to a considerable reduction of the normal military expenditure within the
  386
  next two years—that was to say, this year, or next year. If they were to have that considerable reduction even next year, the House ought to be shown this year, in these debates, the manner in which it was going to be accomplished. In his belief and in that also of many of the experts, the only means of accomplishing these reductions was by the abolition of the linked battalion system. On that point there had been always a difference of opinion between the late and the present Secretary for War. The present Secretary for War had always shown to the House, with weight and truth, that large depots for training the men were preferable to small depots or linked battalions. Let the right hon. Gentleman have the courage of his views and adopt his own scheme, which was the only way of accomplishing the saving which the Government proposed to effect. There were some on that side of the House, he knew, who clung somewhat blindly to what was called the Card well system; and there, were some who objected to the abolition of the linked battalion system if they could see any other way to saving the money. But no other way had been pointed out. The number of troops in India, in Egypt, and in South Africa, had been considerably increased; and they had been forced to increase the troops at home although they knew they did not require them. They had continued to swell the number of battalions at home by automatic increases, by the number of battalions abroad. That system had been condemned by many of the best officers, and by some men who had had enormous experience of the War Office. These were now joined by the man who had always been the apostle of the Cardwell system, Lord Wolseley, who had admitted that he had become persuaded that the linked battalion system must be given up. Now, the Government had shown evidently that night that they had been halting between two opinions. They had, or the leading men amongst them had, already made up their minds, but they had not yet had the courage to come before the House as a whole and say frankly that they had changed their views on many points, and that they

  387
  had fully accepted the views of the Reorganisation Committee.
  The Secretary of State for War said that the Estimates were interim Estimates. They were Estimates of enormous size which were placed before the Committee at a time when the demands of the Fleet were gigantic beyond all conception of former years. Hon. Members and their constituents would feel a great strain in supporting such large Estimates. Could hon. Members defend to their constituents the Estimates now before the Committee, especially when they were submitted merely as interim Estimates without any real defence of the existing military system which the House of Commons had condemned and which the Government themselves had condemned? He did not think hon. Members could defend the Estimates to thier constituents. The Secretary of State gave no real reason why the country had to wait so long for the great military reforms that were now proposed. It might be said that the faults in the present military system had only been revealed in the war. That was not the case, because many of the military advisers of the Government had for years expressed the views which were now about to be accepted. Even if it were the case it was a long time since the Report of the War Commission had been issued. Even if that Report had subsequently to be submitted to Lord Esher and his colleagues the Government had still time enough to make up their minis as to the general lines that ought to be adopted and submit their proposals to the House of Commons. The Government ought to have been able to say that they accepted the Report of the Committee, that the Army Corps system was gone, that the linked battalion system was gone, and that they accepted the whole of the Report. But they did not do that. The Government came to the House of Commons with these interim Estimates and asked them to accept them blindly, and believe that next year, perhaps, they might hear of something to their advantage. He was convinced that the Government must be driven out of the impossible situation in which they stood, and, at all events before discussion on Vote A and Vote 1 terminated, must make a clean breast of it to the House, compose their differences
  388
  among themselves, and stand or fall by the Report of the War Commission.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the only argument used by the right hon. Gentleman which dealt with the subject matter of his Resolution on the Paper was that the language used was calculated to give the secretariat of the Defence Committee an exaggerated notion of its own importance. He himself did not attach any weight to that, because if the Prime Minister and the other members of the Defence Committee could not keep the secretariat in order it was useless to discuss the matter at all. He confessed that he did not know what justification there was for the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the Government had partially accepted and partially repudiated the recommendations of the War Office Reconstitution Committee. All he understood from the statements of the Government was that they had adopted certain portions of the first Report of the Committee, and that they were taking time to consider the whole Report. They had established the Army Council, had appointed the Inspector-General, and had not repudiated anything. Having considered the Report they would come to a decision upon it and make that decision known. His individual hope was that, having thoroughly considered the Report of the Committee, the Government would adopt it as it stood and carry it out in its entirety. The scheme of the Committee was a complete scheme, it was logically argued out from beginning to end, and it appeared to him to be perfectly true, as the Committee said, that if they took this and lest that they would spoil the whole.
  He would not take part in the discussions on the Estimates because he was not going to flog a dead horse. The Committee was alive to the fact that certain principles which many hon. Members like the right hon. Gentleman opposite and himself had been fighting for years had now been acknowledged and endorsed. He would ask hon. Members to consider what was the position of the Secretary of State in the matter. The Estimates had been prepared and constitutional circumstances demanded that they should be submitted to Parliament at this period of the year. He maintained that the course

  389
  adopted by his right hon. friend was a plain businesslike course. His right hon. friend was hardly responsible for the Estimates, but he was under the necessity to produce them whether he approved of them or not. It was quite premature to discuss the recommendations of the Committee, for two reasons. First of all they did not know the exact attitude of the Government in connection with the Report of that Committee, and secondly it was impossible for the Committee to discuss the Report on the Army Estimates, because they would also have to discuss the naval aspects. He, however, looked forward to two things, first an announcement from the Government that they had adopted the Report in its entirety, and secondly that they would be afforded an opportunity for a free discussion which would admit of the naval part of the problem assuming its proper place of priority. After that discussion he believed that the House would by a large majority approve of the action of the Government in accepting the Report.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid the Secretary of State for War commenced his speech with a quotation from "The Needy Knife-grinder." He would retort with another quotation from the same source, which was "Give you 6d.? I'd see you damned first." Having regard to the way in which the Estimates had been introduced the Committee would be justified in refusing to consider them. The Secretary of State for War apparently thought it was a sufficient defence to say that the Estimates were interim Estimates. No Minister in charge of a great spending Department had a right to say that. The Committee had a right to expect from the responsible Minister a statement as to the policy of the Department and the policy of the Government. Neither had a Minister a right to present Estimates of which he disapproved. Yet that was practically what the right hon. Gentleman did. He said he hoped they were the last of their kind that would be presented, and that changes of considerable magnitude were necessary in order to produce an efficient Army. That was an unconstitutional and most unheard of position for a Minister of the Crown to take up in presenting Army
  390
  Estimates. He was bound not merely to place before the House Estimates upon which he could rely, but he should also be able to state fully and frankly what in his opinion was the best policy to pursue with regard to the Army. But here there were members of the Government directly in antagonism with one another. The Government spoke on great questions and small questions, not with one, but two voices. The House was also treated with scant courtesy and consideration by the Government in the matter of the Report of the Esher Commission. The, House was desired to commit itself in regard to the whole scope of this Committee but what was the opinion of the Government itself upon this matter? How far did they themselves intend to adopt those recommendations? The Secretary of State was committed up to the hilt, as was apparent from what he had just said, but that statement was made by him as a private individual, and in a matter of this kind the right hon. Gentleman had no right to speak as a private individual.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERasked what view he, had expressed which he had admitted was not shared by his colleagues? He had expressed admiration for the Committee's recommendations, but lie had said, as the Prime Minister hid also said, that the Report must be carefully considered, and that the Report of no Committee could be binding on a Government.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his approval of the, recommendations in the main, and had spoken of them being applied en bloc.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Hear, hear!
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that admission carried the question a step further. In accepting the proposal of the Committee for the formation of an Army Council and the, appointment of an Inspector-General, and in putting down Votes corresponding to these changes, the Government accepted itself, and asked the House of Commons to accept, the

