Commons Sitting of 3 April 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Holy Trinity, Portsea, Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  SUBSTITUTED BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz.:—North British Railway (General Powers) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (NO STAND- ING ORDERS APPLICABLE).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
  Cork Junction Railways Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Woolwich Borough Council Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section B]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOT- LAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bute; and Milnathort; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Birkenhead, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Sidcup, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petition from Messingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  WOMEN'S ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  Petition from West Didsbury, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POLICE (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-seventh Annual Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland for the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Director of the National Gallery of Ire-
  92
  land to the Board of Governors and Guardians for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 29th March; Dr. Macnamara]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 108.]
  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Accidents and Casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several Railway Companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st December, 1904, together with Reports of the Inspecting-Officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain Accidents which were inquired into [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (LOANS RAISED IN ENG- LAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of all Loans raised in England, chargeable on the Revenues of India, outstanding at the commencement of the half-year ending on the 31st March, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 109.]
  ARMY.
  Copy presented, of Return showing number and cost of small arms, sword bayonets, machine guns, etc., manufactured in the Royal Small Arms Factories at Enfield and Birmingham, and by the trade, during the past ten years; also the number of men employed in the two Government Factories for the same period and their wages [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, No. 632 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3332 and 3333 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Licensing Compensation—London County Council and City Corporation.
  MR. BENN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the annual amount withdrawn from the possible London Compensation Fund, under the Licensing Act of 1904, by the action of the City of London in maintaining a jurisdiction apart from the county of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) If the intention of the Question is to ascertain the maximum amount which can be levied in the City of London under the Licensing Act, 1904, I may say that I understand that it has been estimated at about £25,000; which is about one-ninth of the amount that can be levied in the county of London, outside the City. The City of London has always been a separate licensing jurisdiction.

  Purchase of Mansion of Ballyhaise by Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Department of Agriculture have purchased the mansion of Ballyhaise and 800 acres of demesne ornamental grounds and tillage land in the county of Cavan as an experiment; what is the purchase money; and what is the purpose of this experiment.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the approval of the Agricultural Board was obtained to the purchase of Ballyhaise mansion and demesne; if this property belonged to Mr. Humphreys; if the Board were informed before the transaction that Mr. Humphreys was a nephew by marriage of one of their number; if the Vice-President pressed the purchase; and how the purchase price between Mr. Humphreys and the Department was ascertained.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department, with the approval of the Agricultural Board, have purchased the
  94
  house and demesne for the sum of £19,000. The property will be utilised as a centre for the breeding of live stock in connection with the Department's schemes, and for the instruction of young men in practical agriculture. The Board were aware that the property belonged to Mr. Humphreys. One of the members of the Board was indirectly interested in it, but he retired from the Board Room when the question of its acquisition was considered. The Vice-President did not press the purchase in the manner suggested. The purchase price was based on an independent valuation of the property.

  Keown Boyd Estate, County Down.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the matter of the Keown Boyd Estate, county Down, the Land Judge accepted the offer of the tenants to purchase in November, 1903; and if he can state the cause of the delay in having the purchase completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) No, Sir, but the Land Judge approved of terms on which the tenants were to repurchase from the Estates Commissioners if the latter should acquire the estate. The making of a formal offer for the estate has been held over, so that two tenants who had not signed undertakings to purchase might have an opportunity of doing so. The Commissioners expect to make shortly an offer to the Land Judge.

  Technical and Agricultural Schemes in County Kerry.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that, owing to the disagreement existing between the Agricultural and Technical Department and the Congested Districts Board, the working of technical and agricultural schemes in the county of Kerry and elsewhere will be paralysed by reason of the refusal of grants for congested districts, he can take any steps to secure an understanding between these Departments in the public interest, so that local effort in Kerry and other counties shall not be rendered useless.

  95
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There is no disagreement between the Department and the Congested Districts Board. The Department's agricultural scheme applies equally to the entire county, and their scheme of technical instruction is also applicable over congested and non-congested areas. The Congested Districts Board subsidise their own schemes of industrial work in the congested districts, but they have no funds to assist the county scheme of technical instruction in these districts.

  Purchase of Estates outside Connaught or the Congested Districts.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and if so how many, cases of the purchase of congested estates by the Estates Commissioners have yet taken place outside of Connaught or the congested districts by the Estates Commissioners; and, if no such case has yet occurred, whether he can state if the Commissioners intend to apply the section of the Land Act of 1903 dealing with congested estates in districts outside the area referred to.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Estates Commissioners have not as yet purchased any congested estates in any district. Of course it is their intention to put in force the provisions of the Act when occasion offers.

  Offer of Seed Potatoes to Irish Board of Agriculture by Mr. Williamson, of Mallow.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Williamson, of Mallow, a seed potato specialist, has offered to supply free of cost to the Irish Agricultural Department one ton of a new variety of potato, styled Duchess of Cornwall, for the purpose of having its merits fully tested in their experimental trials this year; and if he can explain why the offer has been refused, having regard to the fact that the Department have already decided to include this variety of potato in their trials this season; and whether
  96
  the offer of Mr. Williamson will be reconsidered and accepted.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department do not consider it advisable to accept from seed merchants or seed growers gratuitous supplies of seeds for the purposes of experiment. The Department have already a sufficient supply of the variety mentioned. They are not prepared to reconsider Mr. Williamson's offer.

  Date of Publication of First Annual Report of the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. O'DOWD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the First Annual Report of the Estates Commissioners relative to the working of the Irish Land Act of 1903 will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Report will be very shortly issued, but I cannot fix a date.

  Construction of Moher Relief Road.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if it is intended that the construction of the Moher relief road, county Cavan, is to be proceeded with; and, if not, will he explain why.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that the guardians have discontinued the construction of this road owing to the refusal of the solicitors to the owner of the property through which the road passes to permit further work upon it.

  Case of Denis Connolly, of Borrisnoe.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on the night of October 3rd last an emergency man named Denis Connolly, of Borrisnoe, was caught in the act of stealing cabbage from the haggart of Daniel Greed residing near the same place; that he was accompanied by Constables Neary and Buckley; that Constable Buckley subsequently asked the Greeds to say nothing about the occurrence, and, on being refused,

  97
  threatened them; that, a few days later, Head Constable Fallon came to the Greeds, and under the pretext of an investigation obtained from Cornelius Greed a statement of the facts; and that the magistrates at the trial, where Connolly pleaded guilty, expressed their opinions that these constables should have been brought forward as witnesses, and for their production adjourned the trial for a fortnight; and, if so, will he say what order was subsequently made in the case of Connolly, were the constables produced at trial, was any investigation held, and where are those constables stationed at present; and will he take steps to hold an investigation into all the facts of the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts, as I understand them, are briefly these: Connolly entered the land of Greed, and pulled two cabbage plants. Connolly is under personal police protection, and at the time of the occurrence was six or eight yards in advance of his escort (Constables Neary and Buckley). The larceny took place at 9 o'clock on a dark night, and the constables had no reason to believe that Connolly entered the field for the purpose stated. Constable Buckley did ask Greed not to prosecute Connolly, but no threats were used as alleged. The Head Constable subsequently, in the discharge of his duty, called on Greed in order to investigate the facts, and Greed voluntarily stated the facts. When the casa came before the magistrates on October 24th, they adjourned it for the attendance of the constables. The constables were examined at the adjourned hearing, and Connolly was fined 10s. and costs, and also ordered to pay 2d. compensation for the theft of the cabbage. The constables are now stationed in the Roscrea district. The matter was very fully considered by the Inspector-General and by my predecessor in December last, and it was decided that no further investigation was called for.

  Railway Rates and Transit Facilities in Ireland.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that a Resolu-
  98
  tion dealing with excessive railway rates and defective transit facilities generally, which constitute a serious bar to the material advancement of Ireland, was unanimously adopted by the House of Commons on the 15th March last, he will appoint a Vice-Regal Commission to inquire into the question; or in the alternative, whether he will bring in a Bill this session to extend the powers of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, with the view to reducing the traffic rates in Ireland and making the companies work as one service, and for that purpose also provide a State Guarantee to ensure the shareholders against any loss that may at first arise.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to these Questions is in the negative.

  Slavery in the East Africa Protectorate.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether, on the transfer to the Colonial Office of the East Africa Protectorate, inquiry can be made as to the possibility of abolishing in the coast strip the legal status of slavery, in accordance with the policy hitherto general in the colonies and protectorates under the Colonial Office as well as in India.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Inquiry will be made, but it will be remembered that we are bound by an assurance which was given by Lord Kimberley, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1895, to the effect that the Law of Islam would be maintained.

  Rules for use of Commercial Mole at Gibraltar.
  MR. BILL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the rules affecting the use of the commercial mole at Gilbraltar have been decided upon; and whether representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, or of the mercantile community generally, will be included in the board of management.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) A scheme for the administration of the

  99
  commercial mole at, Gibraltar has been drawn up with the assistance of four members of the mercantile body. It provides for full and direct Government control, but the Government will accept for consideration suggestions from accredited representatives of the Exchange Committee, the Chamber of Commerce, and the general trading community on matters of details affecting them as customers.

  Premier Diamond Mine Profits.
  MR. ROSE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Premier Diamond Mine has declared a dividend on its share capital for the half year amounting to £210,000; and, if so, will he say whether the remaining 60 per cent, of the profits, amounting to £315,000, to which the Transvaal Government is entitled, will be paid at the same time.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have received a telegram from Lord Milner on this subject, the meaning of which is not clear and I have asked for explanations. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question this day week I hope to be able to afford him the information he desires.

  Promotion in the Telegraph Service.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask the Postmaster-General if, in view of the fact that a deputation of telegraphists were recently informed that he intended adding to the number of the class of clerks immediately above the general body, and of the stagnation of promotion existing throughout the service, he will state when he hopes to make the change; and whether seniority and efficiency will be taken into consideration in deciding on cases to be promoted.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not at present able to state when the change will take place, as the inquiries are not yet completed. The officers selected for promotion will be those who are certified to be best qualified for the duties to be performed.

  Hours of Postmen's Duties.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Postmaster-General whether the rule is still in force which allows postmen's duties being made up to occupy seven and a-half hours so as to allow for prolonged deliveries.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) There is no such rule: and, so far as I am aware, there never has been. Forty-eight hours a week is the normal attendance for town postmen: but, on a revision, the duties are usually arranged so as to occupy somewhat less than that time, in order to allow for general increase of work.

  Number, Size, and Weight of Parcels included in Letter Delivery.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Postmaster-General what is the rule of the Department regarding the number, size, and weight of parcels postmen have to take out on a letter delivery.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) When parcels are delivered with letters the rule is that the total combined weight should not exceed 35 1bs. per postman, and that, as far as possible, town postmen on letter deliveries should not be required to take out bulky or very heavy parcels which would hamper or delay them. The number of parcels taken out on a letter delivery varies according to the nature of the delivery, but on important town deliveries it is the practice to limit the, number to five, as far as circumstances admit.

  Postal Facilities at Trillick, County Tyrone.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the village of Trillick, county Tyrone, has but one delivery of letters daily; that the mid-day mail passes the village and carries the mails eight miles further on to Ballinamallard, where they lie until next morning; and if a scheme for a second delivery can, under the circumstances, be devised.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I regret to find that, owing to the high cost of the postal service at Trillick, I should not be justified in incurring additional

  101
  expense in providing a second delivery there.

  Piece-work System in the Post Office Telegraph and Telephone Factory.
  MR SHACKLETON: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the carpenters and joiners obtaining employment at the Post Office telegraph and telephone factory, Mount Pleasant, Clerkenwell, after serving one month probationary period, passing a satisfactory medical examination, and being vaccinated in accordance with the requirements of the establishment, are required as an absolute condition of further employment to execute the work at prices which they have no voice in arranging on what is known as the piece-work system, he will take steps to bring the conditions of labour for joiners in this factory into harmony with that of private employers who pay by the hour, and so enable trade unionists to participate in this Government work without violating the local rides of the district and the general rules of their respective societies.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not prepared to abandon the piece-work system in the Post Office factory.

  Tea Reliefs in Liverpool Post Office.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, upon certain duties at Liverpool among the telegraphists, a period of ten minutes is allowed for tea reliefs; and whether he will consider the advisability of extending the period in the interests of the health of the staff.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) Under the regulations of the Department, a refreshment interval of thirty minutes is provided for on the duties to which the hon. Member refers. As the hours of attendance are somewhat inconvenient as regards meal times a further short interval of ten minutes is allowed, as an act of grace, if the work admits of it, but I am not prepared to authorise any further extension.

  Conveyance of Mails between Wick and Lybster.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that about two years ago a light railway was opened between Wick and Lybster, in the county of Caithness; and whether, in view of the recent expiry of the contract for the carriage by road of the mails between these two places, he can see his way to arrange that in future the mails for Wick and Lybster, and all intervening places, shall be carried by the more expeditious means of the railway.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have now made full inquiry on the question of forwarding the mails between Wick and Lybster by train instead of by road, and I have been in communication with the railway company on the subject. It appears, however, that they cannot arrange for a train service at suitable, hours except at considerable expense; and, as pointed out in a letter which I addressed to the hon. Member in April last, I should not be justified in making special payment for such a service. The use of the trains as at present running would on the whole greatly impair the postal service at all the places on the line, and I regret that, in the circumstances, it is not practicable to make any change in the present arrangements for the conveyance of the mails.

  Smallpox Outbreaks.
  SIR JOHN TUKE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he would be willing to lay before the House a Return of the places in which cases of smallpox have occurred during the past twelve months, giving the total number of cases occurring in each place in which that number has reached or exceeded 100.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I am willing to give a Return on this subject, and I will communicate with my hon. friend as to its form.
  CAPTAIN JESSEL: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will grant a Return showing the cost to the ratepayers

  103
  of each outbreak of smallpox in urban districts and municipal boroughs during the past twelve months where the total number of cases has exceeded 100 in number.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have not the information desired; but I will endeavour to ascertain the amount of the expenditure incurred by the councils of municipal boroughs and urban districts in consequence of the occurrence of cases of smallpox in them during the past twelve months, where the number of cases has exceeded 100. I would suggest that the particulars, if it is found practicable to obtain them, should be included in the proposed Return I referred to in my reply to the Question asked by my hon. friend the Member for the Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities.

  Supply of Prayer and Hymn Books to Non-Provided Schools by Local Educa- tion Authorities.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the practice of the Board of Education to require a local education authority, upon the request of the managers of any non-provided school, to supply prayer books I and hymn books for the purpose of giving religious instruction.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I do not think that I can do better than repeat the reply which I gave to a Question on the same subject from the hon. Member for the Morley Division of Yorkshire on March 15th† last, to the effect that no local authority has been called upon by the Board of Education to pay for books or other apparatus required for the purposes of the denominational instruction given in voluntary schools, and the Board has offered no encouragement to managers to press for such payments.

  Sale of Obsolete Vessels.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty which of the vessels in List No. 3, of the Return of Vessels struck off
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 29.
  104
  the Effective List have been sold, and what price has been realised in each case.
  (Answered, by Mr. Pretyman.) The vessels on List No. 3, which have been sold to date are the "Porpoise," "Sand-fly," "Lizard," and "Havannah." The first three were sold abroad by tender; but it is contrary to the practice of the Department to disclose the prices tendered. The "Havannah" was sold by public auction, and realised £1,035. The "Boadicea," which is also included in List No. 3, is being broken up upon percentage terms. As the hon. Member is probably aware, a number of obsolete vessels are for sale by auction at Chatham to-morrow.

  Sanitary Condition of the Naval Hospital at Malta.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether patients occupying the old wing of the Naval Hospital at Malta for surgical treatment have, while there or soon afterwards, developed fever.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Patients while in hospital for surgical treatment, or soon after, have developed "fever," but the number is small. During 1904 there were seventy-four cases for operation, and of these three developed "fever."
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when the inner surface of the walls of soft stone of the old wing of the Naval Hospital at Malta were last treated by any process of sanitary purification; and what was the nature of that process.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) The whole of the walls of the wards and passages, etc., in the old portion of the hospital have been scraped and coated with a special gloss enamel paint, forming an impervious and washable surface. The soft stone floors have been removed, and replaced by terazzo paving. The work was commenced in 1899, and completed in 1902.

  Holyhead Harbour—Expenditure from Public Funds.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how much money from public funds was spent on the construction of Holyhead Harbour.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The cost of the outer or new harbour was £1,482,000. The Board of Trade have no information as to the cost of the inner or old harbour.

  Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees.
  MR. MACVEAGH: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the circumstances under which the Board of Lough Neagh Drainage Trustees was called into being; and what conditions are imposed upon them with regard to the auditing and publication of their accounts, and generally with regard to the manner in which the duties assigned to them, must be discharged.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish) The trustees are elected under the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 89, s. 120, in order to maintain the Lough Neagh drainage system. No conditions are imposed upon them with regard to the auditing and publication of accounts; but under the Act they are required to maintain the work in an efficient state of repair, and to raise the necessary funds for the purpose by means of a rate levied only on the proprietors. If any of these duties be neglected, injured persons can appeal to the Board of Works, who would immediately take cognisance of the matter. Electors can also make their wishes felt on the occasion of the periodical elections of the trustees.

  Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899—Appointment of the Chair men of the Commissions.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Chairman of Ways and Means under what system the Chairmen of the Commissions appointed under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, are selected; whether there is any rule requiring the appointment of a Member of the Upper House as Chairman; and whether there is any instance of Members of both Houses sitting upon a
  106
  Commission when a Member of the House of Commons has been Chairman of the Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. J. W. Lowther.) The system under which the Chairmen of the Commissions appointed under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act,1899, are chosen is that of alternative selection from the two Houses of Parliament, so far as circumstances permit. There is no rule requiring the appointment of a Member of the Upper House as Chairman, nor is there any rule requiring the appointment of a Member of the Lower House. In 1903 a Member of the House of Commons was the Chairman of a Commission composed of two Peers and two Members of the House of Commons. Out of the thirteen Commissions which have been appointed since the Act came into force six Chairmen have been appointed from the House of Lords, six from the House of Commons, and one from the extra-Parliamentary Panel.

  Weights and Measures—Universal Recognition of Stamping.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether a scale duly stamped in one English county must be recognised as being properly stamped by the Inspector of Weights and Measures in another English county.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) A weighing instrument, stamped by an Inspector of Weights and Measures, need not be restamped because it is used in a district other than that in which it was originally stamped.

  Hours of Men Employed in Manipulation of Traffic.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will call for a Return of hours worked over twelve per day by men employed in the manipulation of traffic, similar to the Return obtained for October, 1903; and if he will take steps to get it issued in less time than the last one.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir, a Return for last March will be called for and issued as soon as possible.

  Convictions for Drunkenness.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of persons who were convicted as guilty of drunk and disorderly conduct in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales respectively, in each of the years ending December 31st, 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904; how many were convicted in each of the first two years on summons for being drunk and incapable, and during last two years after summons or arrest for the same offence in the respective countries for the same years; how many during the last two years were convicted for being drunk, and not necessarily incapable, whilst having charge of a child; how many persons convicted of

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  Arrested and convicted

  127,011

  128,697

  155,349

  Summoned and convicted

  62,339

  60,900

  54,036

  Total convicted

  189,350

  189,597

  209,385

  The figures for 1904 are not yet available. The number of persons convicted of drunkenness who were ordered to enter into recognisances in 1901, 1902, and 1903 were 821, 949, and 1,950 respectively. In 1903 there were 437 separation orders granted to husbands of habitual drunkards and 281 to wives. The figures given above relate to England and Wales. For figures relating to Scotland and Ireland (where the statutes differ from those in force in England and also to some extent the practice of the Courts), the hon. Member should apply to the Scottish Office and to the Irish Government.