  391
  cardinal principles of the full Esher scheme. And the Committee said the same thing, because they said if the Government accepted that proposal they thereby accepted what was really the foundation of the whole of the scheme. There were two or three points involved in the acceptance of this scheme which ought to be seriously considered. The Order in Council fixing the powers of the new Army Council had not yet been promulgated, so that the House was in the dark as to the intentions of the Government in that direction. The powers of the Board of Admiralty were governed much more by the Order in Council than by the Letters Patent; consequently it was of supreme importance that the House should know the terms of the Order in Council with regard to the position and powers of this new Army Council. Further, how was the position of the Secretary of State for War towards the Cabinet and towards Parliament affected? The Committee's Report contained elaborate and absurd proposals as to the organisation of the Army Council—proposals suggesting the most irrational conduct on the part of the military members. He believed that sensible men could be obtained to work the system, and that the absurdities suggested would not arise. It was not known how far the Government intended to carry out the proposals of the Report, but if those proposals were carried out in anything like the detail suggested in the Report the Secretary of State for War would be reduced almost to a cypher so far as power was concerned. The point of importance was not so much the power of the right hon. Gentleman in the Army Council or in the Cabinet, but his relations to the House of Commons and the country. Hitherto the Secretary of State had been ultimately responsible for everything done by the War Office, and could be brought to book by the. House of Commons if necessary. That was a power not lightly to be surrendered, and it was to be hoped that in the Order in Council regard would be had to the desirability of maintaining the supreme power of the Secretary of State, so that in the future, as in the past, there would be one Minister actually responsible to the House of Commons.
  392
  But had this scheme, in its financial aspects, been carefully thought out, either by the Committee or by the Cabinet? The Government had not stated, absolutely whether they were going to adopt the whole of Part II. of the Report, but it appeared probable that they would in the main adopt the recommendations. If they did so the Accountant-General and his Department were doomed, and the House was entitled to know what was to be substituted for a Department which, on the whole, had worked in the direction of economy. The Report itself stated—
  "Although the scheme proposed has not been worked out in complete detail, we are in a position to state that no increase of expenditure is involved."
  It was absurd to ask the House to consent to such far-reaching changes in the Army system without a knowledge of all the details of the financial obligations involved. The first step had to be guarded against. Let the House once agree to the Estimates involving the institution of this Army Council, and they would be told that they had given away the principle and were committed to whatever schemes proposed by Lord Esher's Committee the Government might choose to adopt. As to the Estimates themselves, the economies claimed by the Secretary of State were not real economies at all, or the comparisons in the right hon. Gentleman's Memorandum were fallacious; they were meant for the public outside, not for Members of this House who could look into the details. The Estimates were guilty of almost every possible vice. They were interim Estimates; they did not indicate the real settled policy of the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else; they confessedly omitted charges which the Secretary of State knew would come in course of payment for 1st April onwards. Not a penny was included for the Somaliland War. The right hon. Gentleman had said that part of the current expenses of the expedition would be paid out of savings on other Votes. But there would be no savings on 1st April, unless the right hon. Gentleman had asked for a great deal more money than he wanted for other matters. And surely it was not suggested that the Treasury had given their consent in advance to the application to

  393
  this purpose of possible savings on other Votes? The answer to that query was probably supplied by the Committee's Report, where it was stated that—
  "The War Office cannot commit the Treasury to expenditure not provided for in the Votes for the year."
  For a Minister to say that a war was going on, but that he did not propose to ask the House to provide a single penny for its cost, was entirely without precedent; it was dishonest, and not treating the House fairly. The increases in the Estimates were real, the decreases unreal. The present year was being relieved at the expense of future years, when the right hon. Gentleman and his Party would not be responsible for the finances of the country. But worse than that was the proposal to relieve the finances of the present year at the expense of the taxpayers of India. That was shabby and mean. Could the right hon. Gentleman point to a single passage in the Financial Statement of the Government of India urgently demanding an immediate supply of particular armaments?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that in any case the Government of India would pay for their guns.
  MR. BUCHANANsaid that part of the policy of the Government of India was to develop their power of making both rifles and heavy guns, and they were increasing their capacity in that direction every year.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that these guns were supplied in response to a demand of the Government of India.
  MR. BUCHANANheld that as a matter of finance the course taken was a bad one, and that it simply amounted to thrusting an extra charge on the shoulders of the Indian taxpayer.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sifting.

EVENING SITTING.
  CABINET RESIGNATIONS.

    ADJOURNMENT (UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 10).
    MR. JOHN ELLISsaid in rising to move the Adjournment of the House he made no apology for making the Motion, because if he could be amazed at anything in this Parliament, he should be amazed and was still astonished that the House had not had a statement and explanation before this from the Prime Minister. The method of obtaining such explanation by moving the adjournment was a clumsy method, but it was the only one the House now had of bringing matters of this kind before Parliament. There were in this case aggravating circumstances which alone demanded that it should be gone into without further delay. The right hon. Gentleman earlier in the evening appeared to regard it as a purely personal matter, but he (Mr. Ellis) did not so regard it. It was no personal matter at all. The Prime Minister was also the Leader of this House, and in both capacities he had a duty to perform to the House in explaining why his colleagues in the Cabinet resigned. One would have to go a long way back to find a precedent for the resignation of five members of the Cabinet—nearly one-third in numbers, and more than one-half in weight of authority and reputation. The last precedent he could find which was at all similar was that of 1867, when the late Marquess of Salisbury. Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel resigned from Mr. Disraeli's Government over the Reform Bill. On that occasion there was a complete explanation on the part of the outgoing Ministers, and Mr. Disraeli entered fully into the whole circumstances. He did not impute anything against the right hon. Gentleman's personal honour but in this case there were exceptional circumstances which accentuated the necessity for this explanation. What was the diary of events in this matter? The noble Lord the Member for Ealing had given a very clear and succinct account to his constituents from which he would quote—
    "On the last day of the session the Cabinet was summoned to consider this fiscal question in connection with certain propositions that were put before us by the Prime Minister; and

    395
    there were two documents under our consideration—the one on Insular Free Trade, and the other was a document which contained substantive propositions which we proposed on behalf of the Government to officially put forward. These propositions embraced preferential tariffs and the taxation of food. The Cabinet unanimously agreed to the publication of the first document. They differed as to the acceptance of the proposals in the second. The discussion was adjourned, and a Cabinet was summoned for 14th September, to further consider the matter."
    On the 9th September the Member for West Birmingham sent his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister. On the 14th September another Cabinet was held
    "At that Cabinet both Mr. Ritchie and myself understood that the old proposals were still before us, though I admit that the turn which the conversation at times took both puzzled and perplexed us. We could not agree. After the Cabinet, we four, the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Balfour, Mr. Ritchie, and myself, met in my room at the India Office. With a recollection of the discussions fresh in our memories, we surveyed the situation, and we unanimously came to the decision that we had no alternative but all to send in our resignations. The Duke of Devonshire undertook that commission on behalf of us all, and he saw the Prime Minister on the matter. We were none of us then aware of Mr. Chamberlain's resignation, but we all knew that, so long as he was a Member of the Government, the question of preferential tariffs could not be eliminated from its programme. There was a Cabinet next day dealing with other matters. After that Cabinet was over we four met again, and as I understood there was no change in the situation, I, in accordance with the agreement arrived at, sent in my resignation. I made it perfectly clear in my 1etter that I relieved Mr. Chamberlain was still a member of the Government, and that preferential tariffs in some shape or other were still to he discussed. The Prime Minister, in a most kind letter, acknowledged my resignation, and the day afterwards, on taking p the newspapers in the country. I read with surprise the correspondence between him and Mr. Chamberlain, and Mi. Chamberlain's resignation.
    On the 18th September the resignation of four Minister appeared in The Times. On 1st October, the Prime Minister spoke at Sheffield, the next day the Duke of Devonshire sent his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, and on 6th October that resignation was made public. That was a most remarkable and unprecedented series of events. Let the House remember the high character of the men who left the Cabinet in this manner. The Duke of Devonshire was in public life when most of the Members of the House were hardly out of their small clothes, the noble Lord the Member for Ealing had been a Member
    396
    of the House for a great many years, Lord Balfour was held in the highest esteem in Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon had made his mark in the House as one of its distinguished Members. It was one of the most remarkable events in our Parliamentary history, yet, down to the present moment, there had been no explanation from the Prime Minister the head of the Cabinet, is to those resignations.
    There were three salient features in this case. In the first place one very extraordinary circumstance was that the communication of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the Prime Minister was not only a letter of resignation but a plan of campaign. This man, who was going out of the Cabinet, actually dictated in the last sentence of that remarkable letter what the policy of the Cabinet was to be. Even a more significant circumstance was the way in which that letter was dealt with by the Prime Minister. He desired to choose his language in this matter, and he would say this letter was withheld. What was generally said about it was that it had been concealed, and he was compelled to admit that such a statement would be true. At any rate, the Prime Minister on the 14th September, while having that letter in his possession, allowed his colleagues to resign under the impression that preferential tariffs were before the Cabinet and that Mr. Chamberlain still retained his seat in the Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman did not disclose the fact then that he had the letter. These circumstances demanded explanation, and he thought that would not be denied by the Prime Minister himself, inasmuch as in speaking to his constituents hi January he had let fall the phrase "my own personal honour" in alluding to this matter.
    He thought the right hon. Gentleman should be glad of the opportunity, created by the Motion, of clearing away what must be in the nature of a calumny, if the facts wore a different complexion. The second point was the nature of the second document. They had it on the authority of the noble Lord that this contained "propositions embracing preferential tariffs and taxation on food." These were made by the Prime Minister

    397
    for the sanction of his colleagues. That was a protectionist policy on the part of the head of the Government. What had he now to say to this? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not treat the matter in an airy or cavalier way; but would make it plain why it was that the House had not been given, according to precedent, full information of these transactions at the earliest moment. The serious feature of the whole affair was that the right hon. Gentleman had not, since he had been able to appear in the House, made that full and frank communication to the House which always occurred when political changes of this kind took place. He had gone on day by day without giving that clear and frank account to which the House was entitled of what had happened. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] A number of those Gentlemen who cried "Oh" would never see the Benches they sat on again after the general election. Mr. Disraeli on the occasion in 1867 to which he had referred had spoken of "that frank communication to the House which always occurs when changes of that kind happen." The Prime Minister, with all his winning courtesy to Members individually, had in this matter showed a lack of respect to the House, and a disregard of what was due by one in his position to the House. That was the principal reason which weighed with him in now moving the Adjournment of the House.
    *MR. CORRIE GRANTsaid be only desired to add two snort precedents to the facts brought forward by the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was unable, from causes everybody in the House regretted, to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to the House what had taken place during the recess. When Parliament was sitting, such an explanation should have come, immediately after the resignations. That was what happened in the ease of Lord Carnarvon when he resigned his position in the Government, in 1878. Lord Carnarvon resigned on the 24th of January, and on the next day, the 25th, the position was explained by Lord Beaconsfield in the House of Lords, who, on that
    398
    occasion, followed Lord Carnarvon and dealt with the statement he had made. The other precedent to which he desired to draw attention was the resignation of Lord Palmerston in the recess of 1851—in December. The House assembled on February 3rd, 1852, and immediately after the Address had been moved and seconded, Sir Benjamin Hall, then the Member for Marylebone, asked for explanations of the circumstances which had led to an alteration in the Cabinet, and asserted that such explanations ought always to be given at the earliest possible moment, unless, as happened in 1828, the individuals concerned were not present in the House. He submitted to the House that the precedent of the debate of 1852 was very much on all fours with the point he was now pressing upon the Prime Minister. At that time all the parties concerned were in the House, and an explanation was at once given of all the circumstances which had led to the dismissal of Lord Palmerston. The rule seemed to have been laid down that when the, parties were not present the explanation could not take place, but as soon as they were the explanation ought to be given, and the House put in full possession of all the circumstances. He had only one other point to mention in conclusion. It was an unusual thing for the Opposition by a Motion to have to force an explanation of this kind, because such an explanation ought to be volunteered to the House as soon as all the parties who were concerned could be present to take part in the debate. He begged leave to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
    THR PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR.): Mr. Speaker, you have ruled, and I am glad that you have ruled, that it is competent for me to-night, on the Motion that the House do now adjourn, to make that explanation, or to give that narrative, which the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment of the House appears so ardently to desire. For my own part I have not now, and I never

    399
    have had, any objection to giving an account of the course, as I understand it, of Cabinet and Governmental policy during the last six months, except such objection as may find its origin in the fact that these explanations lead sometimes to personal recriminations, and that little good, perhaps, is done by dealing from a personal point of view with questions which, after all, have a far larger significance than any personalities can give us, and that debates like the one which the hon. Gentleman has initiated may perhaps more readily feed the curiosity or the interest of those who care little, and are perhaps very little competent to give an opinion upon the really difficult problems connected with fiscal reform—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh,"]—easy to persons of the hon. Gentleman's intelligence, but difficult to the ordinary man—so that those who are but little capable of dealing with these problems are happy to occupy themselves with personal gossip and personal controversy. I am confident—I hope the hon. Gentleman will not believe that I suppose that it is with this purely gossiping and personal object that he has moved the adjournment of the debate. What I am endeavouring to point out to the House is that, though I do not shrink from giving the fullest account of all that has occurred during the last six months, I cannot honestly pretend that I think any great public interest will be served by the discussion which the hon. Gentleman has initiated. The House is well acquainted with the fact that it was through no fault of mine that I could not take part in our earlier debates; and if it be true, as perhaps it is true, that neither the House nor the country would have been content had I remained permanently silent under the personal charges that have been levelled against me, I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me an opportunity of dialing with the subject. But I hope he will allow me, in delivering a speech of, I trust, not inordinate length, to go back to what everybody will admit is the beginning of the crisis, as it is commonly described, the Parliamentary crisis with which the hon. Gentleman has concerned himself to-night.
    If the House remembers the condition of affairs that came about when
    400
    my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham made his memorable speech in May last, they will know that, though no novel doctrine was propounded in that speech, though nothing was said by my right hon. friend which had not been said before by responsible statesmen in this country, nevertheless the public interest excited by that speech was of a wholly novel kind, and people felt for the first time that the question of fiscal reform had ceased to be a question of, I will not say academic interest, but of interest outside the immediate domain of practical politics—that for the first time it had been brought within those limits and that every man would have to make up his mind—[OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"]—even though he belonged to the Opposition, for even they have minds—[An HON. MEMBER: They have convictions also.]—every man would have to make up his mind what course he would have to take upon a problem for the first time presented to the country in a shape which the country would have to decide. The House will admit, those at all events who paid attention to the currents and cross-currents of public opinion at that time, that there was a considerable disturbance of the public mind, a great disorganisation of general opinion, that it was felt that a new problem and a new question had been thrown down for discussion which might make, and which probably would make, considerable changes in Governments and Parties. [An HON. MEMBER: It ought not to have been introduced at all.] Well, I expressly said that the problem was an old one, but what I said was that for the first time in our generation—I do not know how old the hon. Gentleman is who interrupted me—it had come before us for practical discussion. I have been greatly blamed for the course that I took on that occasion. I felt, and I think the House will admit that I was not wrong in feeling, that Members of this House, many of them, were much perplexed by the new situation, that the great majority of us have not been accustomed to deal with these economic problems, which were so familiar to our grandfathers sixty years ago, so that to many they came with a sense of surprise, and that Members of this House, and persons interested in

    401
    politics outside this House felt they required time to consider questions which, however fully debated between the forties and the fifties, has since the fifties occupied but little of the time of the Members of this House or of Parliaments preceding the present one.
    There were a certain number of medical advisers who, diagnosing the situation, thought that the best remedy for the disease was a debate in this House, and I was much blamed for not interrupting the ordinary and normal course of public business by giving an opportunity for that debate. I must admit that the doctors who most confidently made that prescription were the Members who wanted to make the speeches which were to cure the disease, and that I did not find in the general opinion of the House any great anxiety to have a debate upon that subject. There was a perfectly well-recognised and constitutional method of forcing that debate, had it been desired. I have been told that it was an improper course for the Leader of the House to suggest that a vote of censure should be used as a vehicle for discussing this subject. Some persons may have thought there was force in that observation last June; they can hardly think so in the present month of March, because it was on a vote of censure that the House has discussed the matter for six days during my absence; and I should really be curious to know whether it was improper to discuss on a vote of censure last June what it was eminently proper to discuss on a vote of censure this February. I admit that I took the course I did of refusing, short of a vote of censure, to interrupt the normal course of legislation with some regret. I spent sleepless nights in wondering whether there was, indeed, in this House some "mute, inglorious" Adam Smith or Ricardo—mute and therefore inglorious by my action. I have since been amply reassured, and I do not know that there is any reason for deploring that the ample debate of which the House has had the enjoyment, or even surfeit ["Oh"], at all events a full meal, within the last three weeks, took place in February, 1904, rather than in June, 1903.
    It seemed to me, on the contrary, that it was most desirable that
    402
    some months, at all events, should be employed in accumulating information and statistics on the present position of trade in this country, and in considering, each man for himself, and as far as we could for the benefit of our neighbours, the broad economic principles which ought to underlie the policy of this country. To the best of our ability we, on this Bench, set ourselves to work to supply both of those needs. I am quite aware that the statistics prepared by the Board of Trade have been described as undigested statistics; but I am convinced that nobody who knows what the modern science of statistics is—how difficult statistics are to prepare, how much they are a matter of trained consideration—will regard the great volume of statistics prepared by the Board of Trade, which is a mine of information for all who desire to consider the concrete facts of the existing situation—will regard that great work as a mass of undigested statistics. I speak with more diffidence and more humility of my own very humble attempt to bring certain bro id economic reasonings before the attention of my fellow-countrymen. That effort has been described, I think, by my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire as an academic effort. I do not disclaim the epithet, which, indeed, as coming from the Chancellor of one University addressed to the Chancellor of another University, cannot be otherwise than highly complimentary. Well, we did our best. I, at all events, worked hard in the middle of a very exacting session to make clear the lines of reasoning on which I thought people ought to proceed. The Cabinet, as everybody knows, were even at that time divided upon the subject of fiscal reform, but it was practically agreed among us that the subject should not be raised, and that we should put it on one side for decision.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Till the last day of the session.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Precisely. We put it on one side for decision until the work of the session was over. There were other questions of great and pressing importance on which I am glad to think the Cabinet were agreed—questions of foreign policy, questions of