  Rewards for Information of Illegal Trawling.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is aware that on March 17th the foreign master of the trawler "Apollo" was convicted of illegal trawling in the Sheriff Court at Wick, when a fine of £75 was imposed, the detection which resulted in this conviction having been made by certain
  drunkenness were ordered to give security for good behaviour; and how many persons obtained protection against husband or wife who was an habitual drunkard.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am sorry that I cannot give separately the figures mentioned in the first three heads of the Question. The statutes creating offences of the nature of drunkenness are numerous, and it is necessary in the Judicial Statistics and in the Returns on which these statistics are based to group them together under one head. The total number of convictions coming under the head of drunkenness for the three years 1901, 1902, and 1903 are as follows:—
  pilots belonging to the port of Wick; and whether he is prepared to recommend in such cases that private persons, through whose instrumentality convictions are obtained, should be suitably rewarded.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) On 13th ultimo the "Apollo" was observed by the Harbour Master and others trawling so close to the land as to leave no doubt that it was within the three-mile limit. Some pilots, who were leaving the harbour, were asked to ascertain the name and number of the "Apollo," and did so, thus aiding in the detection of the offending vessel. The master pled guilty, no witnesses being examined; and there is no fund from which any payments, as suggested, could be made.

  Illegal Trawling by British Trawl Boats sailing under Foreign Flags.
  MR. HARMSWORTH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he is aware that, on March 13th, a so-called foreign trawler, named the "Apollo," was

  109
  detected by pilots belonging to the port of Wick trawling within two miles of Wick; that the flag captain of the "Apollo" was tried in Wick Sheriff Court on March 17th, when he pleaded guilty and was fined £75, which he paid; that the flag captain was a foreigner, while all the crew and the sailing master were English, and that the "Apollo," although given out as belonging to Norway, was built in England and is believed to be a Grimsby trawler; and whether, in view of these facts, he will now consider what steps should be taken to put an end to illegal trawling by British trawl-boats sailing under foreign flags.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I cannot regard it as accurate to describe these vessels as British trawl-boats sailing under foreign flags, but the circumstances giving rise to the Question are under consideration by the Law Officers of the Crown.

  Sugar Duties.
  MR. LOUGH: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his recent statement of the average duties received from sugar includes the duty on molasses; and if not, whether he will state for the same periods the average duty received per hundredweight of sugar and molasses taken together.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The recent statement referred to sugar only. The average gross rate of duty received on sugar and molasses in each financial year since the reimposition of the Sugar Duty up to March 31st, 1904, and in the eleven months up to February 28th, 1905, is as follows:—Financial year ended March 31st, 1902, the cwt., 3s. 10·l0d.; Financial year ended March 31st, 1903, the cwt., 3s. 9·04d.; Financial year ended March 31st, 1904, the cwt., 3s. l0·80d.; Eleven months ended February 28th, 1905, the cwt., 3s. 1l·18d.

  Vaccination Fees in Ireland and Scotland.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  110
  Ireland if he can say what has been the cost to Ireland and Scotland, respectively, for vaccination fees since the year 1845.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The total amounts of fees paid in Ireland to March 31st, 1904, was £381,643. I have no information as to the amount of fees paid in Scotland.

  Payment for Teaching of Music and Singing at Killultagh National School.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the workmistress of Killultagh National School, Roll No. 8,057, Circuit 8, Section B, was requested in 1900 by Inspector O'Connor to teach music and singing to the pupils, and that she has performed this work for five years without having received remuneration; and whether he will explain why applications received by the Board on this teacher's behalf, pointing out the extra work and asking for consideration, have not been acceded to.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The inspector states that he did not request the workmistress to teach music and singing, but that he may have suggested the desirability of her doing so during the hours which she was required to devote to the general work of the school, provided that she were willing and the manager approved. The Commissioners informed the manager, so far back as 1901, that he was at liberty to so employ the workmistress during her ordinary hours, but that no extra remuneration could be allowed for this service.

  Salary of Teacher of School Roll No. 5094.
  MR. KENDAL O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland why the equivalent grant, in lieu of results fees, paid to the teacher of Roll No. 5094 national school for the year ended May 31st, 1900, was not based on the amount earned the previous year by Mr. M'Carthy, instead of having it based on amounts earned by his predecessor; why his consolidated salary was

  111
  reduced from £87 to £74 per annum; and whether this case will be again considered by the resident Commissioner.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The grant in this and similar cases is based on the average results fees earned in the school in the preceding three years. Mr. M'Carthy's consolidated income, which amounted to £85, and not £87 as stated, was divided into salary £74, and residual capitation grant £11. His income, therefore, was not reduced. The case has already been fully considered.

  Extent of Coast Line of Irish Congested Districts.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the extent of the coast line of the congested districts in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The extent of the coast line, including islands, is estimated to be approximately 1,000 miles.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that students who were in the Irish training colleges at the time of the abolition of the results system, and who are now engaged as principal teachers, are losing from £10 to £80 per annum, according to the size of their schools; and whether, in view of the effect of this on the training colleges, in as much as students are reluctant to enter the service of the Board under the present scale of salaries, he will invite the Commissioners to reconsider the whole question of the salaries of Irish national teachers.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the case of teachers already in the service who were in training in 1900, when the new system of payments came into operation, any promotion in classification which they received as the result of their training and which would have involved an increase in salary under the old regulations was considered when fixing their
  112
  initial incomes under the new regulations. The new incomes are capable of increases, within the limits of the scales, by increments of good service salary and by promotion in grade, and though there may be cases in which principal teachers are actually receiving less incomes than they might have received under the old regulations, yet, when it is considered that their incomes under the old regulations were liable to grave fluctuations owing to the system of payment by results and that their new incomes are not so liable to fluctuation and are of a progressive character, the position of the teachers as a body is better under the new regulations than under the old. The Commissioners have no evidence that the falling off in the number of men candidates for training colleges last year was directly attributable to the new system of salaries, and this year there has been an all round increase in the number of men candidates seeking admission to these institutions.

  The Island of Innisglora.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to purchase the Island of Innisglora, Belmullet Union, county Mayo, which property is under the control of the Court of Chancery; and, if not, seeing that the present grazing tenants are willing to surrender, they will take such steps with a view to the enlargement of holdings and the reinstatement of evicted tenants.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The reply to this Question is in the negative. This island, of which the Poor Law valuation is but £8 5s., is stated to consist chiefly of sandy wastes, and it has no permanent residents.

  Constable on Licensed Premises after Hours at Gortmelia.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the attention of the Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary has been called

  113
  to the presence, after hours, of a constable of the force in the Belmullet district in the licensed premises of a publican at Gortmelia, Belmullet Union, on February 1st, 1904; and whether he can say if the Inspector-General intends to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Inspector-General has recently received a complaint to the effect mentioned, and is inquiring into the matter.

  Prosecution of Vendors of Irish Salt Firkin Butter containing over 16 per cent. of Water.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of prosecutions there have been in Ireland within the past two years against vendors of Irish salt firkin butter on account of it containing over 16 per cent. of water; how many of these cases have been dismissed, and on what grounds; what has been the percentage of water in the butter in these cases; and if he will also state the percentage of water in butter in the cases in which convictions have been obtained, and the number of convictions.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This information will take some time to collect and tabulate, but, if I can procure it, I will communicate it to the hon. Member. It appears to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction that the results of the analyses of samples of salt firkin butter taken by the inspectors are of far greater importance than returns of convictions and dismissals, some of the latter no doubt on technical grounds. 1,118 samples of firkin butter were taken for analysis by the local food inspectors in the following counties: Clare, Galway, Kerry, Limerick, Tipperary (N.R.), and Tipperary (S.R.), between May 15th, 1902, (the date on which the Sale of Butter (Ireland) Regulations, 1902, came into operation) and December 31st, 1904. Of these samples, 1,022 were found to contain not more than 16 per cent. of water, and 60 to contain over 16 and not more than 20 per cent. of water. In the remaining samples, 36, the proportion of water exceeded 20 per cent.
  114
  These facts show how small is the number of cases in which the water in the butter exceeds the 16 per cent. limit prescribed by the regulations under Sections 4 and 24 of The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1899, which are in force both in Great Britain and Ireland.

  Mr. M. Halpin, of Carricksherry National School.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector and manager of Mr. M. Halpin, of Carricksherry National School, Ardagh, county Limerick, recommended him for promotion; whether his case was considered after those letters of recommendation reached the office; and whether, in view of this man's length of efficient service, steps will be taken to have him promoted.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Mr. Halpin was not recommended for promotion by the senior inspector in 1903. The manager wrote urging Mr. Halpin's claims, and the case was referred to the senior inspector for a special report, but he still found himself unable to recommend the teacher's promotion. When the promotion of teachers for 1904 came under consideration, Mr. Halpin was recommended by the senior inspector, but the reports on his school were not of a sufficiently favourable character to warrant his promotion. The report of the annual inspection held on December 13th, 1904, has now been received, and the case of Mr. Halpin will again be considered by the Commissioners.

  Grades of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the various grades into which national teachers in Ireland are now divided, the number in each grade, and the salary and pension of each grade.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The grades into which national school teachers are divided, the numbers in each grade on 31st December, 1904, and

  115
  the standard annual salaries (exclusive of residual capitation grant, payment for

  Grade.

  No.

  Salaries.

  Principal Teachers—

  First Grade, First Division

  490

  Men £139 to £175.

  Women £114 to £141.

  First Grade, Second Division

  733

  Men £117 to £127.

  Women £97 to £105.

  Second Grade

  2,474

  Men £87 to £107.

  Women £73 to £89.

  Third Grade

  4,575

  Men £56 to £77.

  Women £44 to £65.

  Assistant Teachers

  4,009

  *

  * Assistant Teachers receive third grade salary, with an added bonus of £9 for men and £7 10s. for women, after five years service, if the assistant be trained or classed higher than third class.

  The rules touching the relations between the grading of teachers and their pension rights are at present under revision.

  Saving on Office of Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state, under suitable heads, the amount of saving on the office for the Irish Agricultural Department for the year 1904–5.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) This information is not yet available. It will appear in due course in the appropriation account of the Department for the year mentioned.

  Berridge Estate, Connemara.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Berridge Estate, Connemara, has been offered to the Congested Districts Board for purchase; and, if so, if he will state the terms demanded by the landlord, and say whether the Congested Districts Board has declined to purchase this estate; and, if so, will he state upon what grounds.
  extra branches, and for evening schools) are as follows:—
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A proposal to sell this estate to the Board was made last year and was declined. I cannot disclose the price asked by the owner. The Board considered that they could not by the purchase and resale of the estate confer any substantial advantages on the tenants, seeing that there was no agricultural land available for the enlargement of small holdings, and that the holdings generally were well arranged. There appeared to be nothing to prevent the owner from selling direct to the tenants.

  Winding up of Ballygawley (County Tyrone) Loan Fund.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland upon what date it was ordered that the Ballygawley (county Tyrone) Loan Fund should be wound up; what was the amount due by borrowers when the winding up order was made; the amount due at the present time; and if any balance-sheet has been issued to the debenture holders.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am informed that, technically speaking, no order for the winding up of this loan fund has been made. But, in a consolidated suit at the instance of two

  117
  debenture holders, the Chancery Division made an order, dated 22nd November, 1899, appointing a receiver over the fund. On 19th September, 1899, the amount due by the fund to debenture holders was £1,437 8s. 4d., and the amount due to the fund by borrowers was £1,282 2s. The receiver has since received £468 19s. 10d., out of which he has been allowed costs of the suits, commission, and other expenses. The net balance, amounting to £137 14s. 6d., has, by order of the Court dated 16th January, 1905, been paid over to the Loan Fund Board, who have retained it pending legal advice as to its disposal. The books of the fund are in the hands of the receiver, and the Board have no information as to the amount still due by borrowers save in so far as may be inferred from the figures already mentioned. The Board are not aware whether a balance-sheet has been or will be issued by the receiver to the debenture holders.

  Permission to Manufacture New Service Rifle.
  SIR EDGAR VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether permission to private firms to manufacture on payment of royalty the new service rifle has been refused; and whether he is aware that such refusal has resulted in the transfer of important orders from England to Germany.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Permission has not been granted to private manufacturers to use for sale the Government patents embodied in the new service rifle. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Surgeon at Belmullet.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the professional qualifications of the surgeon to the Admiralty at Belmullet; what previous experience in the practice of his profession he had, and where, before his appointment; the reasons which caused the Admiralty to
  118
  consider the appointment of Dr. Studdert more suitable than that of Dr. MacHale; the total sum in fees received by Dr. Studdert during his first twelve months as surgeon; and the total sum in fees received by Dr. Lavan in his last twelve months in that position.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN,): The professional qualifications of the Admiralty surgeon and agent at Belmullet are:—Lic. Lic. Midwif. R. Coll. Phys., Ireland, Lic. Lic. Midwif. R. Coll. Surg., Ireland. He had had previous experience at High Wycombe and Sheffield, and was recommended by the local divisional officer, after careful inquiry, as being the most desirable candidate. The total sum in fees received by Dr. Studdert during his first twelve months as surgeon and agent was £178; and the total sum in fees received by Dr. Lavan in his last twelve months in that position was £140 2s. 6d.

  Army Clothing Factory—Report of Principal Lady Inspector.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he can inform the House how it was that at the time of the debate on the Army Clothing Vote he had not seen the Report on the Army Clothing Factory by the principal Lady Inspector of Factories under the Home Office, which had been seen by private Members on the Government side of the House; and whether he had applied for it in view of the debate.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY): I did not see the Report because it was not sent to me, nor, as far as I am aware, to anyone else. I understand that the Report is not yet complete, and the Home Office is waiting for a further Report from their lady inspector before communicating with the War Department, in accordance with their usual practice. I am informed that the Reports of factory inspectors are confidential, and it is not the practice of the Home Office to send the actual Reports to the War Office or to any Department or individual outside the Home Office. I am not aware that the

  119
  Report referred to had been, or has been, seen either by private Members on the Government side or by the right hon. Baronet, as is suggested, and I have no knowledge as to how the right hon. Baronet or the private Members to whom he refers, but does not name, obtained possession of, or access to, it—if they actually did so. As I was not aware of the existence of the Report I did not apply for it in view of the debate on the Army Clothing Vote.

  The Jam Contracts for South Africa.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement on page 258 of the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the effect that 337,704 lbs. of jam were written off on account of shortage in the Durban supply account for July, 1903, and to the statement on the same page that on April 26th, 1904, the Auditor-General wrote to the War Office for information respecting the contracts under which the jam was supplied; and whether he will say why nearly a year was allowed to elapse before the War Office gave any explanation of this incident, which arose twenty months ago from the writing off on account of supposed shortage in supply.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Will the hon. Member kindly refer to the reply to a similar Question put by the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton on March 22nd.†
  DR. MACNAMARA: I remember that Answer perfectly. It is not a reply to this Question. Why was nearly a year allowed to elapse before the War Office gave an explanation of the incident which arose twenty months ago?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I expressed regret for the delay and explained it was caused by the necessity of getting answers from South Africa and from the Agents-General of the Colonies concerned. I am very sorry for that delay.
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii,. 785.

  Army Chaplains in Ireland.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will explain why clergymen of the Church of England are appointed Army chaplains at the garrison churches in Dublin and other parts of Ireland in preference to clergymen of the Church of Ireland; and will he take care in making future appointments that they shall be given to qualified clergymen of the Church of Ireland.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Is not the hon. Member aware that the Church of Ireland has been disestablished and no longer exists?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought not to make these little interruptions.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There are only three stations in Ireland where the local clergy do not officiate, viz.: Dublin, Curragh, and Cork, in each of which large numbers of troops, not necessarily Irish, are quartered. The proportion of clergy of the Church of Ireland among the commissioned chaplains is large, and some of these chaplains are now serving in Ireland. I regret that I am unable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member to confine the postings of Army chaplains in Ireland to clergymen of the Church of Ireland.

  Army Wastage.
  *COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the numbers, exclusive of officers, of the Regular Army, borne on the Home and Colonial establishment, who, during the twelve months ending September 30th, 1904, or any more convenient day that year, were struck off the rolls in consequence of desertion, discharge for probable ineffectiveness, or for misconduct, invaliding, or death; and whether he can approximately calculate the money loss this wastage cost the United Kingdom.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The wastage during the year ending 30th September, 1904, was as follows:—Deserters

  121
  (less deserters rejoined), 1,244; discharged as not likely to become efficient, 1,373; discharged for misconduct, 3,530; invalided, 3,900; died, 901. Total, 10,948. To calculate the exact loss involved would entail great labour, and I am not prepared to give approximate figures which would be misleading.

  Belfast District Army Forage Contracts.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what grounds were the contracts for the supply of forage for all military stations in the Belfast district, including Belfast, Athlone, Dundalk, and Belturbet, given to one Belfast company, Cullen, Allen & Co., at prices amounting in some cases to 33 per cent. higher than various traders who had each of them at different times discharged forage contracts with satisfaction and had tendered for these contracts; whether the fact of these tenders at lower quotations than the quotations of Cullen, Allen & Co., was reported to and known to the War Office authorities when those authorities gave their sanction and approval to these contracts; whether, although the business arising from the Belfast contracts is conducted by the staff of Messrs. Cullen & Allen, the work of the other contracts has been intrusted by that firm to agents, some of whom had tendered for these contracts to the military authorities at Belfast, and what explanation, if any, has the War Office to offer of this transaction.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: In two cases this firm made the lowest tender, and in the two other cases the lowest tenderers were unsatisfactory, and Cullen, Allen & Co., who were the lowest satisfactory tenderers, were accepted. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part of the Question, there is only one station at which one of the agents of this firm had himself been a tenderer, and for this station Messrs. Cullen, Allen & Co.'s tender was the lowest.

  Transfers from the Volunteers to the Regular Army.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many men have joined the
  122
  Regular Army from the Volunteer force in each of the last four years.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The figures are as follows:—

  1901.

  1902.

  1903.

  1904.

  Service Companies

  5,124

  2,508

  —

  —

  Waiting Companies

  227

  —

  —

  —

  Imperial Yeomanry

  3,900

  1,164

  —

  —

  Others

  4,454

  3,249

  2,577

  3,064

  Total

  13,705

  6,921

  2,577

  3,064

  Reservists and Re-enlistment.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to cases of soldiers of the Army Reserve making false statements that they have not served before, with a view of being attested as recruits for the Regular Army; and whether, in view of the number of unemployed men in the Army Reserve, he will say what military or other objection exists to the re-enlistment of such men in the Regular Army, if they have passed to the Reserve with good characters, and desire to return to the Regular ranks.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am not aware that the number of cases of Reservists endeavouring to rejoin the colours by making false statements is large. Last year only fifty-four cases occurred of men being relegated to the Reserve for false answer on attestation. The general principle of maintaining a Reserve does not admit of a general permission to men of good character to return, and applications are generally refused.

  Rock of Gibraltar—Inspection by Distinguished Foreigners.
  MR. MAJENDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War it he will explain why every facility is given to distinguished foreigners to view the Rock of Gibraltar and its fortifications, while British naval officers are only allowed the same facilities as those extended to ordinary strangers.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The responsibility for ensuring the secrecy of works of defence is vested in the General Officer Commanding on the spot. I do not propose in any way to question the

  123
  discretion of the General Officer Commanding the fortress of Gibraltar.

  Royal Garrison Artillery Volunteers.
  Ms. RUNCIMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he proposes to reduce the Royal Garrison Artillery Volunteers; if so, what units he proposes to reduce or to abolish; and on what grounds some will be reduced or abolished and others retained.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reduction in the Volunteers which has been decided upon will extend to the Royal Garrison Artillery Volunteers, but I am not prepared at present to state exactly how it will take effect.

  War Office Land Purchase in County Donegal.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General upon the account prepared under the provisions of the Military Works Acts, 1897, 1899, 1901, and 1903, in which it is stated that the charge under Head I., Defence Works, on page 3 of the account, includes a sum of £2,040, paid into the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, in respect of the piece of land compulsorily acquired by the War Department which was valued on behalf of the War Office at £30, an amount which the Irish Valuation Commissioners considered to be fair and reasonable; where is this land situate; who is the owner; what was the necessity for proceedings under the Defence Act of 1860 to compel him to sell this land; and whether the War Office authorities have any explanation to make with reference to the comment of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that similar cases, in each of which the account has been largely in excess of the valuation, had come under the notice of his Department in the examination of the Account, 1904–5.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: My attention has been drawn to this case. The land is at Ned Point, Buncrana, county Donegal. The person who claims the land, a Mr. Richardson, asked for
  124
  £8,000, and as this was deemed very excessive and the site was essential for defence works, it became necessary to resort to compulsory purchase, under which a sum of £2,040 was ultimately awarded. Mr. Richardson has, however, been hitherto unable to prove his title. It is the case that the sums paid under compulsory purchase in Ireland are largely in excess of the valuation, and in this respect the Military Lands Acts have proved very unsatisfactory.

  Employment of Women in Bombay Drinking Bars.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that representations have been made to the Government of Bombay deploring the growth of the drinking habits of the people, and urging the passing of legislation prohibiting the employment of women in drinking bars; and whether, in view of these representations, the Government of Bombay are now prepared to introduce legislation in order to make the, law in this respect uniform with that in force in Bengal and Burma.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am aware that a resolution on the subject was passed by a Temperance Congress held in Bombay at the end of last year, and was submitted to the Government of Bombay. I have ascertained that that Government see no reason to alter their view; that the necessary control can be exercised by refusing licences, and that specific prohibition by law is unnecessary.

  Sale of Intoxicants to Children in Bombay.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bombay has received memorials in favour of the prohibition by law of the sale of intoxicating liquors to children under fourteen years of age; and whether he can state the views of the Bombay Government upon this subject.
  MR. BRODRICK: I have ascertained that the Government of Bombay have

  125
  decided to introduce a clause in future licences prohibiting the sale of liquor to persons under fourteen years of age.

  Tibet—Colonel Younghusband's Instructions.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Viceroy at once communicated to Colonel Younghusband the telegrams of 27th June and 4th July last, from the Secretary of State, forbidding Colonel Younghusband to make to the Tibetans any suggestion as to the appointment of a Resident at Lhasa, or to name any conditions without the sanction of the Secretary of State; and whether these telegrams were received by Colonel Younghusband before the decision was arrived at to proceed from Gyangtse to Lhasa.
  MR. BRODIRICK: The telegrams to which the hon. Member refers were communicated to Colonel Younghusband by the Viceroy by telegraph on the 29th June and 5th July respectively. I have therefore no doubt that they had been received by Colonel Younghusband before the 8th July, on which date it was decided, as will be seen from a reference to the Blue-book (page 28, Number 85) that the advance from Gyangtse to Lhasa should be no longer delayed.

  The Late Lord Salisbury and Colonial Trade Preference.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will lay upon the Table the reply of the late Marquess of Salisbury, when Prime Minister and Secretary of State, to the deputation on June 19th, 1891, of the United Empire Trade League, with regard to the treaties preventing the adoption of preferential trade within the Empire, and the despatches of 1897 to His Majesty's representatives at Berlin and Brussels, directing them to denounce these treaties as injurious to British trade.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): The despatches alluded to were laid in 1897 ("Commer-
  126
  cial No. 7"). Lord Salisbury's reply was reported at length in The Times of June 20th, 1891, and I know of no precedent for laying an unofficial report of a speech as a Parliamentary Paper.

  Wages in the Post Office—Tracing Staff's Memorial.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the memorial of the tracing staff, Accountant-General's Department, forwarded last November, is under consideration; and, having regard to the fact that this class has only received one increase of 2s. per week in their maximum pay since its institution in 1875, whether he can give his favourable consideration to their case, in view of the findings of the Bradford Committee respecting the pay of the larger classes of postal employees and the late Postmaster-General's promise to deal with the smaller classes, in the light of the standard set up by this Committee.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The hon. Member will observe from the Memorandum which was furnished to the House a few days ago that the officers to whom he refers have now received an improvement of pay.

  Conscientious Objections to Vaccination.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that magistrates throughout the country place different constructions on the term "conscientious objection," as defined in the Vaccination Act, 1898, cases having recently occurred in which a man, who had been granted a certificate of exemption for one child, has been refused a certificate for another, although he has in each instance raised precisely the same conscientious objection to vaccination, will he consider the expediency of so amending the Act as to remove the difficulty experienced by magistrates.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I believe that there has been some divergency of practice amongst magistrates in this matter, but, as I think the hon. Member

  127
  is aware, the Lord Chief Justice made some observations at the Birmingham Assizes in July last with a view to a more uniform administration of the law on the subject. In order to bring these observations under the notice of the magistrates throughout the country my right hon. friend the Home Secretary embodied them in a circular which he has issued to clerks to justices, and I trust that the result of this action will be to secure greater uniformity in the practice of magistrates under the enactment in question. It does not appear to me to be necessary to amend the law on the subject.
  MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the circular sent out by the Home Secretary has been absolutely useless, as in the case referred to in my Question?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not aware of that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the magistrates continue to entirely disregard the observations of the Lord Chief Justice? Can nothing be done?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Only by altering the law, and I think that unnecessary.

  Underfed School Children.
  MR. CROOKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the event of his Department deciding to send a circular to the London boards of guardians calling their attention to the necessity of granting to teachers of elementary schools sufficient food or money to enable them to deal with children who were in need of food, he will arrange to take such steps as may be necessary to make the cost of such relief a legal charge upon the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The object which the hon. Member has in view could only be effected by legislation, and I could not give any promise to introduce a Bill on the subject.
  MR. CROOKS: Then will no circular be issued?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir.

  Duties of Relieving Officers towards Underfed Children.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is not the duty of a relieving officer, in case a teacher informs him that a child under such teacher's care is destitute of necessary food, to inquire into the case, and if the relieving officer finds the statement to be correct to give the necessary relief; whether the Local Government Board did not, in 1896, issue to relieving officers extracts from the general Orders issued by the Board and its predecessors relating to the duties of such officers; whether such extracts contained any information, and, if so, what, as to their duties with regard to children destitute of necessary food on whose behalf teachers made application for relief; and if they did not contain such information would he either cause the circular containing such to be issued or indicate in what book, accessible to relieving officers, it can be found.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Orders provide that it shall be the duty of a relieving officer to receive al1 applications for relief made to him within his district or relating to any parish within his district, and forthwith to examine into the circumstances of every case by visiting the home and making all necessary inquiries, and to report the result of such inquiries to the guardians at their next ordinary meeting. The Orders also provide that it shall be his duty in every case of sudden or urgent necessity to afford such relief to the destitute person, as may be requisite, provided that the same be not given in money. It would be incumbent on a relieving officer to act in accordance with these requirements if application were made to him by a teacher for relief to a child under the teacher's care who was destitute of necessary food. The extracts from the Orders issued to relieving officers in 1896 contained the provisions to which I have alluded; but the Orders do not refer

  129
  specifically to cases of the kind mentioned in the Question. My hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Education and I have been in communication with regard to such cases, and I am now considering whether any further steps should be taken in connection with them and a circular be issued on the subject.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Will the Department also consider the advisability of recommending boards of guardians to make grants to education authorities to meet these cases?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That hardly arises out of the Question on the Paper.
  SIR GEORGE HARTLEY: Will steps be taken to secure that parents able to pay are either compelled to do so or made paupers?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is one of the matters under consideration.

  Education Department and Underfed School Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has consulted the President of the Local Government Board with respect to the extent to which boards of guardians may assist local education authorities in the work of providing food for children in attendance at public elementary schools suffering from want of proper food; what the result of his consultation, if any, has been; and whether he is now in a position to issue, on behalf of the Board of Education, any circular of suggestions as to the course to be adopted by elementary school teachers who may find children hungry and ill-fed under their charge.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): I am still in communication with the Local Government Board, and have every hope that it will shortly be possible to issue a circular of suggestions on the subject in question.

  Brompton (Yorks) School Headmastership.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Educa-
  130
  tion whether his attention has been called to the letter dated March 8th, 1905, of the Rev. F. O. Chambers, Brompton Vicarage, R.S.O., Yorks, to an applicant for the headmastership of the non-provided school in the parish, in which the reverend gentleman says the managers will give the preference to any candidate both able and willing to help on Sunday with a small organ in church and to teach the choir hymns, and to the further communication of the reverend gentleman that they, the managers, have no use for a bigot or a Protestant; whether these communications constitute a breach of the Board of Education's Code of Regulations; and, if so, whether he will communicate with the North Riding County Council on the matter.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: I understand that the local education authority have not yet consented to the appointment to the headmastership of the candidate proposed by the managers, and that they have the facts of the case fully before them. Under the circumstances no action by the Board appears to be needed.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Do not these communications constitute a breach of the Education Code Regulations?
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: If they are made absolute conditions to the appointment they do, but if they are merely held out as inducements to candidates they do not.

  Crown Lands.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total area of Crown land at present enclosed as woodland; how much of it is let for shooting; and from how much of it the public is altogether excluded.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,): The total area of Crown land in England and Wales under the management of the Commissioners of Woods at present enclosed as woodland is about 46,098 acres, of which about 18,267 acres are let for shooting, whilst

  131
  the public is altogether excluded from about 5,031 acres.

  Illegal Trawling in the Moray Firth.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the resolution of a recent meeting of Moray Firth fishermen at Buckie with regard to the continued evasion of the by laws passed by the Fishery Board for Scotland closing the Moray Firth against trawlers, and praying His Majesty's Government to give effect without delay to the recommendation of the Fishery Board that all ports in the United Kingdom should be closed against the landing of fish caught by trawlers in the Moray Firth; and, if so, will he state on what ground the Government fail to give effect to the recommendations of the Fishery Board for Scotland.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The Secretary for Scotland is in communication with other Departments of the Government concerned in this matter.

  Lisbellaw Petty Sessions—District Inspector Murnane.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that District Inspector Murnane, of Lisnaskea, when recently conducting cases for the Crown at the petty sessions in Lisbellaw, county Fermanagh, said to the Court before they decided the case under consideration that unless they gave judgment as he sought he would have a case stated for the King's Bench, Dublin; and, if so, whether this interference with the magistrates in the discharge of their duty received his sanction.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): District Inspector Murnane reports that he did not recently, or on any occasion, use the language attributed to him, or any language of the like purport or effect. The district inspector, however, states that in a recent prosecution against a publican named McCreery for selling liquor to a drunken person, after the
  132
  justices, of whom the hon. Member was one, had erroneously dismissed the case on the grounds that the publican was not at the time of sale aware of the drunkenness of the customer, and not before that decision was given, he, the district inspector, served notices upon the justices requiring them to state a case to have this most important legal point determined. Eight of the eleven justices who heard the case did their duty and stated a case. I believe the hon. Member refused to do so. I entirely approve of the action of the district inspector as reported by him to me.

  Irish Land Sale Agreements.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether, in the case of the creation of tenancies in farms for the purposes of sale to the son or other relative of the landlord, the agreement in the transaction sets forth the date of such tenancy; and, if not, will a direction be given that for the purpose of preventing such sales the date of the creation of the tenancy must be given.
  MR. ATKINSON: The Estates Commissioners report that where the tenancy is described as a tenancy from year to year, it is their practice to ask for further particulars as to the date of its creation and for the production of the instrument, if any, creating it. These inquiries are made with particular care where the tenancy commenced subsequent to January 1st, 1901.

  Belfast Constabulary Doctor.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many times members of the Royal Irish Constabulary in C District, Belfast, were obliged to call in doctors other than those appointed for the purpose; had they to bear the expense of the treatment received; and, if so, will he direct inquiry to be made into the matter.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,): During the past three years, twenty-seven members of the force in this district called in, at their own expense,

  133
  doctors other than the police medical attendant. The Inspector-General's attention has already been directed to this matter, and he is inquiring into it.

  Waveney School, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Guy's National School, Ballymena, was condemned by the National Board as overcrowded and unsanitary; that the residents opened the Waveney School to provide the necessary accommodation; that, notwithstanding the fact that about 100 pupils have been maintained for more than one year, the Board have refused repeated applications for a grant; and whether, in view of the fact that the Board has given a grant to Cloncore School, near Portadown, although there is a school under Protestant management in the same place capable of accommodating all the children in the locality, he will explain why the grant is made in the one case and refused in the other.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Guy's National School has not been condemned, but the Governors are about to build a new school to supersede it. The Board have refused to recognise the Waveney School upon the grounds that the children in attendance have been withdrawn from other schools in which sufficient accommodation already existed, and that the premises are both unsuitable and insanitary. The case of Cloncore School is not analogous. The Commissioners decide each case on its merits.

  Strandtown National School, Belfast.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the average attendance at Strandtown National School, Belfast, during the year 1904; what number of pupils is accommodation provided for, allowing ten square feet for each pupil; when did the National Board's inspector first report on overcrowding in regard to this school; and how often has the Board directed the attention of the manager to the necessity of providing additional accommodation; and whether, in view of the terms on which a manager
  134
  can borrow money from the Board of Public Works, he will refuse to continue a grant to this school if the manager refuses to provide suitable accommodation for the children attending.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The average attendance was 305, and the number for which accommodation exist is 224. The inspector first reported overcrowding in September, 1904, and the Commissioners directed the attention of the manager to the matter in October, 1904. The manager has since taken steps to reduce the number of pupils in attendance. The Commissioners will consider the question of continuing the grants when they have received the returns for the past quarter.

  Evicted Tenants in County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many evicted tenants in county Kerry have sent in claims for reinstatement to their farms, and how many have been reinstated since the passage of the Land Act of 1903.
  MR. WALTER LONG: 410 applications have been received, and nineteen evicted tenants have been, or are in process of being, reinstated.

  Mahon, Ballydonlon, Estate.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if Mr. Rothwell, petty sessions clerk of Ballinasloe, is to get any portion of the Mahon, Ballydonlon, Estate, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, in view of the fact that he does not live near the estate, and that he has more than one farm elsewhere.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I have already informed the hon. Member that this estate has been purchased by, and vested in, the tenants, of whom Mr. Rothwell is not one.
  MR. ROCHE: This is the fourth time this Question has appeared on the Paper. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say if Mr. Rothwell is to have any of this land?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I can only give the answer I have received from the Commissioners.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Is he going to get any of the untenanted land on this estate?
  MR. WALTER LONG: How can I possibly say what is to become of the land after it has been vested in the tenants?
  MR. KILBRIDE: The Question specifically asks if Mr. Rothwell is going to get any of the land.
  MR. SPEAKER: And it has been answered. The right hon. Gentleman says he is not in a position to say whether he will get any of the land.
  MR. ROCHE: Then he ought to be in a position to say.

  Alleged United Irish League Outrage at Templemore.
  MR. LONSDALE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received reports of an attack upon the residence of Mr. George Thompson, of Barnane House, Templemore, county Tipperary, on the night of February 21st last; and, if so, what steps have been taken to bring the offenders to justice; and whether, in view of the treatment accorded for three years past to Mr. George Thompson and his brother, with their families, at the instance of the United Irish League, because they refuse to yield possession of lands which have been held by the family for fifty-five years, he will take measures to afford protection to these people, so as to prevent any recurrence of the recent attack.
  MR. MACVEAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of stones being thrown in Armagh?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Two stones were thrown at the house of Mr. Thompson on the night mentioned, one of which entered the window of an unoccupied room. The case has been closely investigated by the police, but so far they have been unable to trace the offender. All necessary measures, I ran assured, have
  136
  been taken by the responsible authorities to afford protection to the persons and properties of Mr. Thompson, his brother, and other members of their families.

  Irish Local Administration—Accounts Orders.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proportion of cases of neglect of duty or of malappropriation of property on the part of local officers has been greater in Ireland than in England and Scotland; and whether, in the case of members of local authorities charged with looking after the administration of the Poor Laws, there has been a greater remissness of duty on the part of Irish representatives than those of England or Scotland; and, if not, whether he will explain why Irish officers in the new Orders of the Local Government Board are treated as if they were not to be trusted; and why provisions are put in the new forms which were not inserted heretofore, and which are not in the account forms of officers in England or Scotland, dealing with paying orders and with stocktaking.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am unable to answer the first and second inquiries. It does not appear to me that the integrity of Irish local officials is called in question, because the Accounts Orders provide for certain checks and safeguards which are essential to a proper system of financial administration. The original Accounts Orders were necessarily made before the Local Government Act came into operation, and the new Orders contain those amendments only which have been suggested by the experience gained since 1899.

  Irish Lunatic Asylums Management.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Irish boards of guardians and District lunatic asylum committees have been put to the expense of engaging stocktakers to take stock of the provisions every half-year since the Local Government Act came into force; and, if so, will he explain why the guardians and members of the committee of management were not allowed,

  137
  as in the grand jury days, to do this work; what is the amount of cost which this regulation of stocktaking has placed upon the ratepayers of Ireland per year; and whether, as the Local Government Board created the officers, they will recoup to the local authorities the amounts so expended.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is required that persons other than those connected with the bodies named should be employed as stocktakers. The Local Government Board have no power to compel members of these bodies to perform the duty. No information is available as to the cost, but it is very trifling. It is not intended to recoup the local authorities concerned.

  English and Scotch Appointments to the Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire from the Vice-President of the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction how many English and how many Scotch people are employed in Ireland by that Department and what is the gross amount of salary paid to them as far as they are within the knowledge of the Vice-President or ascertainable by him; and whether he will communicate to the House the number of the English and Scotch people so employed and the gross amount of salary paid to them.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to this Question is in the negative. I have already informed the hon. and learned Member that the Department have no record of the nationality of their staff.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman get the information from Sir Horace Plunkett, who must be in possession of the information, seeing that he made the appointments? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Department is becoming an asylum for English and Scotch importations? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer that?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to comment on an Answer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: No, Sir I will not offend again.
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope not.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire of Sir Horace Plunkett?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I decline to do so. If I were responsible for an English Department I should take exactly the same course.