    403
    domestic policy—and it would have been folly to imperil those by a premature discussion upon a subject which could not come up for practical consideration until the event which the hon. Gentleman looks forward to with such pleasure—the next general election—was past and gone. At the beginning of August, in preparation for that Cabinet to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, I circulated among my colleagues the pamphlet which has since become public property; and at the Cabinet, the date of which I forget—it was a late Cabinet in August before the House separated—they were in possession of that pamphlet and of certain tentative suggestions which I threw out for their consideration. Here I must frankly say I think I have some reason to complain of the course which was pursued by my noble friend the Member for Middlesex. I have not much to complain of in the course he has pursued, and I trust nothing I say to-night will wound any of those who have so long served with me in public offices; but I am bound to tell the House that I do think that in this matter I have been somewhat ill-used. My noble friend made a statement with which I have not the least desire to quarrel. I am not sure that I quite understood it, but I should certainly have never made any public criticism upon it had it not been the foundation of repeated attacks made on me by Lord Rosebery and other members of the Opposition. They interpreted my noble friend's statement as meaning that I had come down to this Cabinet in August, that I had presented a public pamphlet on one side representing a certain body of doctrine, another pamphlet, not yet published, representing an opposite set of doctrines, and said to my colleagues, "Well, one of these two you had better have. Toss up and see which you prefer."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did not say that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know that my noble friend did not say that. I do not complain that my noble friend said it. I complain that my noble friend let it be said.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: This is a matter which affects to a certain extent my veracity.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Not at all.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: When Lord Rosebery put the interpretation upon my words which my right hon. friend denied I wrote to the newspaper to say that my right hon. friend was perfectly correct in repudiating the gloss which Lord Rosebery put upon my words.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am grateful to my noble friend for his interruption, because it makes exactly clear what I wanted to tell the House. What I complain of is that my noble friend let it be said. He let it be said in one speech by Lord Rosebery; he let it be said in two speeches by Lord Rosebery; I think he let it be said in three speeches by Lord Rosebery. Lord Rosebery found it easier to preach a sermon on the text furnished him by my noble friend than to support a policy unanimously accepted, as I understand it, alleged to be unanimously accepted, by Gentlemen on the other side of the House. And when was it that my noble friend came forward and corrected this misinterpretation of Lord Rosebery? Was it after the first speech of Lord Rosebery, or the second, or the third? It was not till after I myself had told the public that the thing was totally untrue. It was in answer to the Daily Mail, I think, that my noble friend made this tardy explanation. It was not until alter my noble friend was asked by the Daily Mail how he reconciled his statement with my statement that he made the tardy explanation to which he has just—
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: That is not so.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps when my noble friend speaks to-night he will give the dates. I am perfectly confident that my noble friend's contradiction of this calumny never appeared until I myself contradicted it in Manchester on 12th January. This is an episode. I et us return to the main current of the drama. I had hoped, though with a diminishing degree of confidence, even up to that last

    405
    Cabinet in August, that I should be able to retain all the friends who in these long years had served the King with me, that there need be no necessary break-up of the Government. I admit that it was with diminishing confidence that I held that view; but that confidence wholly vanished soon after, and for more than one reason. In the first place, I felt that if those members of the Government who differed altogether from me on the question of fiscal reform had really thought an arrangement was possible I must do them the justice to believe that they would have suggested a compromise. I am quite sure they desired to keep the Party together. I am quite sure the last thing they wished to do was to break from us; and, therefore, had there been any arrangement consistent with the views on fiscal reform which I held, and which I hold, which they were willing to accept, I am sure it would have been suggested by one or other of them. No such suggestion came. I do not believe that in the whole six months that elapsed between the speech of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham in May and the date of the final Cabinet on 14th September—I do not think any suggestion of a compromise was made by either my noble friend or my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. And undoubtedly from their point of view they were quite right. They were wholly at variance with me, and therefore naturally they did not suggest a compromise. We shall come to that directly. But there was another reason which made me, about the period of which I am now speaking, feel that the chances of keeping the Government intact were practically at an end, which I speak of with more diffidence, and which I think cannot be regarded, and I do not put it forward, as in any sense legal evidence. If I quote gossip it is not because it is gossip only, but because it represents a certain amount of what goes on, especially among persons who live in one society, who agree on most points, and who have an enormous number of common friends and acquaintances. All the gossip that reached my ears led me to believe that my noble friend and my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had by that time themselves wholly
    406
    abandoned any hope of remaining members of a Government who were pledged to fiscal reform; and I heard that speculations even were rife as to what would occur when in consequence of the breakup of the Government anticipated last September I should have resigned my place as Prime Minister. Every kind of suggested combination reached my ears, though, by the way, as regard; hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, I do not remember that they came through any of them. I do not think the combinations I heard of promised sufficient stability to make it worth while for right hon. Gentlemen opposite to have anything to do with them. I did not really pay very much attention to the rumours current, I believe, in all political society and on both sides of the House; but as a matter of fact, I had not the smallest intention of resigning then. I had not the smallest intention of resigning in September whatever happened. The hon. Gentleman opposite who moved this Motion, said there, had never been anything so catastrophic as the resignation of five members of a Cabinet.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: That was not my phrase.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think I have improved on the hon. Gentleman's phrase. He said he knew of no precedent, and I admit that I know of no precedent; but my view was, and I think I was right, that it was contrary to my public duty to abandon my post as long as I retained the confidence of the King and of this House. And, quite frankly, it never occurred to me that another course was open to me.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: What about this House and the country?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that that has any relation to the course I have explained. I believe the House on both sides will think I was right. I believe they do think I was absolutely right, and I believe they would have regarded me with considerable contempt, not merely my own friends but hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom I am a legitimate subject of criticism, and that they would not have felt that I had risen