  Boyle Union—Loan for Seed Potatoes.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Boyle Board of Guardians, passed at their meeting on the 25th instant, asking for a supplementary loan for the supply of seed potatoes; and whether, seeing that a number of small farmers in the Boyle Union who are in need of seed potatoes will be deprived of same and suffer hardship if they do not receive them, he will take steps to ensure the granting of the supplementary loan asked for immediately.
  MR. WALTER LONG: By public notice issued on December 12th last, February 15th was fixed as the latest date for receiving applications for loans, and this date was subsequently extended to March 11th. Ample notice was therefore given. It is not considered expedient, at so late a date, to entertain further applications.

  Somers Estate, Tullamore.
  MR. HAVILAND BURKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Robert Owens, who held an evicted farm on the Somers Estate, near Tullamore, King's County, has stated in a communication sent to him that he has bought this farm from the Estates Commissioners and has already paid his first instalment; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of again bringing the matter before the Estates Commissioners.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The West meath portion only of this estate has

  139
  been sold to the tenants, but no tenant named Robert Owens is amongst the number. No proceedings in respect of the King's County portion of the estate have come before the Commissioners.

  Leinster Estate.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total amount of the proceeds of the sale of the Leinster Estate under the Purchase Act of 1903; when was the sale completed, and at what time did the Treasury pay over the cash to the trustees of the Leinster property; how much of this sum has been invested under the direction of or with the assent of the Public Trustee; and what are the securities in which the moneys have been invested, with the date of the investment.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Advances have been made, amounting to £674,526. The cash lodgments by tenants amounted to £5,235, making a total sum of £679,761. The sales were completed and the purchase moneys paid into the Bank of Ireland in April and May, 1904, and the funds were distributed in June and July. No portion of the purchase moneys was paid over to the Public Trustee, nor was any application made to him with regard to the investments which may have been made by the trustees of the estate.

  Killarney Quarter Sessions—Absence of Crime in the County.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at the recent quarter sessions in Killarney, the County Court Judge was presented with white gloves in consequence of the crimelessness of the county; and if he proposes to take any steps to reduce the amount expended in connection with law officers and constabulary in consequence, so that the money saved may be used for other and more useful purposes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is true that white gloves were presented to the County Court Judge at Killarney Quarter Sessions, but this fact does not demonstrate the crimelessness of the
  140
  county. In his address to the grand jury at the recent Spring Assizes, the learned Judge referred to an increase in the number of serious crimes attributable to the unsatisfactory condition of a portion of the county. Reductions in the strength of the constabulary force are made where the general circumstances permit such a step to be taken.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Did not the learned Judge say that if any disorder existed it was due to the action of the landlords?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Goods Rates from Listowel to Liverpool.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the freight rate charged on goods from Listowel via Watterford to Liverpool is 30s. per ton, while from Newcastle West, twenty-four miles less land carriage by same route, it is 32s. 6d. per ton, and for butter in casks 30s. 0d. per ton; and, if so, will he say what is the reason for this difference.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Butter from Listowel to Liverpool via Waterford is conveyed at the exceptional rate of 30s. per ton, and the same rate is charged for the carriage of butter from Newcastle West to Liverpool. In the latter case the rate was reduced in October, 1902, from 32s. 6d. per ton.

  Irish Goods Rates.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the rate for the carriage of tea from London to Limerick is 34s. per ton, from London to Rathkeale, eighteen miles further than Limerick, it is 53s. 4d. per ton, and from London to Newcastle West, eight miles further than Rathkeale on same line, the rate is 46s. 7d. per ton; will he explain why is the difference between the rate to Limerick and Rathkeale 19s. 4d. or about 1s. per ton per mile, seeing that the rate to Newcastle West is 6s. 9d. less than to Rathkeale; and is he aware that the rate for tea from London to Rathkeale previous to the amalgamation of the Waterford and

  141
  Limerick Railway with the Great Southern and Western was 44s. 10d. per ton, or 8s. 6d. per ton less; and whether he will take any steps to remedy the alleged grievance.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Department are advised they have no authority under the Agriculture and Technical Instruction Act of 1899 to intervene in questions affecting rates on such articles as imported tea. They have no information on the third inquiry. The reply to the last inquiry is in the negative.

  White Estate, Bantry.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector who reported in connection with the reinstatement of evicted tenants on the White Estate, near Bantry, is a member of the firm of solicitors who had the carriage of sale of that estate.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that, so far as they are aware, the inspector who reported on this estate is not a member of the firm of solicitors referred to.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a member of this firm visited the estate and created animus against the evicted tenants. By what authority did he do that?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Bawnboy Union Relief Works,
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the total amount which has been paid for tools and necessary implements in carrying out relief of distress works in the Bawnboy Union, county Cavan, to 31st March; and will he state from whom same were procured.
  MR. WALTER LONG; A sum of £11 2s. 0d., paid to Mr. Richard Dowler, of Belturbet.

  Cavan Evicted Tenants.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if any evicted
  142
  tenants have applied to be reinstated in county Cavan; if so, how many; and whether any of these people have been restored to their homes.
  MR. WALTER LONG: One hundred and fifty-four applications have been received, and three of the applicants have been reinstated.

  Higher National Schools in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland in their recent Report, to establish higher national schools in suitable centres in Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The recommendation of the Commissioners is under consideration.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: When may we expect a decision?
  MR. WALTER LONG: It is impossible for me to say.

  Singing and Science Teaching in Irish Schools
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant for Ireland whether, seeing the necessity for better training of teachers of singing and science and the growing desire of the Irish people to have those subjects well taught to their children, steps will be taken to have the organisers in those subjects employed by the National Board retained in the service.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the popular taste for and need for instruction by the teachers in music, he will request the Commissioners to retain the services of the organiser of instruction in that subject.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The appointment of a permanent Inspector of Music has been approved. The term for which the temporary organisers in that subject were employed expired on 31st March,

  143
  and it is not intended to renew their appointments. I have already explained that a head organiser and two assistants have been permanently retained for the training of teachers in elementary science.

  Omagh School Inspector.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Pedlow, national school inspector of the Omagh circuit, has given "good" to any school within his district in which Irish is taught.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir.

  Irish Training Colleges—Free Homes.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the claim repeatedly put forward by the standing committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland for free homes for the three training colleges at Belfast, Waterford, and Limerick, and the necessity for putting these colleges on the same footing as the other training colleges where the buildings have been paid for by the Government; and whether he can propose any settlement of this question.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the claims of the Catholic Bishops and to the declarations made by my predecessor in the matter. The question is engaging my consideration.

  Irish National Schools—Building Rules.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when will the revised rules for the erection of national schools and teachers' residences in Ireland be issued.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am unable to state the date of the issue of the rules referred to, but, as I have frequently informed hon. Members, every effort is being made to expedite a settlement of the question.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL; Are we to be kept waiting for these four or five years?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  Trant Foley Estate, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer why it is that the tenants on the Trant Foley Estate, Tralee, county Kerry, have been asked to pay arrears of income-tax due by the landlord during the past six years; and whether tenants who are unable to pay this landlord debt will have their goods seized.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: As the arrears of income-tax on the Trant Foley Estate accrued partly whilst it was in the hands of a trustee and partly after it passed into the legal possession of the present owner, it was deemed advisable to recover the tax from the occupiers of the assessed properties as provided by the 17th Section of the Income-Tax Act of 1853. The tax so recovered can be deducted by the tenants from their next payment of rent. Twelve out of the fourteen tenants applied to have already paid the tax claimed from them. In no case has it been found necessary to recover by distress.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Will tenants unable to pay have their goods seized?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I understand we have only applied to fourteen. Twelve have already paid, one will do so in a short time, and only one has not answered.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Why not compel the landlord to pay?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I believe there are legal difficulties, but steps have been taken by which he will have to pay in the long run.

  Irish Provident Assurance Company.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is

  145
  aware that the policy holders of the Irish Provident Assurance Company, after seeing the reports published in the Press regarding that company, ceased paying their premiums; and that the policy holders of the town of Ballinasloe were paid a composition amounting to half the premiums paid by them; if so, will he say whether the balance-sheet of this company has been lodged with the Registrar of Friendly Societies or the responsible official of the Board of Trade; and, if so, what is his report upon it.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): The Board of Trade are not aware of the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member. I have ascertained that this company is not registered in the Registry of Friendly Societies, Ireland, and no accounts have been lodged by the company with this Department. Some question has arisen as to the liability of the company to render returns under the Life Assurance Companies Acts, and the matter is under the consideration of the Irish Law Officers.

  Galway Post Office—Employees' Petiton.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received the petition of the Galway Post Office staff bearing upon the treatment of the staff, the scale of wages, promotions, and appointments; and if he will state what action he proposes taking in the matter.
  LORD STANLEY: I am considering the petition, and will inform the staff of my decision in due course.

  Post Office Employees and the Irish Language.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the postmaster-General whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in dealing with letters addressed in Irish, he will consider the advisability of offering some special inducements (similar to that offered for telegraph and technical qualifications) to sorters acquiring a knowledge of the Irish language; and whether he will exact as an essential qualification a knowledge of Irish from
  146
  all applicants for postmasterships in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY: I do not think it necessary to take any such steps as those suggested by the hon. Member.

  Learners as Season Substitutes in Irish Post Offices.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General under what conditions season substitutes are employed in Irish post offices; and, considering the number of learners fully qualified for appointment in Ireland, will he give these youths preference for substitute duty, wherever the necessity arises, over those who have no claims whatever on the Department.
  LORD STANLEY: So far as circumstances allow the plan suggested by the hon. Member is already followed. The substitute duties are as a rule given to qualified learners.

  Irish Signatures to Postal Orders.
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the postmaster at Ballyhaunis has declined to cash a postal order for a gentleman named Francis Swift because the payee, who is an Irish speaker, and well known to the Post Office official there, affixed his signature to the order in Irish; whether the rules and regulations dealing with the cashing of postal orders specify in what language they should be receipted; and, if not, whether the postmaster referred to has exceeded his powers in refusing to pay the money.
  LORD STANLEY: A signature in Irish upon a postal order may be accepted if the postmaster is satisfied that it is the signature of the payee. In the case to which the hon. Member refers the postmaster was unable to read the signature upon the order, and the person who tendered it refused to give him either a written or a verbal translation. He was therefore justified in refusing payment under the regulations, which authorise a postmaster to refuse payment of a postal order until he is satisfied that it is signed by the payee
  MR. JOHN O'DONNELL: Is the noble Lord aware that Mr. Swift has been receiving a large number of letters addressed in Irish, and that they are regularly delivered to him?
  LORD STANLEY: I think Mr. Swift might have explained the signature.

  The Unemployed Bill.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the measure relating to unemployment mentioned in the King's Speech will be introduced before Easter under the Ten Minute Rule.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): If the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman is one that meets with general approval I shall be happy to adopt it.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: In that event on what day will it be introduced?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot name a day, nor can I venture to say that so very important a Bill ought to be introduced under the Ten Minute Rule.

  The Colonies and Trade Preference.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any negotiations were going on before 1902 between the Colonial Ministers and His Majesty's then Government of which the House is not as yet cognisant; what, if so, were these negotiations; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any communications that passed in connection with them.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas understood to decline to answer the Question.

  The Volunteers.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can afford the House some other opportunity to express the sense of the country with regard to the proposal of the Secretary of State for War to discharge over 40,000 Volunteers, now serving their country without pay or reward, than that of reducing the Minister's salary.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If my hon. and gallant friend desires some other opportunity than that naturally afforded by the Army Estimates, I am afraid that in the present state of public business I do not see my way to grant his request.

  Government Departments and Trades Unions.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend that no representations on the part of Government workers shall be received from any duly appointed representative, unless that representative is in the employment of the Government and is one of the aggrieved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that, on questions personally affecting Government workers, it is not unusual, either at the War Office or the Admiralty, for the heads of Departments to receive deputations from trades unionists. In cases where a man or men have any complaint to make every opportunity is given to them to appeal to the Department. It is not the practice to allow outside interference in such cases.
  MR. BENN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the statement made in the House last Thursday by the Financial Secretary to the War Office with regard to certain proceedings adopted at the Government Clothing Factory?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is not in order to refer to that.

  Mr. Gerald Loder's Directorships.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Mr. Gerald Loder, the newly appointed Junior Lord of the Treasury is to retain in conjunction with his position in the Government the positions of director in four public companies, of which one is the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, and another the Standard Bank of South Africa; and whether he is aware that Mr. Loder's accession to the Government brings the number of directorships in public companies held by members of the present Administration to seventy-one; and whether he proposes to take any, and, if

  149
  so, what steps, having regard to the frequent demands for that reform, to secure that the retention of public company directorships be rendered incompatible with the holding of the office of Minister of the Crown.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no knowledge of my hon. friend's connection with the companies to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am quite certain he will allow no outside engagement to interfere with his official duties.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to give notice that I will move to reduce Mr. Loder's salary by the amount of the fees he receives as a director.

  Feeding of School Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for the Barnard Castle Division designed to empower local education authorities to make provision out of the funds at their disposal for the feeding of hungry children, and to empower them also, where it may seem desirable, to recover the cost from the parents and guardians of children so fed; and whether, having regard to the unanimous recommendations of the Physical Training Royal Commission (Scotland), 1903, and of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee, he will grant facilities this session for the further progress of this measure.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, a Committee has been appointed to examine into the facts of this question; and I do not think that, pending the Report of that Committee, I can make any statement on the subject.
  SIR JOHN GORST: Is it not a fact that the Committee appointed by the Board of Education is specially precluded from considering any scheme which would cast a charge on the public funds?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The main object of the Committee is to inquire into the facts, and it is, among other things, a real knowledge of the facts that we require before dealing with a subject which is of itself of a difficult character
  150
  and touches very many thorny problems on all sides.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any prospect that this Committee will report before the close of the present session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I cannot well make any promise on that subject. It does not rest with me.
  MR. J. F. HOPE: If any facilities are given to a Bill on this subject, will they be given to that introduced by the hon. Member for Hoxton?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not aware that any suggestion has come from this bench that facilities should be given to any Bill.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: In the event of this Bill being introduced under the Ten Minute Rule, could not all the Bills on the subject be referred by agreement to a Select or Grand Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Ten Minute Rule has nothing to do with the question. Indeed, the Bill might be introduced without any speech at all, under the privilege which private Members enjoy. Moreover, it is not the practice to refer any Bill to a Select Committee until after it has been read a second time. That is the rule under which we habitually work. I do not say whether it is a good or bad one.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Has the First Lord of the Treasury any information to give as to the course of business?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think I have any information of which the House is not already in possession. We are pledged to give the Government time this week to Army Estimates. Should the Estimates about which most interest is felt be concluded within Government time, I will, of course, do my best to consult the wishes of the House as to what other Votes shall be taken. Next Monday we take the Budget.

  THE EASTER HOLIDAYS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the First Lord make any statement as to the probable commencement of the Easter Holidays?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir, I have no information to give. The limits within which our chances lie are narrow, but I cannot mention the date at present.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Law, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 110.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 136.]

  WHALE FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]
NEW BILLS.
  SALE OF COKE BILL.
  "To amend the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, respecting the Sale of Coke by weight," presented by Mr. Rose; supported by Mr. Raymond Greene; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 11th May, and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
  LONDON HOSPITALS (EXEMPTION FROM RATES) BILL.
  "To provide for the exemption of Hospitals in London from local Rates," presented by Mr. Hayes Fisher; supported by Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Sir Harry Samuel, Captain Jessel, and Mr. James Bailey; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 139.]
  LICENSING ACT (1902) (REGISTRATION OF CLUBS) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Licensing Act, 1902, in respect of the striking of clubs off the register," presented by Mr. Worsley-Taylor; supported by Sir John Dorington, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Cripps, Sir Robert Reid, and Mr. Ashton; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 140.]

  SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,101,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he desired, in moving to reduce the Vote by £1,000,000, to direct attention to the fact that the Estimates for this year were the greatest Army Estimates ever laid before the House of Commons in a time of peace. These Estimates had now reached an aggregate of £30,000,000 in round figures. They embodied an increase of £1,000,000, roughly, on the Estimates of last year, and, although they were nearly as much as the whole of the Estimates for the Navy, they were now witnessing the spectacle of a considerable diminution in naval expenditure and a large increase in Army Votes. The increase in the Estimates was greater than might be supposed by those who only gave them casual study. It was not at all correct to attribute that increase, as he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was led into attributing it, to the increased provision for the new guns. That tardy provision, no doubt, was the item in the Estimates most easy to justify, but it was not the reason for

  153
  increase. The completion of the purchases under the Mowatt programme of stores and military supplies which fell in this year released a sum of £400,000 from the Special Charges. Further windfalls of £217,000 in respect of surplus ammunition, and of £334,000 under the heading of clothing, made a total of £961,000 which might ba considered as a windfall for the right hon. Gentleman, which would almost entirely have met the charge for the new artillery. The increase in the Estimates was in respect of constant and continuing charges which would affect the Estimates in future years. That was a very grave situation, and fully justified the reduction which he had put on the Paper. The Estimates were all the more surprising in view of the explicit pledges which the Secretary of State for War gave only six months ago, on July 14th last. Those promises were explicit, liberal, and full. Then, when the Army Estimates were £29,000,000, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It is the universal belief that not only should this increase be arrested, but that the total should be diminished; that is my own personal view. I have always felt we are devoting a larger sum than we need devote to the service of the Army. I have had that lesson enforced on me for many years, and I would remind the Committee that if you are going to reduce expenditure you must reduce something that costs money."
  The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the Army as—
  "One of the most costly military machines ever devised."
  Yes, £29,000,000 was then considered by the right hon. Gentleman to be excessive. Now, £30,000,000 was not so considered! The right hon. Gentleman would do well to spend an afternoon in reading the excellent speech he delivered on July 14th last. The right hon. Gentleman then said, also, that a certain number of the Line battalions were superfluous, and that, in his opinion, the Regular Army, as well as every branch, must be called upon to make some contribution towards a reduction. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had not been able to fulfil his pledges in favour of economy, should be careful not to suggest, as he had done the other day, that those persons who to-day held the opinions he expressed so strongly last July were unpatriotic and improper persons.
  154
  The Secretary of State for War's reason for the great increase in the Army Estimates was a most remarkable one. They were told that the United Kingdom could not be invaded; that this fortunate island had become permanently secure from invasion, and was no longer liable to the dangers which confronted other nations which had to guard against an invasion of territory. This fortunate little island was, they were told, absolutely secure from any attack of that kind. And yet they were asked to vote larger Army Estimates than those of France, Germany, Austria, or Italy, to whose existence their armies were absolutely vital. The Army reformers of two years ago, whose activity in the House the Committee might not have forgotten, had behind their manœuvres and tactics one object. They sought to reduce military expenditure and the military forces. With a view to obtaining that result they propounded two important propositions, one that we did not want a large Regular Army for home defence, and the second that the defence of this island could be entrusted to the Militia, Volunteers, and Yeomanry, if rendered thoroughly efficient. The Prime Minister did not agree with them in those days, but agreed with the present Secretary of State for India, and supported that right hon. Gentleman in a project which provided three Army Corps for home defence. The right hon. Gentleman, now the Secretary of State for India, used the "fat cow" argument against them. "Why," he asked, "should we lie down like a fat cow behind our ironclad Fleet?" He also used the "stiffener" argument; he spoke of the necessity for 30,000 stiffeners to strengthen the Auxilliary Forces when the Regular Army had been convoyed out of the country. Those opinions had been very largely abandoned by the Prime Minister; they had converted him; and, like all converts, as he himself was sometimes reminded, the Prime Minister displayed a tendency to carry his newly acquired opinions to great extremes. He now said that we required no Army at all for home defence, as invasion was impossible. It seemed a very simple thing if they looked at it in that way, but it would have saved a lot of trouble if the right hon. Gentleman had only found it out before. Still it showed the

  155
  enormous advantage of applying a first-rate dialectical mind to these strategic questions.
  There was nothing more remarkable than this doctrine of faith healing. The principle was very simple; you said a thing was so, and it was so; or you said it was not so, and it was not so. He had heard of people who, on awaking in the morning, said with great earnestness, "Youth, health, vigour," and believed that they derived some accession of those qualities in consequence. The Government were the most ardent disciples of that belief. The Prime Minister was convinced that, if he said a question was not before the country, it was not before the country; if he said a Resolution was of no importance, it was of no importance. The Secretary of State for India firmly believed that if he said he had six Army Corps, there were in fact six Army Corps; and the present Secretary of State for War believed that if he said with sufficient emphasis and frequency, and on sufficiently high authority, that these islands could not be invaded, we should thereby become absolutely secure. The right hon. Gentleman ought really to instruct the Chaplain-General to preach a discourse on the inspiring theme of the application of the principles of Christian science to the problem of Imperial defence. The country had been officially declared secure against invasion—not a dinghy, which held five men, let alone 5,000 men, could land on these shores without our permission. The Committee of Defence had decided that, and who, be the Briton or foreigner, would dare dispute the decision of the Committee of National Defence? The Prime Minister, whose unique qualifications were rightly acknowledged, had confirmed their decision, the Army Council had acquiesced in it, and actual proof had been supplied by experiments in disembarkation conducted at Clacton-on-Sea.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): Do you maintain the contrary proposition?
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was simply stating the right hon. Gentleman's argu-
  156
  ments. Upon this comfortable hypothesis the right hon. Gentleman approached the question of the Volunteers, the Militia, the Yeomanry and the other forces of the Crown. He told them that the Volunteers were tied to the soil, that they could not be sent abroad, and as nobody could possibly get at them, as not even the five men in a dinghy, or 5,000, could set foot on this island without our permission, he argued that we might safely reduce the force by 45,000 men, and he submitted that as absolute logic. But absolute logic should carry the right hon. Gentleman a great deal further. Why should the right hon. Gentleman maintain at great cost 200,000 men tied to the soil, when they could not possibly encounter enemies who arrived in larger numbers than five at a time? There used to be a scheme of mobilisation for home defence in existence. Had it been abandoned? Had it been absolutely destroyed or torn up?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No.
  MR. CHURCHILLasked what was the use of getting the clerks of the War Office to make out a plan for meeting a contingency which the Army Council, the Committee of National Defence, and the Prime Minister collectively declared could never arise? The right hon. Gentleman's hint that there was a scheme for home defence in existence filled him with anxiety. With regard to this faith cure, the faith must be absolute, or the cure did not work. The slightest shadow of doubt across the mind of the patient or the disciple, and the efficacy of the treatment was entirely destroyed. The truth was that the right hon. Gentleman dare not face the logical conclusion to which his argument led. Perhaps in the right hon. Gentleman's heart of hearts the spectacle of this vast unfortified capital, the greatest, the wealthiest city in the world, the depository of half the title-deeds of civilisation, within sixty miles of a score of lauding places for the enemy, filled him with some feeling of disquietude and stirred doubts and questionings which marred the smooth reasoning of his assertions and reassertions. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had not forgotten the late Lord Salisbury's declaration at the

  157
  Mansion House four or five years ago, that great empires had fallen not by injury in their outlying provinces, but by blows dealt at their hearts. It did appear to him that the great problem of Imperial defence was not to be settled by chopping logic or by applying the rule of thumb. They had before them a practical, business-like proposition. They had on the one hand a statement of the various perils to which the nation might be exposed, though there were differences as to their nature and the direction whence they might be apprehended, and also differences in the degree of possibility and probability. There were also certain necessary duties which the Army had to discharge; there were foreign garrisons to be provided and proper reliefs to be circulated. It was necessary further to arrange for those minor expeditions which were so often necessary when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power. They had to make provision at home for the maintenance of the Royal dignity, and for ensuring order and public security. They had, on the other hand, certain resources, and though those resources might be sufficient they were limited and definite. They had only a certain amount of money which could properly be spared, having regard to other urgent needs. There was a supply of recruits more or less limited, which notoriously varied with the labour market, and even an increase of pay did not secure the larger supply anticipated. They had a certain number of Militia—and the right hon. Gentleman had tried but failed to increase them—and a certain number of Volunteers whom the right hon. Gentleman had tried to reduce and had succeeded. [Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER dissented.] He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman objected, but in the Estimates for this year he had embodied the policy of reduction. These various forces had grown up year by year in this country and some of them were very antiquated indeed. They fitted in with existing customs and arrangements and were part of our national life, and it was the business of the War Minister to adjust and train them so as to make them more flexible instruments to guard our coasts against danger and to get from them the greatest development of war power.
  158
  There were three kinds of reform of the Army. The first was that which partook of the nature of spending money. That that kind of reform had been steadily pursued for years was seen in the enormous increase of expenditure on every single branch of Army organisation. Then there were the reforms which could be made simply by the use of the pen. The Secretary of State for War sat in his office and called some old thing by a new name. For instance, the Commander-in-Chief was called the "Chief Inspector-General" or "First Military Member" or "Chief of the Staff;" the Quartermaster-General was renamed the "Third Military Member"; the duties of the War Office and the Staff were rearranged, and the troops were called "divisions," "districts," or "Army Corps," but whatever they were called, it was done simply by writing on paper. The third kind of reform was rather rare; it was of a nature of which the country had had very little experience of late. It was reform which was based upon the perception of some new principle, and which produced greater war power in proportion to the money and the resources at our disposal. The great reform of Mr. Cardwell was of that nature. The abolition of purchase—taking the Army out of pawn as it was called—the introduction of short service, and the institution of the territorial system, were three reforms of the Army which undoubtedly had resulted in a great increase of war power without any extra expenditure of money. He would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that all change in the position and character of the various land forces was in itself injurious and involved a diminution of war power. Change in itself was vexatious and restrictive of power. It produced friction and dissatisfaction in the Army. While it was taking place the officers were occupied with it and could not devote their attention to the training of the men. The whole economy and discipline of the units were affected. Yet in the last five years we had had an era of tireless tinkerings. The hon. and gallant Member for Essex had on many occasions drawn attention to the extraordinary caprice with which uniforms were changed. But much more serious changes had been

  159
  made. The service of the Army had been changed four times in four years, and was about to be changed again. The regulations affecting the discipline of the troops had been altered and readjusted, the system of pay had been changed, deferred pay had been abolished, and the whole method of the administration of the War Office had been altered twice over from top to bottom, both with regard to system and personnel. Some regular battalions had been created and then abandoned, five garrison batteries were formed at great expense, and special barrack accommodation provided, and they, too, were now to be abandoned. The immense diminution of war power resulting from these wild experiments had been attended by discontent among the officers and men and the general relaxation of the discipline and the efficiency of the Army.
  Parliament was asked this year to assent to Estimates of £30,000,000 and a series of brand-new reforms affecting all three branches of His Majesty's land forces—a great reduction in the Volunteers, a gigantic experiment with the Militia, and a revolution in the Regular Army. The Secretary of State for War did not come to them exactly on the full tide of successful experiment. The right hon. Gentleman came with a record of miscalculation, mismanagement, and fertile incapacity for which no parallel could be found in the history of any other Department of the State. That was true, notwithstanding that hon. Gentlemen opposite laughed, and he defied any one to point to another policy pursued by any Department in the last fifty years marked by such vacillation and such an enormous accretion of burden. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Militia involved a liability for service oversea; a queer proposal surely, coming after a war in which nearly the whole of the Militia did serve voluntarily and with distinction over the sea. It was strange he should wish to expose the Militia to this arduous service when he lost no opportunity of telling them what a rabble they were, and how imperfectly trained, and while he talked, too, of the great scarcity of officers and the singularly poor physique of its men. When the Militia Bill came before the House it would, of course, be fully considered; but he was bound to say that it was a very surprising thing to
  160
  make such a great departure, not as an integral part of a scheme of Army reform, but as a purely detached proposition. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that his proposal with regard to the Militia was a leap in the dark. There had been experiments in regard to the Militia before. The late Secretary of State for War wished to increase the force; the present War Secretary desired to diminish it, and that was how continuity of policy was secured. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for War offered a bounty of £3 a man, which he believed would have the effect of raising the Militia from 98,000 to 150,000.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey,Guildford): As a matter of fact, I proposed to raise the Militia to 150,000, including the establishment of a Militia Reserve.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to give a bounty of £3 a man cost £300,000 a year, and it would continue to cost that amount so long as that bounty was paid. But the Militia to-day were fewer in number than when the bounty was offered. So far as the taxpayer was concerned all that money was absolutely pitched away, and, after all, £300,000 was a very great sum which could have been spent on the new rifle, or on the new artillery. That was not an encouraging fact, and it seemed to him that it showed how very dangerous it was to undertake experiments with the old constitutional or Volunteer forces, because they could not be sure that the money spent would produce the effect which was expected, nor could they be sure that new regulations would not divert from those forces the classes accustomed to go into them.
  Now he came to the Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman had put forward a brand new scheme for the Regular Army. The right hon. Gentleman was a great admirer of what he would call dualism. The right hon. Gentleman was in favour of a dual Regular Army. He was in favour of two classes of Volunteers—the first class

  161
  and the second class, but that inspiring idea had been abandoned.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERdissented.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid there were to be two classes of Volunteers according to their merits.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, no!
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman had at any rate instituted two kinds of generals in the Army— fighting generals and other generals. It was a most novel idea. It was one which was much more likely to have come from China than from Japan, and the plan on which the Army was now to be administered was the same system as that on which a gentleman obtained a horse from a jobber—he obtained and rode the animal, all responsibility being taken by the owner of the horse. One gentleman was to see after the whole administration of the troops, and the other man was to fight with them in the field. In fact, it was the regular subdivision of the trainer and the jockey. That was a truly wonderful plan, and it showed that the right hon. Gentleman was a great admirer of dualism. Now he proposed to introduce two kinds of Regulars—the first-class Regular who was to have all the fun and all the fighting, and the second-class Regular who was to do all the drudgery and supply the numbers. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Ealing, who, it might be remembered, made a remarkable speech to the House last session in which he showed that the setting up of two kinds of battalions would draw all the best officers into the favoured corps and give them an unnecessary amount of esprit de corps which would be obtained at the expense of the ordinary run of the Army. He believed that the principle of drawing a distinction between men serving in the same branch of His Majesty's forces was wholly vicious, and he earnestly hoped the Committee would not sanction that principle.
  When they examined the larger aspect of this Army scheme he would like to ask what was to be the cost of the full execution of the plan proposed. Had
  162
  anybody seen the figures? Had there ever been a financial estimate made?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to answer in the affirmative.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he was very much surprised. He was not at all aware that there had been an estimate made. The right hon. Gentleman's dual Army scheme was not a new idea; for thirty years it had been agitated, but Cabinet after Cabinet, War Minister after War Minister, drawn from both of the great Parties of the State, had examined it, studied it carefully, and all, without exception, had rejected it. Of course, it was quite true that we should like to have two separate Armies for our very widely different duties in home and foreign service. For the United Kingdom we wanted an Army of great expansive power, and that could only be obtained by short service. For garrisoning India we required a Regular Army of seasoned soldiers with service for a period that would not necessitate our bringing them backward and forward too often. But the economy of combining the two Armies into one, of dovetailing them into each other, and making them separately assist each other in all the numerous functions they had in common, in making the home battalions train the drafts for the foreign battalions, and the foreign battalions train the Reservists, who on mobilisation were added to the home battalions in order to strengthen and stiffen the young soldiers of which they were composed—the advantages and economy of that system were enormous, and the gain in proportion to the money spent had been frequently demonstrated. Although there were admitted inconveniences, the single army argument had always hitherto held the field. The single army argument embodied a compromise and had all the virtues and vices of a compromise. It could be expressed in the formula, 7 A, 5 R—seven years Army service and five years' Reserve service. That was the period of service found in practice to be the best to reconcile the conflicting and often divergent needs of India and the United Kingdom. Before passing from that subject he should like to say that they had always been told that a

  163
  balance of battalions was essential to this scheme. He did not think that was true. It was generally admitted last year that it was not true. That had been a fertile source of waste, and a convenient lever for further expenditure. But it would be quite possible to group battalions into groups of eight, of which five might be kept abroad and three at home. That suggestion would enable a reduction of thirty battalions to be made without altering the working of the system, although he thoroughly admitted the economy of the system was greatest, highest, and most perfect when an exact equilibrium between the battalions was maintained.
  There were many hon. Gentlemen in the House who were more competent to speak with regard to the Volunteers than he professed to be. He would only ask the Committee to remember how cheap they were, how petty was the saving, and how fearful was the diminution in men which attended the reduction now proposed. He would ask the Committee to remember that while to European States which had land frontiers time was vital to their mobilisation and every day was precious to them, in this country, with the advantages of the sea, we should always have a longer period at our disposal, and our arrangements need not be made to enable us to realise our full strength as Continental Powers must do. After all the talk of the Volunteers not being properly trained, he would say that if they were six weeks or six months under canvas with conditions of war prevailing in some part of the world they would become a very different force from what they were now. He asked the Committee to remember what these men did for us in the South African War, not only those who went abroad, but those who stayed at home in camp and enabled us to send the last division of Regular troops out of the country. The Regular Army in time of war would depend on the number of Volunteer soldiers we had in this country, for he was quite certain that in time of war this country would never stake its independence and integrity upon any decision of any Council of National Defence, however costly it might be. He asked the Committee finally to remember that the Volunteers, a monu-
  164
  ment of civic patriotism which was the unique possession of our country, were our principal and surest bulwark against the foul tyranny of conscription, from which we had been free.
  Whatever objections might be urged against the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman as a whole must be urged more strongly against proceeding with them piecemeal. The short-service Army, which was the foundation of the system, had been postponed indefinitely. In answer to a Question the other day, the right hon. Gentleman said it had been postponed for eight or nine months. That was a long time and many things might happen. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman on public grounds—at present he had got power and could do practically what he wished—to at least delay the measures affecting the Volunteers and the Militia until the scheme relating to the Army as a whole was finally determined. Surely it was not unreasonable to ask him not to injure them until he was prepared with the short-service Army, which was so largely to take their place. The steps he proposed to take would be irrevocable, the injury might easily be irreparable. The Volunteers and Militia could not be discouraged and disbanded in all directions without inflicting an injury on the whole force, which it would take many years of patient effort to repair. There was one vital feature of this subject which ought not to be omitted. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to make too sweeping assertions for a person who occupied so responsible a post. During the recess the right hon. Gentleman permitted himself to say—
  "The condition of the British Army was a danger to the very existence of the Empire; that we wanted the best and had the very worst."
  But he told his would-be constituents at Croydon that—
  "Enemies of England all over the world would rejoice at the advent of a Liberal Government to power."
  In that general chorus of jubilation there would, at any rate, be one regret. Foreign nations would have to rely for their information upon their own intelligence departments, and they

  165
  would not be able to avail themselves of the very excellent and candid reports which they had furnished from time to time by the British Minister for War.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The words the hon. Member quotes come from one of the most distinguished members of the Army Intelligence Department.
  MR. CHURCHILLremarked that the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, put them forward on his own authority. Then the right hon. Gentleman told them that if the command of the sea were lost there would be nothing for it but to surrender within six days. It was, perhaps, not worth while to speculate upon such hideous nightmares as that, but he was not at all sure they could predicate with absolute certainty that they would be ready to surrender within such a very short time as that. The right hon. Gentleman was very scornful about the service clubs and service Members.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I said nothing about the service Members.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman spoke of service clubs, and service Members were all members of those clubs. They deserved something better from the right hon. Gentleman than suggestions that their patriotism and intelligence were not what they ought to be. The right hon. Gentleman said one man in circumstances where they might depend upon him might be more valuable than ten upon whom they might or might not depend. Had the right hon. Gentleman already forgotten South Africa? Would anyone contend that one Regular soldier on whom the War Office could depend was worth more for effective service than any ten Australians, or Canadians, or Imperial Light Horseman, whom nobody dreamt before the war would give their services at all? No one could say what this mighty Empire could develop in the face of sufficient need and cause. It was pedantry to suppose their resources were limited by the records kept at the War Office of the number of men available.
  The right hon. Gentleman said they did not want an Army for home
  166
  defence, but for India. If that were true, and £30,000,000 a year were imposed on the people of this country for the sole defence of India, it would arouse most serious discussion It had always hitherto been understood that India should provide for her own defence. Of course she might count on the backing of Great Britain in time of peril; and that we would strain every nerve and make every sacrifice to aid her defence of her North-West Frontier. But nothing could remove the primary and permanent responsibility and obligation which was upon every people for the defence, security, and safeguarding of their own soil. And in the case of India, it was not merely a moral but a practical responsibility. Many months, he was told by people who understood these things, possibly a year, and even more than a year, would elapse after the declaration of war before the destruction of the enemy's navy was so complete as to enable that tremendous operation of transporting 300,000 or 400,000 men to the other side of the earth through seas possibly swept by hostile cruisers. And, in the meanwhile, India would be depending on her own resources, however vast, however complete our preparations in this country might be. He hoped this aspect of the situation had not escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and the various Committees of which he was a member He did not join himself with the alarmists, who were always imagining that we were on the eve of Armageddon. He did not think that strategic railways carried the problem of the defence of India into a new plane, nor a plane which was bound to have been unforseen for many years. After all, the central facts of the situation had been unaltered, and a long period must elapse after the declaration of war before either Russia or England could bring their main power to bear in the struggle. It was unnecessary to alarm ourselves by any features which were contained in the general international situation or by the two new facts created by the Anglo-French agreement and the astounding drama of the war in the Far East. These could not