    407
    in their estimation if I had shrunk from a task, rendered indeed difficult by the separation from old friends, but, as I think I shall show, far from impossible. Well, Sir, I therefore, in September, came to the conclusion that some break up of the Cabinet was inevitable, and I had altered the view which I had previously held. I want to be absolutely frank with the House in all these matters. I had come to the conclusion, fully expressed, I think, in my published letters and speeches, that it was not within the region of practical politics to suggest a tax on food in this country, even although the interests of free trade—I put aside altogether the Imperial question—would have been greatly promoted thereby. I mean even supposing that were possible. No human being, I presume, would deny that there is a conceivable concession on the part of the protectionists in Canada, combined with a conceivable minimum of a duty on food in this country, which would enormously subserve the interests of free trade. That, I take it, is absolutely undeniable, and I have never heard anybody deny it.
    LORD HUGH CECILinterrupted with an observation not heard in the gallery.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not know my noble friend denied it.
    LORD HUGH CECIL: I deny that it would in the long run.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My noble friend has made a perfectly legitimate point, and he has given me an opportunity of explaining what I mean. Nobody denies that supposing, if he likes, that Canada gave up her protective policy on great branches of trade for an indefinite period, and that you could purchase that concession by a small duty on corn—that might be good or bad, but it would be free trade. I think I heard a murmur of dissent, but I am convinced that it is not from anybody who has considered in his own mind what free trade means. I came to the conclusion, which I have just described to the House, in the course of the recess, and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham had come to a similar conclusion which had been
    408
    expressed in a letter which has since become public property. It was in these circumstances that the Cabinet of 14th September assembled. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham had, in the letter which I have described, expressed his view that public opinion was not ripe for any taxation of foodstuffs, and he had also expressed his view that for personal reasons of his own he would prefer to carry on the propaganda in which he was so profoundly interested in an independent capacity; and I was aware of that fact when the Cabinet met on 14th September. That fact, which I have never denied, or even suggested a denial of, has been twisted—not by my noble friend, not by my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the worst of all supporters, the supporters that do not belong to our own Party—into the foundations of an accusation that I kept from my two late colleagues a fact material to their own course during the Cabinet of 14th September. A more preposterous statement—a statement more absolutely contradicted by my right hon. friends, and which, if true, would be more discreditable to my right hon. friends—I cannot imagine. Now let me suppose for a moment that it is true. It would mean that my right hon. friends' objection to fiscal reform, as I conceive it, is not in the least based on the essential policy of that plan, but based on a personal objection to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, or to his methods, or to his speeches. I am quite sure they would be the first to refuse to accept such an explanation as that. Then it appears to be thought to be the business of the Prime Minister for the time being to announce to his Cabinet that any one of their colleagues has indicated that if a certain policy is pursued he would have to reconsider his position. That is a view of the duty of the Prime Minister which can only occur to those who have never seen anything of the interior of Cabinet life. It used to be said—I do not know whether the distinguished biographer of Mr. Gladstone supports it or not—that Lord Palmerston pointed to a drawer and said, "That is full of Mr. Gladstone's resignations." Does any human being suppose that every time that Mr. Gladstone explained to Lord Palmerston that

    409
    he would have to reconsider his position if Lord Palmerston did not carry out this or that policy, Lord Palmerston came down with a long face and told all the Cabinet that his Chancellor of the Exchequer took a different view of the subject from himself? Why, Sir, of course it is left to the Minister himself to tell his colleagues that if a certain course is pursued he would feel it impossible to remain a member of the Government. And that course was actually pursued by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. It was not my business to do it. It was his business to do it if he thought fit. And he did think fit. And he distinctly told the Cabinet that if preference was omitted from the official Government programme he would, for purely personal reasons, explained in his letter to me, not feel it possible to remain one of His Majesty's Ministers. I am quite aware that my noble friend and my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hear that observation.
    MR. RITCHIE: I beg pardon; I heard it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought he had not heard it.
    MR. RITCHIE: I did.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, then, Sir, we really need not argue the question any further, because they knew absolutely everything that I knew.
    MR. RITCHIE: No, no!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be convenient to have that interruption developed.
    MR. RITCHIE: I did not know my right hon. friend had a letter in his pocket, dated some days previous, intimating that the right hon. Gentleman desired to leave the Cabinet, in fact placing his resignation in my right hon. friend's hands. That is what we did not know, though some members of the Cabinet did know.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only difference between my right hon. friend and myself is that he seems to think
    410
    there is a great distinction between that which is written and that which is spoken. I can assure him that I take a different view; it would make no difference to me whether he said the words or wrote the words; and that which I say of my right hon. friend I say of the Member for West Birmingham, I see no distinction between what he wrote to me and what he said to the Cabinet. Whether he said the words through the medium of pen and paper or through the medium of his vocal chords properly exercised does not seem to me to make the smallest difference in anything relevant to this discussion. Well, then, my two right hon. friends knew at that Cabinet all that I knew. I knew it by writing, they knew it by speech; but we both knew it, we all knew it. I was, personally, quite confident that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham would carry out his view, though he had not sent his formal resignation. I was as convinced of that as I was convinced, knowing his opinions, that my right hon. friend would not consent to remain in a Government which desired to carry out fiscal reform. [An HON. MEMBER: Fiscal Reform!] This brings me to a personal question, which is, I think, relevant to the discussion at that Cabinet meeting. Everybody has formulated the difference of opinion which separates those who agree with me from those who agree with right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I formulate it in this way, and I believe it is an accurate definition—the right hon. Gentlemen are in favour of a policy of laissez faire on all questions of fiscal arrangements, while I am against a policy of laissez faire, and in favour of fiscal reform. I was constantly endeavouring during that Cabinet of the 14th to get some kind of decision on this question of fiscal reform; but I ought to say quite frankly to the House that I approached that Cabinet in a somewhat different spirit from that in which a Prime Minister in ordinary times approaches a Cabinet. I came there quite clear that this House, the country, the Cabinet itself were determined that there should be a policy in which the Cabinet could agree. I was equally clear what that policy should be so long as I was Prime Minister; and so long as the Government remained what it was

    411
    that policy was to be one I since expressed at Sheffield and in other speeches, and in writing, and which I have consistently upheld since my first utterance in this House after my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham had made his famous address.
    MR. BLACK: What about settled convictions?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was coming to them. Unfortunately, as the House knows, I was too ill to attend the discussion on fiscal reform during the debates on the Address. Passionately as I love a discussion in this House, I am sorry to say the same discussion served up cold has not that appetising effect on me that the real original article hot from the spit must have on everybody who has been long a Member of this Assembly. But I have tried to make myself acquainted with what passed in these debates; and I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition brought up in his initial speech the suggestion that I was "a reed shaken by the wind," that I was without an idea on political economy or fiscal problems until the subject was started unexpectedly in May last; and he quoted a phrase, perhaps a foolish or infelicitous phrase, I used in a speech which is in itself a refutation of the inference drawn from it. I he right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, that I had no settled convictions on the great underlying economic problems with which we have to deal. In that very speech I expressed a very strong opinion on these underlying problems; but if he would take the trouble to look back at another speech I delivered in this House in his absence, when the whole of the Front Bench opposite were taking a holiday—it was on the last day before the. Whitsuntide recess, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean started a Motion which for some reason or other was not looked at favourably by his own Front Bench, who were all absent—playing golf or otherwise enjoying themselves. I then made a speech which I respectfully think is worthy of mention. I read it myself not very long ago. It embodies in a not inconvenient form almost all the root principles of the proposition I have been endeavouring to
    412
    instil into the country ever since. That was delivered a month before the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman referred; and I think I may dismiss the question of settled convictions with only this further explanation, that, as everybody looking at my speech will see, it was not to the broad principles underlying tariff reform that I was referring, but to the specially complicated problem presented by preference, complicated not because of the economic difficulties, not because they were difficulties not capable of being dealt with, but because of the difficulties arising from the public opinion of two self-governing communities being at difference; and I said—I wish I could withdraw the statement—that I was not aware how it was possible on such a basis to found any great scheme of preferential dunes. I thought that then, and I think it now. I may have had many faults in this controversy, but I think few will be keen to urge against me inconsistency—if inconsistency be a fault.
    Well, now let us consider for a moment what is the charge brought against me to justify the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division in moving the Adjournment of the House. That charge has been crudely formulated in this form. It has been asserted, not, I think, by any responsible stateman on either side of the House, and least of all by my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer or by my noble friend the Member for Middlesex—it has been suggested that I jockeyed—1 am not a racing man, but jockeyed, I think, is the phrase—my two right hon. friends out of the Cabinet by keeping from them the fact that the Member for West Birmingham had resigned. That is the charge. Was ever a charge more foolish or baseless urged against a public man in this country? In the first place, as a matter of fact, the resignation, or the intended resignation, of my right hon. friend was not a secret, for he declared it in the Cabinet, and ha was heard by my two right hon. friends. In the next place, had he not said it, had he not been heard, what relevance had it to the question whether my two right hon. friends could have remained in the Cabinet? What drove them out of the Cabinet? A difference of opinion with the head of it,

    413
    as they themselves have stated in the most explicit terms. They have, indeed, indicated that probably they might have served His Majesty as Ministers for a few hours more had they known that my right hon. friend was going to resign, but not more than for a few hours. My noble friend the Member for Middlesex his told us that, though there was a misunderstanding, that misunderstanding would have been dissipated as soon as he had seen my letter published in the cheap pamphlet form accessible even to the millionaires of the Liberal Party.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: What I said was that I could not remain a member of the Government after the speech you made in Sheffield.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I apologise to my noble friend. I confused him with his neighbour. It was my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer who told us at Croydon that he could not have remained a member of the Government after my letter to my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, which had been since then published.
    *MR. RITCHIE: Hear, hear!
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was my noble friend who said that he could not hive survived the Sheffield speech. If I remember rightly, the Cabinet was held on 14th September, and the letter to the Member for West Birmingham was published on 17th September. The Sheffield speech was made on 1st October, therefore the only results of the misunderstanding of my two right hon. friends is this, that one of them would have been enabled for three days and the other for a fortnight to remain members of His Majesty's Government. Now, I make no complaint. I think that my right hon. friends have been grossly ill-used about it. They have never complained themselves. It has been all made for them by their new admirers. I have always had the highest opinion of my right hon. friends; but I never knew what great men they were until they resigned. They never pretended for a moment that the misunderstanding had the
    414
    smallest effect on the substantial issue whether they should, or should not, remain members of the Government pledged to fiscal reform. I therefore venture to think that they had no substantial complaint to urge against me. On the other hand, I freely admit that I have no substantial complaint to urge against them, if they will allow me to say so. There is one relatively small matter I regret. It appears, though I did not realise it until a comparatively late stage of this history, that there had been formed within the Cabinet a sort of second Cabinet pledged to each other by bonds of mutual confidence in connection with this subject of fiscal reform. There is nothing dishonourable in that, but I think it is unfortunate.
    *MR. RITCHIE: What does my right hon. friend refer to? I know nothing about it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I had inferred chiefly from phrases used by the Duke of Devonshire that he had been in constant consultation with my noble friend and my right hon. friend all through this crisis, and that each felt that he could not act on his own responsibility without the consent of the others.
    *MR. RITCHIE: We had no consultation whatever until after the Cabinet of the 14th. We never met before.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess that I had good reason for taking a different view of the situation; but, of course. I accept my right hon. friend's word.
    *MR. RITCHIE: We never motor had any consultation whatever until after the Cabinet of the 14th.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not question the right hon. Gentleman's statement at all. [OPPOSITION cries of "Withdraw."] I do not press the point at all. But had it been so, there would have been nothing dishonourable in it. I do not think it is the best way of carrying on Government by Cabinet, but it would not have been a stain on the right hon. Gentleman's honour. I am glad my right hon. friend his made that

    415
    contradiction, because it removes the last suggestion of bitterness that should accompany what must be the painful process of separation. There has been an amputation, but I am glad it was performed under antiseptic conditions, and there is no wound left, no feeling on his part or mine that either of us has adopted any course or done anything which may leave any stain of bitterness on a political or personal friendship which has gone on through so many years. I do not suppose that the House will ask me to give any explanation as to my relations with my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire. [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] He has himself given an account of what occurred in the House of Lords. In certain particulars I think he has unintentionally made a slight error of statement on certain matters of fact; but I have not the slightest desire to enter upon them, nor do I think any material fell from him about which I need trouble. I do not think anybody suggests that I have behaved badly to him. If it be true, as he thinks, that I was betrayed into a correspondence unduly controversial in connection with his resignation, I am sorry that should have been so. On the other hand, I have nothing to complain of; even the manner of his resignation and the time of it I have long forgotten. The character of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire is one of the assets of public life in this country. It is beyond attack and beyond criticism; and if we have unfortunately differed on this question, if the amount and the extent of our differences came to me with the suddenness of surprise, betraying me into unduly heated language, I should never forget the service he has rendered to English public life, or how he came forward in a great crisis of our national history to play a part which will have a permanent effect on the fortunes of this country.
    I hope that I have at all events satisfied the curiosity of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division. I venture to think that I have done nothing which the strictest critic of this House has any reason to reproach me with. I had to deal with a difficult situation; none will deny that. That I have striven to maintain, as far as it could be maintained, the unity of the
    416
    great Party to which I belong will be admitted even by those whom I have been unsuccessful in retaining in our fold, and even those opposite may perhaps think that had I had predecessors in the course I have adopted they would find themselves in less difficulty now than they would otherwise be. I do not wish to dwell on this aspect of the question, but I venture to point out to the House that, in striving as I have striven, and frankly admit I have striven, throughout all these difficult months to maintain the unity of the Party of which for the time I am the responsible leader, I have never for one instant varied from publicly declared principles of my own, never have I wavered from statements which I have made before the crisis arose. I have been accused, for example—and the statement of fact is true—of having changed, somewhat modified, my views as to the possibility of inducing the people of this country for any object, however intimately connected with free trade or Empire, to consent to a tax on food. But the principles which animated me, though they have been decorated with a great many uncomplimentary terms by hon. Members opposite, were declared publicly before the right hon. Member for West Birmingham's speech was in the hands of the public. It was on the same day he spoke at Birmingham that I spoke to a deputation with regard to duties on corn; and there I explained, as I still hold, however great the objects which might be attained by a small tax upon wheat, it was impossible ever to impose such a tax unless you had with you the hearts and the consciences of the people of this country. Exactly the thing I stated before and to that opinion I still hold; and if anyone thinks that I have modified my opinions on the other questions connected with fiscal reform, I can with all modesty and humility refer them to that speech I made in the very earliest days of the controversy in May last, in which I surveyed the whole problem opened up by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I think if a candid survey be thus taken of the part I have played in this matter it will be felt, not only that I have striven, successfully or unsuccessfully, but at all events to the best of my ability, to carry out my duties as a leader of a

    417
    Party. In striving for this great object I have never for a moment, or even for a hair's breadth, varied from the principles of the fiscal policy which I had laid down before the stress of the crisis was fully upon us.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I sincerely regret that this Motion has been made. I was in no sense a party to it, and I had hoped even after the Motion was made that it would not be necessary for me to intervene in the debate. But the House has heard the speech of the Prime Minister, and I think all will feel after the statement that it would be impossible for me to remain silent. I agree with my right hon. friend that it was necessary for people to make up their minds on this question, and I made up my mind; so did my right hon. friend the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, early in this controversy, that protection was not fiscal reform. I think I more than once intimated to the Prime Minister that in my judgment protection was fiscal retrogression. There at once arose a difficult question. Connected as I have been for many years with the Conservative Party and my right hon. friend in my official life, how far was it right for me to remain in the Government if from its head and the majority of the Government I could get no guarantee that they did not look upon protection as fiscal reform? My right hon. friend said that he had a complaint to make against me because I made a certain statement to my constituents.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was not my complaint.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The complaint was as to the statement I made in connection with a certain document which was not before the public. It was absolutely essential that I should make the statement in the form I did, otherwise my position was perfectly un-intelligible, not only to my constituents, but to the public at large. The statement I then made, with due deliberation, in connection with that Cabinet, I will now read in this House—
    "On the last day of the session the Cabinet met, and we had before us two documents, a
    418
    pamphlet entitled 'Insular Free Trade,' and another document containing proposals the Prime Minister wished officially put forward in the name of the Government. Preferential tariffs and taxation of food was included in that programme."
    I wrote out that part of my speech with that document before me. I have read that document again during the past few hours, and I adhere to every syllable that I said to my constituents.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. Whether that document shall be published or not as he chooses to deal with it is another question. But that is not what I complained of What I complained of was his allowing Lord Rosebery—that is what I complained of—once, twice, and three times to interpret my noble friend's statement as meaning that I showed two contradictory policies to the Cabinet and asked them to choose which they would like.
    AN OPPOSITION MEMBER: So you did.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I had no idea my right hon. friend studied the papers with such closeness as to be able to know everything that Lord Rosebery said.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: When he says it three times.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I am bound to say I have not read all Lord Rosebery has said on this question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, shame.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did read one speech, and I endorse what my right hon. friend said in his denial of the gloss which Lord Rosebery put on my statement. But surely it is rather hard that a Prime Minister, with a host of secretaries and other persons around him, should turn round and attack an ex-colleague because that ex-colleague has not corrected the misinterpretations which have been made by Members of the Opposition in connection with the Prime Minister's own action. I am very sorry to in any way add to the controversial temper of this discussion. I only rose because it was absolutely necessary for me to do so. I made that statement