  167
  make in the mind of any reasonable man our military situation less secure than it was. For nearly a quarter of a century we had had alarms raised and a great quantity of nonsense had been poured out in regard to Russian designs on India. When we reflected on the perils through which that dynasty was passing, on the sufferings of her people, on the financial embarrassments which must, for many years, harass her Government, it did not seem un-reasonable to calculate that our dangers in respect to the defence of India were more remote in point of time and probabilities than ever they were before.
  He commended this reduction to the Committee. He did not say that £1,000,000 was the whole economy which might be effected, or that it would satisfy hon. Gentlemen who sat on those benches. He did not say that £1,000,000 would satisfy the country, which had heard pledges of reduction from the right hon. Gentleman; but it was a substantial sum and nobody who voted for it would be committed to that sum as the whole policy of reduction of expenditure on the Army. If he were to prevail with the Committee in regard to this reduction— and he would be optimistic to assume that he would—he would point out that there would be no difficulty in carrying it into practical effect. After all, a reduction in the number of units was admitted last year by the right hon. Gentleman as indispensable so far as the United Kingdom was concerned. No discharges of soldiers now serving would be necessary. All that would have to be done was to raise the standard of re-cruiting, the enlisting would then automatically fall. Moreover, with a reduced demand for recruits the increased pay lately offered would begin to operate beneficially by giving a greater power of selection, and, consequently, an improvement in quality which would be a compensating gain and result in further and larger economies in the direction of a diminution of those perfectly useless men now enlisted at so great annual cost. He moved this reduction in the interests of economy and as a sincere, solemn, and deliberate protest against the errors and miscalculations of the military policy
  168
  during the last five years, and as a warning, perhaps a vain attempt, to stop all those ill-advised changes which ill-affected every branch of our land forces, and particularly the Volunteers and Militia.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,101,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Churchill).
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he did not, as a rule, agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite in the strictures upon the Government which he addressed to the House. There was a time when he did not very often agree with his remarks, but he confessed that although he was still, unlike the hon. Member, a supporter of the present Government, he did agree with a great deal that had just fallen from him in his exceedingly, able, eloquent, and weighty speech. He did not propose to vote for the reduction, because he did not himself see any necessity had been proved for reducing the number of the Regular Forces; but he held that the present administration of the War Office had been and was in many respects most unfortunate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, although he credited him with the very highest motives in his desire to do everything that was best for the Army, had succeeded in discouraging every branch of the service—Regulars, Yeomanry, Militia, and Volunteers. The position was now very serious. He was not going to follow the hon. Gentleman opposite in speaking generally on the whole Army question, because he did not profess to have a detailed knowledge of Army affairs, and he was very careful not to speak on matters of this sort which he did not himself understand. But he could speak with knowledge on the Militia, and he thought that the treatment of that force by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War of the Militia had been more unfortunate than his treatment of any other branch of the service. The right hon. Gentleman was understood to have a theory that many connected with the Auxiliary Forces were sufficiently unpatriotic to fight for their own unit to the detriment of the reform of the Army

  169
  generally. He hoped his right hon. friend would not accuse him of taking that line. He spoke for the Militia because he knew something of the Militia. If the right hon. Gentleman proved to him that the Militia was useless, that it was redundant, that it stood in the way of other and greater reforms which should be affected, he should be the first to say, "Let the Militia go." But in taking the view which the right hon. Gentleman had taken, in saying that the Militia was useless, that it ought to be abolished or altered out of all recognition, the right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, had entirely misread the whole history of recent years. The Militia sent out 51,000 men to South Africa during the late war. In addition to that, they garrisoned a large part of the Mediterranean stations and thereby set free the Regular troops which enabled Lord Roberts to strike hard at the Boers. Further, the Militia practically garrisoned the whole of this country during the war. The right hon. Gentleman was certain that this country was never going to be invaded, and that the Militia garrison was absolutely not wanted. But he asked the Committee what would have been the feeling of the country if the whole of the Regular Army except striplings of recruits had been sent to South Africa. and no force like the Militia had been there to take their place, even if invasion was not possible? He ventured to think that the Militia had done a great service in the late crisis.
  He asked what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do with the Militia, the Yeomanry, the Volunteers, and, most emphatically, with the Regular Army? This uncertainty was doing great harm to the whole service. The hon. Gentleman opposite had pointed out the innumerable changes which had been made in the service in recent years. Moreover, changes were always being threatened, but not carried out. Nobody knew what the right hon. Gentleman really proposed to do. Last year the right hon. Gentleman had a plan for abolishing the Militia, but the opposition of the House was too strong and the right hon. Gentleman was not able to proceed with it. That encouraged him to raise his voice once more, and to hope that that scheme was finally dropped. But the right hon. Gentleman apparently
  170
  still believed that the best plan would be to level up the Militia battalions to the standard of the Line, and make them the nucleus of the home-service Army. Was the right hon. Gentleman, if he got the chance, still inclined to try and carry out that scheme? The Committee and the country ought to know. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the unsatisfactory condition of the Militia; but nothing could make it more unsatisfactory than the uncertainty that prevailed as to the future, both among officers and men. The right hon. Gentleman, in the Memorandum which he issued with the Estimates said that—
  "The condition of the Militia remained unsatisfactory."
  Whose fault was that? The Militia or the War Office? For many years the War Office had never given the Militia a chance of being satisfactory. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that—
  "A considerable portion of the Militia Artillery is redundant for defence purposes."
  Now, why were they redundant? No explanation was given of that criticism. The right hon. Gentleman did not say what part was redundant; and he left every unit of the Militia Artillery to wonder whether they were included in that sweeping statement. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on—
  "It is obvious that if the Militia is to be used for service abroad, it must undergo a longer period of training than at present, and must be provided with a larger number of trained officers than it at present possesses."
  From what had been said with regard to the Militia one would have imagined that they had never been sent abroad before; but 60,000 of them had served abroad and had conducted themselves creditably in field and garrison duty. What steps had the right hon. Gentleman or his predecessor taken to provide more training for officers and men? The right hon. Gentleman said more trained officers were required, and yet from the Militia on duty at Malta six officers were taken for the Line. Longer training was necessary, but nothing was said of the time to be given; it was left vague, as everything else. Year after year suggestions were made about battalions to be abolished, but nobody knew whether his battalion was on the black list. In another place the Government had a Bill for making

  171
  service abroad compulsory for the Militia. The Militia had hardly ever failed to volunteer for such service in the past, and they would willingly accept such a proposal, but there was no great reform in that. Without it the War Office could accomplish what they required. The Militia had no desire to stand in the way of Army reform, but if they were to be of any use they should receive some encouragement.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I sympathise with the hon. Member in the resentment he has expressed, or, if that is too strong a word, in the regret he has expressed, and his deep sense of the injury that is being done by the state of uncertainty which the Government have created in respect to the Militia. He must, however, not be surprised, for uncertainty marks the whole policy of the Government at present. It is bad for everything, bad for trade, bad for the Army, bad for the Militia; but the one policy in which the Government are successful is in prolonging uncertainty. I say the Government, for I do not blame the Secretary of State for War for deliberately prolonging the uncertainty, and, indeed, he has expressed his views far more clearly than the views of the Government have been expressed; but in order that he may escape from the charge we must ask him for whom does he speak? Is it for the Government, or does he give his own opinion merely? Last year we assumed—too much assumed, perhaps—that he was speaking on behalf of the Government, and we expected that greater changes would follow: but it is always the case, we have to hear a policy from each Minister separately, unsupported by his colleagues. I know that the Prime Minister has urgent and, no doubt, prolonged duties elsewhere; and my object is not to complain so much of his absence as to ask, when he is absent, do we get the opinion of the Government? For it seems to me the Government have come to be in the unfortunate position of the Tsar, whose habit it is to see his Ministers separately, and each Minister speaks without reference to the views of his colleagues. But that cannot be satisfactory to this House in the settlement of a policy. We are left altogether in doubt as to the pro-
  172
  posals of last year as compared with those of this year, and in still more doubt as to how far they have the sanction of the Government. We know that the Government approved of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, for the Prime Minister took an active part in defending them. We resisted the proposals because we thought them unsuitable, we, gave them strong opposition, and our objections the Government now hold—or if they do not hold with our opinion they act as if they do. I should like to know in relation to the Estimates this year how much money has been spent in initiating the proposals of the Secretary of State for India which has now been rendered an absolutely useless expenditure by this change of policy.
  From the present Secretary of State for War we were led by his earlier speeches to expect great changes, and great changes rapidly. But now he tells us, not in the tone of one who advises us that we may expect great changes soon, to be thankful that a beginning has been made. No doubt we have had some changes; the War Office has been reorganised by the right hon. Gentleman. The War Office needed to be reorganised, because nobody spoke more scathingly of its conditions previous to its reform than the right hon. Gentleman, and it was generally understood that the War Office was more or less in confusion. The right hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, stirred it up a great deal; but when you stir confusion it is possible, instead of producing order, to produce chaos. However perfect the reorganisation of the War Office may be on paper, what I feel a little doubt about is whether it is working with the smoothness and freedom from confusion and with the perfect order that the Secretary of State no doubt believes it is working with. It is not enough to reorganise; the reorganisation must work smoothly.
  When we come to the higher matters of policy on which the size of our Army and the expenditure on our Army depend, we have no result at all. We have no economy at all in the sense of a reduction of expenditure. The Secretary of State for War tells us we cannot have economy unless we reduce something which costs money,

  173
  and that something must be numbers of men. Then he says it is unpatriotic to reduce the Regular Army; so that cannot be done. It might be patriotic, but it is not possible, owing either to the sense of the House or of the country to reduce the Militia; therefore that cannot be done. The one thing he assures the House he can succeed in doing is to reduce the Volunteers. There I take issue with him on a matter of policy. This Government has been liberal in promises for the last few years that they would reduce expenditure on the Army. If they went out to-day they would be known as the Government which promised to reduce expenditure on the Army but succeeded in reducing expenditure on the Navy. Not only has there been an entire failure to reduce expenditure on the Army, but the Army Estimates are the biggest that we have ever had in time of peace. The Secretary of State for War will no doubt say it is not enough for us merely to declare our differences; that we ought to give some indication of the direction in which our minds would work if we were in a position to apply a policy of our own. I have always hoped that we should get some results from the new Committee of Defence. It is a thing to be judged by its results, and until we have the results we cannot feel sure that the Committee of Defence has been justified.
  Two results, I think, we have got from them. One is a declaration from the Prime Minister that we may put the question of a serious invasion on one side, and the other, which we learn from the Prime Minister's speeches, is that the measure of what we require in the way of an Army is the defence of the Indian frontier. I do not say that is the only purpose for which an Army will be required, but I understand the contention of the Government to be that if we have an Army suitable and large enough to defend the Indian frontier we may consider that we have an Army adequate for all the purposes for which we are likely to need an Army. Then, I ask, if that be so, how is it that the number of the Regular Army has been so much increased since 1898? What has happened since then to make a larger Army necessary for us? Three
  174
  things have happened since 1898. One is that the Boer military power has been broken, and thereby, of course, a military danger has been removed. The second thing is that the Russian power has been greatly exhausted and weakened, which, of course, is the power that military men are thinking of when they discuss the defence of the Indian frontier. I am aware that, if the result of the war that is now going on is to place that part of the globe for ever outside any objective of Russia, we may assume that the Russian objective in future years will be more concentrated at some other point. I take that into account in saying that Russia has been weakened and is being weakened in the present war. But I think that my hon. friend the Member for Oldham is entirely justified in saying that although the Russian railways may have come closer to the Indian frontier than they were some years ago, yet with regard to the time it would take to reach the Indian frontier Russia is further off to-day than at any time. But the point is that the Government have come to the conclusion that we do not need to keep up a Regular Army for home defence. All these things point to a reduction of our Regular Army; and if our Regular Army is not to be greatly reduced, then it must be either because in 1898 we were keeping up an Army which was too small, or because the danger to the Indian frontier at that time was very much underestimated. I do not think the danger to the Indian frontier ever has bean underestimated in this House.
  I am assuming, of course, that when we talk about the defence of the Indian frontier we do not mean to embark on any forward policy. If we embark on the policy of extending our Indian frontier in order to meet Russia at a more distant point than our own base in Asia, then I think we shall be increasing our liabilities and decreasing our strength, and no doubt then we should have demands for a larger Army. I am assuming that it still remains the policy of the Government that we should not have a forward policy on the Indian frontier; that our policy should be one of defence, of making ourselves strong where we are, and of awaiting the attack,

  175
  if attack ever be made. What I suppose the Committee of Defence is engaged in considering is what is the force of the attack that may possibly be made on the Indian frontier? Then you have to take into account not only the force you may possibly have to resist on the Indian frontier, but the time which it must, in any circumstances, take the Russian Government to place that force there. Until you have got this point satisfactorily settled, no doubt it is impossible to say what is the actual size at which our Regular Army should be maintained. I admit, if your policy on the Indian frontier is sound, if you make due allowance for the time it must take for any hostile force to be placed on that frontier, if you have thought out the problem with these limitations, then you must have a Regular Army and Reserves large enough to defend the Indian frontier from attack in the first instance.
  The Secretary of State for War will tell us that we must not only have men to put the Indian frontier in a state of defence in the first instance, but we must have a large number of men to keep up our supply. I suppose he would wish to have a larger number of men who are liable in any circumstances for fall service. Now here is my first departure from him in policy, and why I sympathise with the hon. Member for Tunbridge. I think in the question of Army reform the position of the Militia should have been reviewed, but it should have been reviewed in the opposite sense to which it has been reviewed by the Secretary of Stats for War. I should like to see the home-service Army placed on a Militia basis. As the hon. Member for Oldham says, you should assimilate the home-service Army to the Militia instead of assimilating the Militia to the Regular Army. You should make the Militia the foundation instead of making it the supplement—and much grudged supplement—of the home-service Army which you are thinking of establishing. You should give the Militia decent encouragement; but its position now is that of a force which is grudged by the Secretary of State for War, and of a force which, in no circumstances, is to be allowed to become too attractive, for fear that it should interfere with enlistment in the Regular Army.
  176
  Until you assign a better place to the Militia in the Army scheme it is impossible for the Militia to become a really great and important foundation of our military strength.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: How?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: By enlarging it, by improving it, and by encouraging it.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: How?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: I might say by treating it in the opposite way to which the Secretary of State for War proposes to treat it.
  There is another matter to which I attach still more importance. If you prepare for a great war such as the defence of the Indian frontier would be, you will require, not a moderate number of men, but a large and indefinite number. You will no doubt require a moderate number of well trained men to give security at the outset. But after that in a really great war you will need a large and indefinite number of men to give the country staying power. You cannot provide these men by increasing the number of the Regular troops or Reserves or even Militia in time of peace. You can never in that way produce the number of men you will need in a great war. What we shall have to do if we are ever engaged in a great war is to rely on our Navy and our Regular Army as prepared in time of peace to give us security at the outset, and then, to give ourselves staying power, to manufacture soldiers as the war goes on. I believe that is what Japan has been doing in the present war, and doing with conspicuous success. How are we to get these large numbers in time of war and as quickly as possible? We can only get them out of the Volunteers. That is why I think that a fatal mistake in the present proposals of the Secretary of State for War is the limitation he proposes to put on the number of the Volunteers. Of all forces, the Volunteers are the one that should be left unlimited —they should be encouraged without limit. We have plenty of raw material in this country, only a comparatively small proportion of which we can make into trained soldiers in time of peace.

  177
  But when they are put to it in war much depends upon how far we have encouraged them to prepare themselves in time of peace by military training. Nothing should be neglected, not even the most elementary training. Above all, you should put no limit on the numbers who will engage in the process of elementary training.
  Why does the Secretary of State for War embark on this fatal policy of limiting the Volunteers? Because, he says, they are rooted to the soil, and, therefore, he assumes that they will be of no use for service abroad. I agree that the Volunteers, having undertaken no liability to serve abroad, are rooted to the soil in the sense that they will never encourage this country to embark on military policy; they will not be anxious to engage in a great war for a small cause, nor will they desire that such conditions should arise as would cause them to be asked to volunteer for service abroad. But, in a national emergency, they would come forward, and, I believe, freely, for service anywhere. The Secretary of State for War relies on the experience of the South African War as an indication that you cannot rely on the Volunteers in large numbers coming to the help of the country by serving abroad. The analogy is entirely misleading. I do not think they had a fair chance. They were asked to volunteer when the war was said to be over. But, above and apart from that, you cannot compare the South African War with such a war as that on the Indian frontier. The country assumed, no doubt, throughout the South African War that in the long run we must have success; and I trust that when we are engaged in another war the conditions under which that war is waged—the conditions of unreadiness and want of preparation—will never be so discouraging on the part of our Government as they were then. But the South African War will be no test of the spirit of the country if we were engaged in a really national emergency in defending the Indian frontier, and what the Volunteers have done in the past is no measure of what they may do in the future. They have never been encouraged in the past, in the sense of being made to feel
  178
  that the country would really depend upon them in time of stress. I think the Volunteers were regarded, certainly until recent years, as if they were a luxury, kept up and supported and encouraged by the Government to a certain limited extent, not for the sake of the country, but for their own sakes, because it was a healthy recreation for them to have a certain amount of military training. We have got a little beyond that now, because I think the Secretary of State for War does allot to them a really responsible position in his Army scheme, that of home defence. But if that home defence is to be a matter of five men in a dinghy, as described by my hon. friend, and we are to maintain 200,000 Volunteers, you cannot say that that is a very stimulating responsibility to lay upon them. They must feel more than that. The Volunteers, I think, must be made to feel that their system is a real system of national training, by means of which, if this country is ever attacked in a great war, either at home or abroad, the nation will be able to use all its resources and united energies for the defence of any part of the Empire.
  What I think the Government ought to do is, without any limit of numbers, to concentrate their attention on physical development and the elementary training of as large numbers of the population as possible as Volunteers. A reasonable number of fully-trained men, as good as possible, we must have, no doubt; but to multiply those numbers of the Regular Army beyond a limited point is to do so at the expense of our staying power, at the expense of the Volunteers, and at the expense of our power of standing a strain in a really serious war. It is, I think, only by an encouragement of the Volunteers and by encouraging them in unlimited numbers, that we can prepare the nation for the strain of a really great war without laying upon it an intolerable annual burden of expenditure in time of peace. If you are going to limit your Volunteers, you will, sooner or later, drift into conscription. The real alternative to conscription is unlimited encouragement of the Volunteers. We are reproached from abroad, sometimes, that our hatred of conscription, which I believe to be a thoroughly healthy spirit, shows a lack of public spirit. We are against conscription

  179
  because, owing to our insular position and the strength of our Navy, we believe we can rely upon public spirit to undergo voluntarily some preparation however elementary, in time of peace. I differ entirely from the Secretary of State as to the value of the Volunteers. I believe if we make the country feel that we rely upon them as an organisation on which we shall depend for our staying power in time of war, then, not only can we do without conscription, but, in a national emergency, if we appeal to the Volunteers in that spirit, the response will be adequate to any strain that may be put upon the country.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I always listen to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman with interest and pleasure, and I thought that on this occasion I was going to have that pleasure added to, for I thought he was going to go a little further and adduce more constructive suggestions than he did, though I readily admit that it was not his duty to make those constructive suggestions to me.
  I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the hon. Member for Oldham with interest, but, I am bound to say, not with that degree of instruction which I had hoped to obtain from them. I confess I am impenitent after hearing all that the hon. Member and the light hon. Gentleman opposite had to say. I venture to trust that the hon. Member for Old-ham will not repeat his suggestion that I had promised large economies in the present year. I think I did quote, with perfect accuracy, on a previous occasion the actual words which I used. I said then, and I say again now, knowing what I knew last year and knowing what I know now, it would have been folly to have promised economies which I knew could not possibly be realised. I go back once more to the statement of fact that, as long as the House of Commons desires to have the whole of this great military paraphernalia kept up, they will have to pay for it. [An HON. MEMBER: Not all of it.] Let us realise what that negative means. We have been told over and over again by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we are not to have any reduction of the Volunteer force.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The whole House.
  SIR CARNE RASCH: No.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Let us rule that, out of the argument for the moment. We have been told, I think, with equal emphasis by the hon. Member for Tunbridge that we, are to have no reduction of the Militia. Then it is perfectly obvious that if you are to have any reduction at all you are to have it on the Regular Army.
  The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that I had proposed no reduction of the Regular Army. That, I think, was inexact. It is, in fact, very far from what I have proposed. I have proposed a reduction, in the Regular Army; but I have proposed a reduction which is consistent with the conditions which the right hon. Gentleman himself laid down as being those which ought to guide any prudent Minister contemplating what this country may have to face. I quite recognise that there has been, owing to circumstances with which we have had nothing to do, a détente in the pressure in the Far East. I also recognise with the right hon. Gentleman, who is well acquainted with foreign difficulties of this kind, that we must not count too much upon the permanent character of that détente, because the withdrawal of responsibility and effort from one quarter may mean the concentration of responsibility and effort on another.
  But I am prepared to take the view that that change ought to lead, and may reasonably lead, to a relaxation of the effort which we have hitherto been making. That is the view I have always taken. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to contemplate this problem as it presents itself to me—not, as some hon. Members appeared to think, after some hasty reconsideration of the pamphlets of a past age, but after a real endeavour to ascertain what are all the available facts that are open to me as a Minister.
  I think I understood the hon. Member for Oldham to ask why have the War Office, or the Government, not found