    419
    because that document to which I referred pretty clearly indicated to me that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister's views on the fiscal question were such as did not in my judgment sufficiently safeguard the principles of free trade. We discussed that document at the last Cabinet meeting of the session. We discussed it again at the memorable Cabinet on 14th September. I never understood that that document was withdrawn. All of us who were opposed to the suggestions made in that document did believe that it was still under our purview. And here let me incidentally say that my right hon. friend has be; n entirely misinformed in assuming that there was any cabal inside the Cabinet against him. I never met the Duke of Devonshire or the other members of the Cabinet on this question until after the Cabinet of 14th September and we then only met because we were all unanimous in our belief that my right hon. friend the senior Member for Birmingham was still remaining a member of the Cabinet, and we were uncertain whether the taxation of food was or was not forming a part of the Government policy. My right hon. friend says that every one of us heard in the Cabinet that the senior Member for Birmingham announced his intention of resigning. I certainly heard no such definite statement, and my memory is pretty tenacious. We all left—we four—under the impression that he was still a member of the Government; and my right hon. friend the Prime Minister cannot forget this fact, that in the letter of resignation which I wrote to him, and in the letter which my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon also wrote, we both believed—it was clear from the purport of both these letters—that my right hon. Friend was still a member of the Government and that food taxation in some shape or other was to be proposed. I have never made any complaint of any kind or sort against my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I admit—I frankly say so—that in my own judgment I had I been quite long enough in office. My right hon. friend had only to give me a hint and I should readily have gone. I go further and say that the Prime Minister has a perfect right, if he considers it advisable in the interests of his Party or of his Government, to
    420
    request any one of his colleagues to place his resignation in his hands, and in my judgment any colleague to whom such an appeal is made is bound to accept such a proposal if made by the Prime Minister. I do not want to exhume the bones of this old controversy which had, I hoped, been buried. My only complaint in connection with this matter is that I was not told the whole facts of the case. I say, not for the purpose of infusing fresh life into the controversy, but I lay down the constitutional principle that if a Prime Minister has the right to get rid of any one of his colleagues, which I think he has, those colleagues, on the other hand, have an equal right, if they are summoned to discuss a question, to be put in full possession of all the facts relating to it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURmade an observation which could not be heard in the gallery.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did not know that my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham had retired from the Government.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He had not.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I did not know his resignation was accepted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Quite so. That is just the position in which we left the Cabinet. Now the House can understand the difficulty in which we were placed. Let me go a little further. The Duke of Devonshire, who was acting with us—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought there was no meeting.
    *LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I said there was no cabal, and that we did not meet until after the Council; and we then came to the conclusion that it was our duty, all of us, to resign because we could not agree to what we believed to be the policy of the Government. The Duke of Devonshire was told the day after our resignations were sent in some thing that we did not know, and the

    421
    Duke further stated in the House of Lords that which he told me privately, that when he suggested to the Prime Minister that I and my right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, who, like him, were in ignorance of the facts, should he told them, a refusal was made to that request. The Prime Minister said, of course, that we should not have been actuated by any personal influences as regards my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, and that whether he remained in or outride the Cabinet really did not very much affect our position. But that is a curious view to take of the situation, because it is not the view which my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham took. The position which he took in the letter, which we did not know of until it was published, was that he was so personally associated with a particular part of the policy—that his personality so dominated that policy—that if it were dropped he must have the Government. All I say is that not one single one of us understood that my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham had made up his mind to leave the Government, nor did we know that he had done so until after the Cabinet Council of 14th September. My right hon. friend says that none of us suggested any compromise in this matter. But it must be remembered that there was a truce going on, and during the time of that truce it was natural—and I think it would have been very unwise of us to have attempted in
    any way to do anything else—that we should not re-open a question which at any rate at that time was quiescent. My right hon. friend seems to look upon me as a person who is not predisposed to move in any direction, but perhaps he will pardon me for reminding him that I was the pioneer of retaliation under certain conditions, because it was on my own initiative that retaliatory duties against bounty-fed sugar were imposed in India. Now, I hope that after this discussion we shall hear no more of the incidents and circumstances relating to these resignations. It is with the greatest reluctance that I have in any way alluded to them, but, as I have been compelled to speak, I must honestly say that, while I think my right hon. friend was perfectly right in reconstituting his Government, I think it was unfortunate that the procedure adopted was capable of any misunderstanding. I have been for many years in this House. We have fought our battles, and I look back, and I hope I always shall look back, with pleasure to many incidents of my Parliamentary and political life, but I frankly tell my right hon. friend that the, one portion of my life which I shall endeavour to obliterate from my memory is that connected with the closing incidents of my official career.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 172; Noes, 237. (Division List No. 44.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

    Emmott, Alfred

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

    Ambrose, Robert

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Cremer, William Randal

    Fenwick, Charles

    Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

    Crombie, John William

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Crooks, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Bell, Richard

    Cullinan, J.

    Field, William

    Black, Alexander William

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Blake, Edward

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Boland, John

    Delany, William

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Brigg, John

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Burns, John

    Doogan, P. C.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Haldane, Rt. Jon. Richard B.

    Caldwell, James

    Elibank, Master of

    Hammond, John

    Cameron, Robert

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

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Murphy, John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Harwood, George

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    Norman, Henry

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

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

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Spencer, Rt Hn.C. R. (Northants

    Horniman, Frederick John

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

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

    O'Doherty, William

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Joicey, Sir James

    O'Dowd, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    O'Malley, William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Mara, James

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Parrott, William

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

    Kilbride, Denis

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Tomkinson, James

    Kitson, Sir James

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Toulmin, George

    Labouchere, Henry

    Pirie, Duncan V.

    Ure, Alexander

    Lambert, George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Langley, Batty

    Price, Robert John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Priestley, Arthur

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

    Rea, Russell

    Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

    Leng, Sir John

    Reckitt, Harold James

    Weir, James Galloway

    Lloyd-George, David

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Lough, Thomas

    Redmond, William (Clare)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Lundon, W.

    Rigg, Richard

    Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roche, John

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

    M'Crae, George

    Rose, Charles Day

    Wilson, John (Falkirk)

    M'Hugh, Patrick A.

    Runciman, Walter

    Young, Samuel

    M'Kean, John

    Russell, T. W.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

    Schwann, Charles E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. John Ellis and Mr. Corrie Grant.

    Mooney, John J.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Sheehy, David

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Aird, Sir John

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Chapman, Edward

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

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Charrington, Spencer

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Arrol, Sir William

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Fison, Frederick William

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

    Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Balcarres, Lord

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

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

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

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

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Forster, Henry William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

    Fyler, John Arthur

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bignold, Arthur

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Garfit, William

    Bigwood, James

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Bond, Edward

    Davies, Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Bull, William James

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Butcher, John George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

    Grenfell, William Henry

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

    Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

    Gretton, John

    424

    425

    Hain, Edward

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    M'Calmont, Colonel James

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.

    Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

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

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Maxwell, W. J. H. Dumfriesshire

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Simeon, Sir Harrington

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Montagu, G. (Huntingdon

    Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

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

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Spear, John Ward

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Moore, William

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stock, James Henry

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Stroyan, John

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbighs

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

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Kerr, John

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

    Tuff, Charles

    Keswick, William

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Tuffnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

    Kimber, Henry

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

    Tuke, Sir John Batty

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Valentia, Viscount

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Percy, Earl

    Wanklyn, James Leslie

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

    Plummer, Walter R.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Pym, C. Guy

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

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Randles, John S.

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

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

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

    Remnant. James Farquharson

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Renwick, George

    Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

    Lowe, Francis William

    Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge

    Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Rolleston. Sir John F. L.

    Alexander Acland-Hood

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious that the Motion standing in his name should stand over for a fortnight. That was not his understanding; but if hon. Gentlemen were under any misapprehension in the matter he was prepared to postpone the Motion.