  181
  out before that the centre of gravity, so to speak, of our military structure now lies outside these islands? I think the answer is pretty plain. The whole science of defensive and offensive warfare at sea has been revolutionised. The Navy has been more than doubled in strength. I really find it difficult to argue these points with hon. Members who do not take into account the revolution in modern naval warfare; and when the hon. Member for Oldham speaks, not very definitely, but rather by way of suggestion or innuendo, in condemnation of the action of the Government in altering their policy with regard to the defence of London, I wonder if he really has taken into account what has happened with regard to the defence of this country at sea. I invite the hon. Member to go round that chain of fortifications outside London and to contemplate the arrangements that were made under different conditions for the defence of London. And then I invite him to transfer his activities to Portsmouth, to Chatham, or Sheerness, and see what has been put in the place of what has been abandoned. There has been a transformation of which only those who have followed it closely can have any conception. That is the reason why we have, without laying ourselves open to a charge of inconsistency, shifted the centre of gravity of our military edifice from this country to abroad.
  The right hon. Gentleman says we are exaggerating the danger and the demands on the Indian frontier. That is not a question which I desire to discuss in any very great detail on this occasion, nor one that I think can with very great advantage be discussed in the House of Commons at all. But I would most emphatically say this, that the Government and the War Office are, in this matter, acting entirely in accordance with the advice and the recommendations and the demands of the Government of India. We are endeavouring to provide troops sufficient to meet the demands of the Government of India.
  Two authorities have been impugned this afternoon. The Government are constantly made the object of criticism. But when we have criticism of equal
  182
  certainty directed against, not only the Government of India and the military administration of India, but against the Committee of Defence, which, after all, is manned, in spite of some derogatory remarks which have been made, by very competent and experienced soldiers and sailors, I think we are entitled to pause and ask whether they are not at least as likely to be right as any individual critic in the House of Commons. We are endeavouring to provide for the demands of the Indian Government in time of war. We know what was the number of Regular troops sent abroad in the South African War. It is perfectly certain that we shall not want a smaller number to provide for a war in India if ever we should be so unfortunate as to be engaged in one. If it is not less, if we assume it is even the same, what shall we have to do? We shall have to provide a force infinitely in excess of that which we have ever provided on any single occasion in our history except that of the South African War. We shall have to provide a large force in the field who will be pitted against a regular well-trained European army. We shall not only have to put it in the field, but we shall have to reinforce it and keep it adequately supplied; and if there is one lesson which, to my mind, was more clearly taught than another by the mobilisation at the commencement of the last war it was this, that, in order to mobilise satisfactorily and with advantage, you must have an ample number of units and an ample Reserve.
  I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to contradict me when I say that if you follow the policy adumbrated by the hon. Member for Oldham, and put the Army back on a seven and five years basis of enlistment—even keeping the whole of the units of the Army at their present numbers—you will have a Reserve entirely inadequate to the demands of war in India. If you carry out the only line of retrenchment which the House apparently, as represented in this Committee, would allow, if you begin to cut down the units of the Regular Army, not only will you have a Reserve enormously diminished and utterly inadequate to the needs of the Army, but you will have a number of units which will be still more inadequate,

  183
  because the units are more important than the men. I would challenge any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who will go through these figures as I have gone through them to contradict that statement by any calculation he may choose to make. I have made the calculation over and over again, and I say the difficulty will be, not the enormous redundancy of units, but more probably that we shall be face to face with a deficiency of units when we are called upon to mobilise.
  But the right hon. Gentleman said that you must reduce the Regular Army. That is exactly what I propose to do. I propose not to reduce units—I do not believe that is permissible—but to reduce upon the establishments and the cost of the existing units. That brings me to a remark made by the hon. Member for Oldham, and echoed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, which is very significant. He said you are following a wrong line in endeavouring to make the Regular Army the basis of your territorial Army; that you ought to make the Militia the basis of the territorial Army. As a general principle I do not quarrel with that statement. I think less divides us than some hon. Members would perhaps suppose. But I will give my reason as clearly as I can for not accepting that conclusion. If you accept it you arc face to face with one of two alternatives. The question of cost will at once compel you to strike out of existence a large number of Line battalions. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] I am with the hon. Member with regard to a limited number of those battalions on this condition—that you replace them by something as competent as that which you destroy. But if you are to keep the whole of the Regular battalions, not striking any out at all, you must put some of them on a lower establishment. Otherwise there is no diminution, and you at once have the Army Estimates up to £32,000,000 and; £33,000,000. I desire to keep those battalions. I desire to maintain intact, for instance, the 93rd Highlanders; I desire to keep the whole of these historical battalions in existence. [An HON. MEMBER: What about the fourteen Line battalions.] That does not refer
  184
  to the fourteen Line battalions. I think it would be possible to reduce those battalions provided we were satisfied that fourteen other battalions as good could take their places.
  MR. CHURCHILL: What is the object of the operation in that case?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The object of the operation is to give an opportunity to battalions with a longer history and greater traditions of taking their places in a territorial organisation which would enable a wider distribution of territorial battalions to be made than is compatible with a continuance of the support of the four battalion regiments. But if you keep up the whole of the Line battalions you must pay the extra cost or reduce some of them in number. It is an entire fallacy to suggest that by doing so you are inflicting any disability on officers or men in these battalions. This is what I want the Committee to understand—that in creating short-service battalions you are in no way interfering with the prestige or amenities of the existing battalions. That can only be alleged by those who are not acquainted with the condition of the Army. There are battalions which have been abroad ten, fifteen, and in some cases twenty years; there are battalions linked at home for the same period. There are battalions now in this country composed of 400 or 500 men, of whom five sixths are short-service men, who do not go, and are not capable of going, outside this country at all. What difference is there, in the case of either officer or man, if he is in a battalion serving at home when he is unfit to go abroad and if he serves in a battalion abroad when he is fit to go abroad? It has been suggested that officers will select the long-service battalions in preference to the short. That is a misapprehension of any proposal made to the House. The proposal has been made that officers should do precisely what they do now—that they should be transferred from a battalion at home to a battalion abroad. But I seriously warn all my military friends that this is the only alternative to the destruction of the battalions themselves.

  185
  The hon. Member for Oldham—and his views are shared by others—thinks we might take the Militia as the entire material for our home Army.
  MR.CHURCHILL: I did not say that, I am sure you will always need to have a very considerable body of Regular troops in this country.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORESTER: I quite understand that. When I said home Army I meant short-service Army. It is obvious that we must get a Reserve in some shape or another. I understand it was rather the view of the hon. Member that we ought to have a short-service Army, composed of the Militia, to reinforce the Regular Army in time of war.
  Now let us see what that really means in practice. We have 124 battalions of Militia. The Militia are now serving for three months on enlistment and receiving one month's annual training. It would take the ordinary Militiamen some fifteen years to get the amount of training which the soldier enlisted for two years gets during his period of service, to say nothing of training afterwards, when he is called out in the Reserve. Are we to take the Militia as they are to form the active Reserve of the Regular Army abroad? There is absolutely no conflict of military opinion on this question—the general view both in Europe and America is that you cannot put troops into the field against a Regular Army with training such as the Militia gets. The case of the Boers is cited. I do not believe there can be a more certain way of confusing counsel than to introduce misleading analogies of the kind which we have heard. I speak of the Militiaman as I know him. Let me give a single fact about the Militia. It is about 90,000 strong. 35,000 recruits go into the Militia in the year, and, of course, necessarily that number, and indeed more, go out.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNER: 15,000 go to the Army.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That only strengthens my contention. So transient
  186
  is the condition of the Militia that 35,000 men go in in a single year and 35,000 men go out. The hon. Member for Lichfield reminds me that 15,000 of these mea go into the Army. My right hon. friend spoke about improving the Militia and making them something different. I would give a great deal to know how that process is to be accomplished in any other way than I have suggested.
  I have suggested that the Militia should be put on a basis which would be self-contained; that it should be regarded as a substantive force; that it should be capable of being used for service abroad; that a man entering the Militia should do his service in the Militia. Whether you call it home Army or Militia I care not. I do not think that proposition is vitiated by the fact that a man in the Lancashire Militia or the third battalion of a Lancashire regiment happens to have a comrade who is serving in a battalion which now exists in the Regular Army. Apart from that course, what course can be taken? When hon. Gentlemen speak about these things as if they had to do with counters and figures, I cannot help thinking it would be a good thing if they could see what happens in the depots. I will tell them what happens. I know depots all over the country where 50, 60, or 70 per cent. of the men go into the Militia simply for the purpose of passing into the Line and do pass into the Line. I know battalions where seven out of eight of the subaltern officers are serving in the Militia with the sole purpose of going into the Line. Hon. Members may say that is a mistake and very wrong, and ask for some encouragement and some system I which will enable us to stop that flow from the Militia. Are you going to prevent Militiamen going into the Line? Put up that notice outside the regimental depot. You will not get recruits for the Militia. Give some additional inducement to the Militiaman that will keep him in the Militia. You will lose instantantly 15,000 recruits per annum for the Line, and probably more — 20,000 recruits for the Line. Will any one get up and contest that? It is the inevitable result which must follow any treatment such as I have suggested.

  187
  Then we are told that we can by lengthening the training produce troops fit to take the field against a foreign army. Now is that a fact? What is the composition of the Militia? The boys are taken at seventeen. The other day I was analysing what would happen if you could take sixteen Militia battalions of the average strength of 800 apiece. I could not find them in any one district, but supposing I could, and supposing I had to send two divisions to India and had to deal with sixteen battalions of Militia. You would have to take out 5,400 men who are disqualified before the battalions start. That is out of sixteen battalions alone. That is not all. You cannot fill up the Militia battalions under the present system as you can the Line battalions. Every Line battalion leaves behind it, when it mobilises, a large number of men who are unfit for the field; but every month there are men coming on to qualify for service in the field in that battalion. That is not so in the Militia. When you eliminate the unfit men from the Militia battalion you have to wait one, two, three years before the men grow up to the modest age standard which we exact for the boys who are sent to India. No, I will submit this problem to as much cross-examination as the Committee chooses to apply to it, and I will abide by the result. I say you cannot, under the existing system, safely trust the fortunes of this country to the Militia, under their present organisation. I will ask the Committee, and the Militia Members of the Committee to meet me squarely and fairly on that point and tell me whether I am wrong I will ask them to produce to me some charm by which under the present system they can create a fighting force out of the Militia without injuring or almost destroying recruiting for the Line.
  It is said that we may do a great deal by increasing the period of training. I think in this matter at any rate, we shall have to be guided a little by military experience; and I will ask any hon. Member to produce to me a military authority who will agree with the proposition that we can put into the field against a foreign enemy men with five or six months training. Do not let us be deceived by the proposition that the mere efflux of time will enable us to
  188
  transform this material into really fighting material. All the great armies of the world are made up of men representing the manhood of the nations to which they belong; and if we analysed or examined the condition of our Militia battalions as they exist we should find that what was left in them, after they had furnished their quota of 60 or 70 per cent, of their strength to the Line, could not, even by the wildest stretch of imagination, be described as representing the manhood or the flower of this nation. I do not hesitate to say that there are Militia battalions which six months training, or a year or two years training, cannot so transmogrify or transform that they will become what they must become if they are to contend successfully with the flower of other nations.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northumberland took a very strong view about the Volunteers, and I think that in that instance, though in that alone, he did me some little injustice. I am an advocate and a strong advocate, of the reduction of the establishment of Volunteers; but I do not think he need attribute to me all those sinister motives or want of comprehension of our military dangers which he did attribute to me. I have evidence before me, ample, complete, convincing, not from those misguided, uninformed persons the officers of the Regular Army, not from stubborn uninformed civilians like myself, but from Volunteer officers and officers attached to Volunteer battalions, evidence which is irrefutable, as to the condition of the Volunteer battalions. I quoted to the House only a night or two ago a statement made by a Volunteer officer that out of the 20,000 Volunteers who selected, themselves and came forward in time of emergency for service in the field in South Africa—and I say all honour to them for so doing—33 per cent. were set aside as inefficient and incapable of serving. Now remember that that 33 per cent, has to be deducted not from the whole Volunteer force, but from the 20,000 men who had chosen themselves, presumably men free from all disability, to come forward and serve the country.
  *MR. McCRAE: From which district?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: From every part of the United Kingdom.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure about his figures? The figures of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for 1901 do not bear them out.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No. I gather from the statements that I have before me that the figures are not strong enough. I think they are understated. Thirty-three per cent. of these selected men were unfit to take the field. Now, when you take the remainder, and calculate those who by age are disqualified, those whose occupations naturally prevent them from going out, those who have no inclination to go, and those who, not having presented themselves, are also physically unfit, I think you may see what an enormous reduction we must make from this force if we are to make it a real, vital contribution to the defence of the country. My hon. friend doubted my figures, but I have before me evidence a great deal stronger than that. Here is the evidence given by Major-General McKinnon himself. Hs was asked—
  "Do you mean that of the men from the various battalions who came before you as being material to compose the C.I.V., 40 per cent, were not physically fit?"
  and he replied—
  "I mean that out of the number of Volunteers who were serving in the Home District in 1899 I do not think more than 60 per cent, were fit for service abroad; and I think that is, if anything, rather a high estimate."
  Then there was Captain Jenner, of the King's Royal Rifles and adjutant 3rd London Volunteer Rifle Corps. He was asked—
  "What percentage of your corps do you think should be weeded out—half?—No, I should not think quite half."
  "A third?—Certainly a third I should think."
  Then there was Colonel Mathias, commanding the 75th Regimental District at Aberdeen—but I ought not to quote him, because he is not a Volunteer officer. [Cries of "Quote."] Well, I will do so—
  "We have had it put before us that in a good many cases, due to youth, and also to want of physical fitness, a large number of Volunteers would have to be weeded out if you wanted
  190
  them to take the field?—Undoubtedly, in town corps."
  Brigadier-Surgeon Lieutenant-Colonel A. Clark, senior medical officer of the 3rd London Volunteer Infantry Brigade, representing the Volunteer Medical Association, was asked—
  "What sort of proportion do you suppose would crack up under these conditions (conditions of war)?—I daresay quite 40 per cent. would if you took all the Volunteers."
  I quoted the other day a well-known Volunteer officer who said that if a proper medical inspection had been applied whole battalions would have been wiped out.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Oh.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Well, I am very sorry I cannot always please my hon. and gallant friend. I have quoted these figures in justification of my view that it cannot be any disadvantage to the Volunteer force or to the country to make a great consolidation of the force. The right hon. Gentleman said that that is the same proportion as in the Regular Army.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said that if you reduced the numbers the same proportion of those who remained would probably be unfit—too young or too old.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: On the contrary; when you want to eliminate that class of recruits, in the first place you raise the standard, which we have done; and secondly, you eliminate those who, under a medical inspection, are found to be unfit. It is the fact that medical inspection is the rarest possible event after entry into the Volunteers.
  *MR. McCRAE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some proof of that? In every Volunteer regiment I know each man must undergo a medical examination before he is enlisted.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: As officer commanding a Volunteer regiment I have every recruit inspected by the medical officer. He has to fulfil the standard requirements before I take him into the corps.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is precisely my point. You get a very perfunctory examination in many cases, I am sorry to say. I am only stating what a multitude of witnesses have said; and they have said, if there is any meaning in their expressions at all, that so little value is this preliminary examination that when the forces are tested for the purposes of war you have to eliminate 30, 40, 50 per cent. of the men not of the whole force, but of the men who actually come forward and offer themselves.
  Now is it a fair thing to say that I am moved by any destructive spirit or regardless of the welfare either of the Volunteers or the country when I say that we may with advantage make some consolidation, some concentration of the Volunteer force? No, Sir, I think that is nonsense. I am not at all influenced by the hostile feeling which I know my hon. friend the Member for Sheffield thinks I entertain; but I do find that many Volunteer officers do not merely not altogether see eye to eye with him, but tell me that I must not regard him in this matter as wholly representative of the entire Volunteer force.
  I end where I began. [Cheers.] Yes, Sir, that is my point. I have not the slightest reason for altering the conclusion which I had already announced to the House; and my conclusion is this—that if you are to have an Army fit for the purposes of the only kind of war we are going to undertake you must provide that Army under the rules which govern all armies with regard to efficiency. You must make the men efficient. You must get the proper quality of men and give them a proper amount of training. It is not reasonable, when all is said and done, to keep up large bodies of troops in this country which are not by law available for war. It is no more profitable to keep up large bodies of troops in this country which, though nominally available for war, yet by reason of their physical incapacity or want of training cannot be produced in time of war. Lastly, I would say that if you are to have the economy which we all desire you will find it, I believe, only on the lines which I have indicated.
  I have been told that I suggested no economies. I think that is rather an ungrateful remark, because if hon.
  192
  Members would read the statement by which I prefaced the Estimates they would see that I have fulfilled to the letter the promise I gave that I would render it easier in future for economy to be effected. We are eliminating a large number of men from the Army, but you cannot get rid of them at once. We are replacing a large number of inefficient men by a smaller number of efficients. Broadly, you can only reduce the cost of the Army by reducing a portion of the Army to a lower establishment; and that is the final issue between hon. Members and myself. They are in favour of destroying a portion of the Regular Army and of relying instead on the Auxiliary Forces, without being willing to prepare those Auxiliary Forces in such a way as will enable them for all purposes to take the place of the troops of the Line. That is an opinion which I do not agree with, and which I have endeavoured to avoid in these proposals; and I wait for any serious? Proposal which will achieve the two results we all desire—maintenance of efficiency and economy—on other lines, than those I have suggested.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech touched on subjects of such importance to the future of the country that he would make no apology for hardly naming those with which he dealt in his concluding remarks. The Volunteers played in connection with this whole question of the Army a somewhat disproportionate part in the House. The cost of the Volunteers was small compared with the cost of the Regular Army, and whatever solution might be come to on the particular problem of the Volunteers would not greatly affect the difficulties of the Army question. The only observation which he would make with regard to the Volunteers was in reference to the word "consolidation." which the Secretary of State for War had twice repeated. That was a word which had a history. When Mr. Disraeli was reproached with having abandoned the Turkish Empire, and allowed it to be reduced in strength and territory, he employed the term "consolidation." Turkey lost Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, the boundaries of Servia were extended, and Greece