  SUPPLY (ARMY ESTIMATES).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [7th March], That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. PURVISsaid he wished to say a few words on a military matter of general interest. The Secretary of State for War spoke in not very complimentary terms of the Volunteers. But the difficulty of providing proper rifle ranges for the Volunteers rendered them inefficient for the effective defence of the United Kingdom. The Volunteers in his own constituency were an enthusiastic body of men. Many of them went to South Africa, did their duty there and did it well. Six or seven years ago on the introduction of the Lee-Metford rifle the old rifle range was condemned and the Volunteers were compelled to travel many miles from Peterborough to ranges

  427
  belonging to other corps. The result was that the shooting was not nearly as good as it otherwise would be. The Government now proposed to provide rifles and ammunition without providing ranges for shooting practice. The Volunteers might just as well be without rifles and ammunition as without ranges. The commanding officer in his constituency had been endeavouring without success to secure a rifle range from a local landlord. It was quite true that borough councils and county councils had statutory powers to acquire land in order to let it to local Volunteer forces; but very few instances of such powers being exercised had arisen. In those days they were told at, every turn to think Imperially. This was plainly an Imperial question, and if the Volunteers were to be of any use, compulsory means should be taken to acquire ranges for them at the public expense. He hoped his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War would consider the matter as one of pressing and immediate necessity.
  *MR. AINSWORTHsaid he would like to add a suggestion which he hoped the Secretary of State for War might be able to avail himself of. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken referred to the difficulty which commanding officers of Volunteer battalions had in obtaining suitable land for rifle ranges. He wished to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman means by which the object aimed at might be obtained under the Allotments Act. The county councils had power to take up land and the question of price was settled by an arbitrator. If power were given to the county councils to take up land on similar conditions for rifle ranges, the difficulty which had to be met would, he thought, disappear. He hoped the Secretary of State would bring in a short Bill giving the county councils power to acquire land by purchase or lease for rifle ranges. The right hon. Gentleman spoke highly of the Yeomanry and complained that the Volunteers had not yet reached their strength. The right hon. Gentleman could attain the end he had in view if he gave the same pay and allowance to the Volunteers when they were on active service as were given to the Yeomanry and Militia.
  428
  The Volunteers gave up their time to the service, of the country, and so far as possible it should be arranged that they should not be out of pocket. He also wished to call attention to the fact that the pay and allowances for adjutants in the Volunteer battalions were invariably less than the pay and allowances given to Yeomanry and Militia adjutants. No officer was more hardly worked than a Volunteer adjutant, and he hoped it would commend itself to the justice of the right hon. Gentleman that the Volunteer adjutant should be given the same pay and allowances as were given to adjutants in other branches of the Auxiliary Forces. If his suggestions were adopted, he believed that the results would be satisfactory in every way.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he agreed with his right hon. friend that it would be premature to discuss the question of the Volunteers until the Committee had reported, but he hoped his right hon. friend would do everything he possibly could to expedite the Report as it was very important that it should be issued before the drill season commenced. It was of the utmost importance that the matter should be discussed as soon as possible. With regard to the Mounted Infantry Volunteers which were established in 1900, some fourteen or fifteen corps were now in existence. They were not composed of men who would deprive the Imperial Yeomanry of desirable recruits, because the great majority of them were of an entirely different class from the class that joined the Imperial Yeomanry. It would be a very great pity indeed if the mounted forces of the country were deprived of those corps, but they could not be maintained unless the extra capitation grant and the extra camp allowance were given to them. He hoped his right hon. friend would give his sympathetic attention to this matter as soon as possible, in order that the Volunteer corps would not be shorn of this important arm. He felt sure that his right hon. friend would consider the Report of the Committee generally with the utmost sympathy.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he thought the

  429
  hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken was under a misapprehension as to the pay given to the Mounted Infantry Volunteers. The Yeomanry were on a totally different footing, as they obtained an allowance for keeping their horses; and it would be quite unfair not to take that into consideration. Altogether he thought that the Volunteers were paid as well as any force in the country. He quite agreed that the Volunteers required a better organisation in the event of war. As regarded the Militia Reserve, he was unable to gather from the right hon. Gentleman whether it was to be composed entirely of Militiamen. He thought it was a very cheap Reserve indeed and that it would be a great pity if it were interfered with. As regards the general question of the extravagance of the whole Army, a year or two ago the country was in the full blaze of a warlike fever and the House appeared anxious to do everything it could to raise the efficiency of the Army at any cost. Two years ago he urged that unless economy went hand in hand with increased efficiency there would be a dangerous reaction, because the country would begin to think what an expensive machine it was providing and what a waste there was in the operation. His words had been practically borne out by the facts. The country now was all for economy, and the expenditure had grown to such enormous proportions that many Members who were extremely anxious for the efficiency of the Army, felt obliged to consent to considerable economies in many Departments. The Estimates themselves, however, showed no sign of economy. There was a nominal reduction, but there was no evidence of an attempt to reduce the expense of unnecessary portions of the organisation. The War Office Committee had neglected financial considerations, and the Government had made no definite statement with regard to economy in the future. That was a serious state of things for the country. Business had been crippled by the enormous expenditure, and it was necessary for the Government to retrench somewhere. They could not retrench on the Navy, and it would be difficult to effect any considerable retrenchment on the Civil Service; there remained only
  430
  the Army, and the House was anxious to know what was going to be done in that direction. The fact that the present Estimates were mere temporary Votes placed the House in a, most difficult position, as it rendered it practically impossible to deal with any definite point without the reply being given that the money was to be devoted not to the purpose appearing on the Paper, but to some other purpose not yet decided upon. A careful study of the Report of the Reconstruction Committee gave but a vague idea of what was to be substituted for the present system. With many paragraphs in the Report he entirely agreed. He was glad the Army Corps system had been condemned, and that the system of territorial brigades was to be substituted for territorial regiments. He hoped, however, the Government would not forget to introduce Mounted Infantry for every brigade to be trained regularly at home. The number of generals might be decreased by doing away with some of the general officers and employing colonels as brigadiers. It was necessary that economy should be effected somewhere, as the present expenditure was a danger to the country, and the injury to trade through want of capital was a greater evil than would be suffered by a large reduction in the Army. He hoped that everything possible would be done to reduce the expenditure, and that even at the eleventh hour the Government would intimate their readiness to accept reductions in the Estimates which had been put forward.
  MR. GUESTexpressed his disappointment at the statement of the Secretary of State for War. Throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech there ran an apologetic tone, and one could not help wondering where was the ardent Army reformer of two or three years back. The right hon. Gentleman had given the House to understand that the statement was not such as he would have liked to make had he been in a position to deal freely with the subject, that the Estimates were merely of a temporary or interim character, that they represented neither his hopes nor his aspirations, and that they were put forward as embodying a stage which was in all probability transitional. He had further laid down the obvious proposition that it was the

  431
  function of the heads of the Array to place in the forefront of their calculations the duties the Army would be called upon to perform in time of peace or in time of war, but he had failed altogether to indicate what was his idea of those duties, of the manner in which the Army should be distributed, or of the proportions the different arms should bear one to another, and the whole of his subsequent remarks were vitiated by that omission. The reduction in the number of men, for instance, was not the result of any thought-out plan or of any estimate of the number required at home and abroad, but simply the automatic reduction resulting from inability to secure the number of recruits desired. The Secretary of State had contented himself by claiming credit for a redaction of £280,000 on the normal expenditure, though no explanation was given of how a "normal" figure had been arrived at. But that reduction represented about 1 per cent, on the Estimates and could not be regarded as forming part of a definite and settled policy of retrenchment. It had certainly been hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have shown more practical sympathy with the desire for economy. Another respect in which the statement was unsatisfactory was with regard to the question of recruiting. According to the right hon. Gentleman's memorandum, recruiting last year was not satisfactory, in spite of the fact that the emoluments of the private soldier were 60 or 70 per cent, greater than in 1897. Were the 40,000 men recruited last year sufficient to fill up the battalions provided for on the Estimates? The late Secretary of State for India had stated that a much larger number than 40,000 would be necessary to complete his scheme.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that recruiting had been closed to two
  432
  important branches of the service—the Artillery, and the Cavalry—and that had greatly affected the total.
  MR. GUESTsaid the right hon. Gentleman had also stated that the closing of the recruiting for the Artillery and the Cavalry had had a beneficial effect on recruiting for the Infantry and the Guards. Last year provision was made for a number of men which it was impossible to obtain under existing conditions, and the House was entitled to expect from the right hon. Gentleman a reasoned statement showing that the number of battalions for which provision was now being made, could be satisfactorily filled by the normal recruiting to be expected.
  And, it being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

NEW BILL.
  NURSES AND PRIVATE NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION).
  Bill to provide for the better Training and Registration of Nurses and for the voluntary Registration of Private Nursing Homes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Claude Hay, Mr. Bignold, Mr. H. D. Green, Captain Bagot, Lord Cecil Manners, and Mr. Malcolm.

  NURSES AND PRIVATE NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION) BILL.
  "To provide for the better Training and Registration of Nurses and for the voluntary Registration of Private Nursing Homes," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 114.]
  Adjourned at three minutes after Twelve o'clock.