  193
  and Montenegro were enlarged, but Mr. Disraeli would never admit that the Turkish Empire had suffered anything but consolidation. The term "consolidation" when applied to the Volunteers, was used to represent a certain reduction in numbers. But he was not going to deal now with the question of the Volunteers.
  When the Secretary of State for War, basing himself on the views of the blue-water school, which had now been adopted by the Cabinet, expressed doubt as to the wisdom of the comparatively small expenditure incurred on account of the Volunteers an inconsistency could be noted which they remarked also last year, namely, that more Government support was now to be given to rifle clubs which consisted of persons who were not under military discipline at all. That was inconsistent with the doctrine of the blue-water school. In regard to that doctrine he entirely agreed with the greater portion of the speech of his hon. friend the Member for Oldham. The Government, with the zeal of converts, had carried the doctrine of the blue-water school further than ever before; and when the Secretary for War said on Wednesday last that this was a mere reversion to the doctrine of the past, he must remember that in the days of Pitt, and of our naval supremacy, the Government encouraged the Volunteers and raised between 300,000 and 400,000 of them. But the reason why he wished to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War concerned the most grave matter treated in the earlier portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. This was a matter which they ought to discuss with a feeling that they were dealing with that which lay at the root of the whole military problem.
  What struck him was a certain contradiction between the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman addressed to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that as regarded India, he was prepared to allow, with the right hon. Member for the Berwick Division of Northumberland. that recent circumstances had justified some relaxation in the efforts which hitherto we had been making; and the Secretary for War went on to tell the Committee two things.
  194
  One, which he twice repeated, was that we were to comply with the demands of the Government of India, and that was loudly cheered by the Secretary for India, who was not always so free in applauding the Secretary for War. And then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we would not want in the case of any future war on the Indian frontier a less force than was sent out to South Africa, and that that force should consist wholly, or nearly wholly, of troops trained to meet a foreign enemy. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that the Government were prepared to face the country with a demand for sending to India 300,000 or 350,000 trained soldiers? Where were they to put them? Whew were these trained soldiers to go to? Was the intention put before the Committee and the country a fear that some day a state of things would arise in India when a force of 300,000 to 350,000 men would be needed in that country itself to repulse an actual invasion? The Prime Minister last year rejected that idea; he said the problem was not the defence of India, but the defence of the frontier of Afghanistan. But no human creature imagined that any Power in the world could provide transport by which the deserts of Afghanistan could be crossed in such strength. That was agreed. And when the right hon. Gentleman talked of sending to India a force as large as was required in South Africa there must be something in the future—an imaginary state of things which had not come into our sight.
  The Secretary for War justified all the demands that might be made on our Regular forces by the Indian Government. The Indian Government, like all Governments dealing with only one portion of the Empire, having exclusive regard to the needs of that particular portion of the Empire, made demands on the Home Government which the Home Government, taking into view the conditions of the Empire as a whole, was unable to accept. For generations the Indian Government had been pointing out to us that Afghanistan might be attacked; and that it was difficult to fulfil our obligations to Afghanistan if we had to contemplate counterstroke against Russia on the spot by a Regular force sent

  195
  to Afghanistan. Were the Government contemplating a programme which no responsible soldier had said could be carried through successfully? It was not possible for this country to place upon the Russian frontier or in the neighbourhood of Herat a force superior to what Russia could bring. And he did not think that Russia would ever venture into such a hornet's nest, or if she did, this country would have a long time in which to prepare for action. When Indian soldiers had been seriously tackled on this subject; when the matter had been seriously discussed by competent persons, they had always admitted the impossibility of Russia crossing these deserts in the face of a hostile population unless she were accompanied by her railway, step by step. The suggestion of the Secretary for War that we should be prepared with a force larger than was sent to South Africa—a force of 300,000 or 350,000—for the defence of the Indian frontier was one which would not bear investigation for a single moment.
  He agreed very closely to everything said on this subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northumberland, except one single phrase. As he understood him, that right hon. Gentleman said that in India we must await attack. Now, he considered that that was to concede too much to those who argued against us on the other side, and admitted that we could not safely stand by and do nothing and see Afghanistan eaten up by Russia.
  SIR EDWARD GREYsaid that the right hon. Baronet was now dealing with the outbreak of a war. He thought he was speaking of the difference between the forward policy and the maintenance of the stutus quo as a policy before the outbreak of the war.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not now think there was any difference between the right hon. Baronet and himself. He thought it would be a fatal thing to divide Afghanistan with Russia. Our safety lay in the transport difficulties. And in "unofficial war" or by alliances undoubtedly we should be compelled to resist Russia before she reached that point. No sane soldier would say that
  196
  we could cross these Afghan deserts in the strength which had been mentioned. This matter was of enormous importance, because the Government vouched the Indian difficulty as the sole reason for measuring the strength of the Regular Army. His right hon. friend the Member for Northumberland said that although it was not the sole demand, it was the measure of the demand; and if we were to comply with the demand of the Indian Government in this respect we thus met all other demands. The Government presented different and inconsistent arguments to the Committee. When any suggestion was raised that it was possible to make any reduction in the force of the Regular Army at home the Indian difficulty was presented; but when any scheme wag presented to increase the availability of the Militia force then the Indian argument receded into the background. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War said that the Militia was a force not capable of being used against a European army in its present form; and the right hon. Gentleman disparaged the Swiss Militia army.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that what he had argued was that the Swiss army was not trained for foreign enterprises, but purely for home defence.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not wish to say anything in the way of disparagement of the Militia. It was of vast importance to this country that we should come as near as possible to an agreement with a view to the adoption of a well thought-out scheme. The Secretary for War—though he might not have intended to do it—seemed to disparage the Militia. The view on that side of the House was not uniform. He believed that the Militia in an improved form might be of great service abroad; but that an improved Militia should be barred from service in India was an admission he could not make. It had always been recognised that in the garrisons of the Indian stations a very large force could be liberated by troops not of the first order, and there were many on that side of the House who were prepared to support a scheme for improving the Militia not as a second

  197
  string to the War Secretary's bow for service abroad, but as the main portion of his territorial Army. In these debates in relation to India, he thought that nothing should be said to weaken our diplomacy by showing alarm. He could not but think that some of the things said last year in the House and in the Press had led to a pessimistic treatment of the problem which was not required by the circumstances of the case. The Indian danger had not increased, for it was admitted by the Secretary of State for War that there was ground for some relaxation from the efforts we had been making on the subject.
  He was very sorry to hear what had been said by an hon. Gentleman opposite in the military debate last week as to the defence of India being confided to the Asiatic troops of an ally. That was a suggestion which had been taken up by responsible and weighty organs in the Press. It was one which, having been made, should be repudiated. He had the greatest possible admiration for the magnificent courage displayed by the troops of the Japanese Army; and although he was opposed to permanent alliances, yet it must be admitted that the majority had either agreed in or acquiesced in the policy of an alliance with Japan. But in the peculiar problem we had to face in defence of India, for Heaven's sake, it should not go forth to the world that we were dependent upon an alliance with Japan. We should be dependent upon our own right arm, and India must be defended by ourselves. Pressure upon India was relaxing and was likely to be relaxed still more by the attack upon Russia by an allied country, and it was certain that no sane Government in Russia would run the enormous risk of plunging into a hornet's nest in Afghanistan for the chance of embarrassing us at so great a distance from her frontier. She would have to be prepared for any alliances that we might make, for a loss of credit entailed by such an operation, for the financial disaster which might be produced, and she would have to count in the future on the certain hostility of Afghanistan. Russia would have to count also upon our support of Afghanistan with money and officers, and it would be
  198
  sheer lunacy on the part of the directors of Russian policy if Russia were led to attempt an attack upon India through Afghanistan. In any case it must be a slow action, needing years to accomplish.
  No one could pretend that there was absolute agreement on both sides of the House among those who had given attention to this problem. He agreed with nine-tenths of what the hon. Member for Oldham had said, although he did not agree with him, that it was now possible to revert to the particular terms of military service which he had suggested in his speech. The clinging of many critics to what they called the Cardwell system was to be explained by the fact that it was a scientific and well thought-out policy. But it was now a humpty-dumpty, it had been knocked down and could not be set up again. The conditions had been changed by the South African War, by the rates of pay which had affected recruiting, and they had been essentially changed by the general recognition by the Government and the country of what might be called the doctrines of the blue-water school. On the other hand, it should be remembered that it was an essential position of the Cardwell plan to take the Militia completely into account. Lord Cardwell did so, and in the degree that this force had not been taken into account by the present military authorities they had departed from the Cardwell plan. The Secretary for War had developed in his speech the doctrines of the blue-water school to the ultimate degree, and it was a little hard upon those who were not very nimble in these matters that two years ago the Government should be scolding them because they held and enforced the same doctrines which the Government were now pushing almost to an extreme. Personally he had been a constant supporter of the blue-water view for many years, though he had never alleged that it followed they should reject such service as was obtained from the Volunteers at home. They ought to try to adopt in a higher or less degree the doctrine of the blue-water school, and he did not concur with those who desired to put in a saving clause against it. It was certainly curious that the Government had adopted the

  199
  extreme view of that school within the last year or fifteen months, after having wasted enormous sums of public money on the opposite view during the last fifteen or twenty years. Indeed, the Government had adopted the blue-water view at the moment when a little doubt was being thrown upon it by the doctrines of scientific men. There was no doubt that ten years ago, when many of them were pressing the Government on this matter, the possibility of patrol of the Channel in time of war was much more complete than it would be in the future. There could be no doubt that for men who took great risks, the changes of the last few years had gone rather against the blue-water school view. He was, however, glad that the Government had adopted this view, although they had adopted it a little late in the day.
  He said that he attached importance to the Militia, and to the Volunteers a more indirect importance, inasmuch as the Volunteer force encouraged the patriotic spirit in providing individual men who might be expected to volunteer in time of war. Although he would not undertake a vast expenditure upon the Volunteers, he thought that in that way they did make a return for the expenditure made upon them. With regard to the Militia, he believed they might be improved and made the basis of our home force. He confessed that he was unable to follow what was the state of mind of the Government on the Militia question. On February 21st, in the House of Lords, the Under-Secretary stated that no decision had been come to as to the future organisation of the Militia and that the question was still open. Two days afterwards the Secretary for War said his policy continued to be to ally a portion of the Regular Army with the Militia as the territorial Army of this country. The view that was generally taken on that side was not so much that the Militia should be so allied, but that they should make that force the basis of the home territorial Army. It was natural, at all event, that they should try to do so, since the Militia had those territorial associations which it was desired to create in the artificial scheme for the Home Army which had been evolved. The Secretary for War, in maintaining
  200
  the view that only Regular troops should be considered as cadres for war, told them that no great Power would put into the field men trained for less than five or six months; yet undoubtedly that had been done by the Japanese in the present war in the Far East, and it was done by the Prussians in 1870. He fully admitted the importance of esprit de corps and territorial feeling in such cases, and he maintained that they would get a higher degree of that feeling in the Militia than in any newly created territorial battalions
  It was unfortunate that year after year Army Estimates were made which were provisional, Estimates which admittedly would involve us in large waste. For years past these provisional Estimates had been presented, and the expenditure had increased and the promises of reductions had not been kept. The Secretary of State now put his pledge of reductions a little less high than the Committee would be likely to put it. Last year he understood the Secretary of State for War to take up and reaffirm that promise of reduction; on the other hand, these provisional Estimates had involved large waste, which could not be and was not denied. The House was in this position—that it had no very definite scheme before it now, and that even if a change of Government took place, provisional Estimates would be introduced again next year, it being impossible for a fresh scheme to be prepared so soon. And yet there were being decided matters of policy which involved great changes in the Estimates, whether provisional or not, and marked the waste which had occurred. Some of those were matters which had been mentioned already; he would refer only to the change which the full adoption of the view of the blue-water school had made in regard to expenditure upon fortifications—bricks and mortar. Up to this year the country had been spending enormous sums of money upon garrison artillery and the protection, of places by fortifications which were now to be forthwith abandoned. One reduction which the Government had decided upon, and the House of Commons as a whole accepted, was a large diminution of the garrison artillery. It was said that there were far too many garrison artillery. But the garrison artillery had been

  201
  increased constantly within the last few years.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Who said there were far too many garrison artillery?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he understood the Secretary of State to say that he intended to reduce the Militia regiments of garrison artillery. Those Militia regiments had to be considered as equivalent to regiments of Regular garrison artillery, as they were used for the defence of fortresses.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that the bulk of Regular garrison artillery were maintained for service abroad, while the Militia garrison artillery were solely for the purposes of defence at home. That was a very marked difference.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid a large amount of the reduction must apply to fortresses abroad, because the whole of the fortresses in the West Indies were being abandoned.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that that represented a very small reduction in numbers.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that at any rate it was very large in expenditure. The Government had admitted that in military expenditure alone, under the Military Works Acts now running—and there had been enormous naval expenditure, as well as expenditure out of Votes—£400,000 had been spent upon four only of those stations within the last few years. At St. Lucia alone over £133,000 had been spent in the last three years out of Military Works Acts alone and the Naval Expenditure at St. Lucia in the last few years had been over half a million sterling. The garrison was now withdrawn. This sudden change of policy was not one accompanied by a change of Government; it had been made under the auspices of the same Cabinet Committee of Defence, and the questions had been considered by the same joint body of the Army and the Navy, under the presidency of the same Prime Minister.
  202
  The sudden change was a complete reversal of a system whish had involved the country in enormous expenditure during the last three or four years.
  Let the House consider how unsatisfactory was its position, and how provisional these Estimates were. At the time of the general election, during the war, it was universally admitted that the Army was in a most unsatisfactory condition; that view was confirmed by the Report of the War Commission, and by the admissions of two Secretaries of State for War and two Commanders-in-Chief. Revolutions were promised. A change was made, involving considerable cost. A second change followed. All the time the Estimates were wholly provisional. Since the last general election there had not been presented to the House Military Estimates containing anything that was not provisional, or anything in the nature of a complete and well thought-out system. Those who, like himself, agreed in many points with the Secretary of State for War, and who were prepared to give him the highest praise for the energy and ability of the attempt he had made to improve the system, were bound to admit that—whether the right hon. Gentleman had been thwarted by the Cabinet or the Army Council they did not know; whatever the difficulty had been, it was not the House of Commons—they were again faced with Estimates as provisional as were those of last year, and the Secretary of State now declared that in eight or nine months he would begin to take the steps necessary for getting a different system, which meant that the Estimates next year would also be provisional.
  What had been the defence of the Government when their attention had been directed to these constant changes and the consequent waste. In another place a few days ago, when it was pointed out that enormous sums had been spent under the system now to be abandoned, the Under-Secretary of State for War said he—
  "Fancied it was part of a scheme of military and naval policy."
  So that this large expenditure had been incurred right up to the present year upon a supposed military

  203
  and naval policy, upon the very opposite of which the House was now asked to embark by the same Prime Minister and the same Committee of Defence. He had made these observations mainly because he felt certain that the arguments of the Secretary of State for War upon the Indian problem were the most important the Government were likely to adduce, that on them were based the requirements as to the number of men in the Regular Army, and that they would not bear investigation by the House. He hoped the Prime Minister would be pressed in the course of the debate to show how he reconciled the proposals now made with the arguments he adduced last year on the Indian problem. Personally he believed the Indian danger was enormously exaggerated on that occasion for the purposes of the debate, though he fully admitted that if they were to be guided only by the opinion of Indian experts and of the Commander-in-Chief in India they would always be asked for far more troops than it was possible or necessary for this country to provide. The question could not be decided by expert Indian opinion; it must be determined here on its merits. The Prime Minister must be asked to discuss the conditions of the problem and to show where was the suddenness of the need. He certainly preferred the admission of the Secretary of State to-day that there was a decrease in the urgency of that problem to the alarmist view put before the House last year by the Prime Minister.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that with regard to the Volunteers he agreed with the Secretary of State for War that it was absurd to obtain enormous numbers of men, a considerable proportion of whom were known to be efficient only on paper, and at the same time to starve the Volunteers in regard to matters which were admitted on all hands to be necessary to render them efficient as a fighting force. As to the statement that in the days of Pitt the Volunteer force was enormously strengthened, and that that was the time of our greatest naval supremacy, he pointed out that our naval supremacy was not reached until after the Battle of Trafalgar, when Pitt
  204
  was almost on his deathbed. Invasion had been threatened all through Pitt's career, and it was owing to that threat that the Volunteers were so enormously increased.
  With regard to the Indian danger, he thought the right hon. Baronet's view was far too optimistic. What Russia was doing in Manchuria was enormously more difficult than anything she would have to do if she attempted to invade India. In recent years Russia had made an enormous advance into Central Asia, and established herself there in immense strength. The "soft side" of Afghanistan could be invaded by Russia at any moment without any really serious opposition being possible on the part of the Afghans themselves. If an attack were made on India by Russia it was clear that an enormous number of troops would be required, both on the frontier and in India itself. 350,000 men might not be wanted all at once, but to keep up what would undoubtedly be a long and costly war great numbers of men would be required, and he agreed with the Secretary of State that that possible demand must be contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman's scheme was to provide an Army for service abroad, and by a short-service Army at home to turn into the Reserves numbers of really trained men, who would be available if any such demand arose. It would be impossible for us to await the attack on the Indian side of the passes into Afghanistan; a forward policy would have to be adopted, and the only way in which such an attack could be successfully met would be on the Candahar line. It should be remembered that India might be invaded also by the Persian route, and that in Persia Russia had obtained a predominant position. When all these things were taken into account he could not understand the attitude of the right hon. Baronet in looking upon the invasion of India by Russia as a dream and a delusion. He only hoped that no responsible Minister would ever take so optimistic a view; to do so would be to court the gravest disaster.
  With regard to the Militia, he was one of those who believed that the

  205
  original scheme put forward by the Secretary of State for War was the best. General Turner was often quoted as a great authority upon matters connected with the Volunteers and the Militia, and he had given it as his deliberate opinion, after studying the scheme put forward originally by the Secretary of State for War, that the sixty battalions to be constructed out of the Militia would be worth the whole of the existing force put together. He deplored the change and regretted that the original scheme had not been adopted. With regard to the improvements, if the Secretary of State's scheme was to be rejected then it was clear that, judging from the views that had been expressed by everyone who gave evidence on this question, the Militia must be improved. They were all agreed upon that point. He had never heard how the Militia was to be improved. The six months training, if that were adopted, would be sure to have a marked effect upon recruiting for the Militia. Were they going to get them to enlist for six months? He did not know where they would get the men, but if they did they would be setting up a competitive enlistment with the Line. He thought the first thing they should do was to make the Regular Army as efficient as possible, and not set up any competitive enlistment. If the Militia kept improving upon these lines, and could be got to come up for six months training, by all means let it be done, but he doubted whether it would be found possible to adopt that scheme.
  He joined with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in congratulating the Secretary for War upon the many improvements he had made, and upon the many good ideas he had put forward in his various schemes. The Secretary of State for War seemed to be placed in the position of talking very much for himself, and they knew from his writings what his views were. He confessed, however, that he should be glad to know what were the views of the Prime Minister and the Government upon this important question.
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid the entire course of this debate went to prove that the Government had trifled
  206
  in the most barefaced manner with this House and the country in the matter of Army reform. At the time of the South African War they were asked to have a little patience until the Government had got over some of the difficulties with which they were surrounded at that time. Some time elapsed, and then a scheme of Army reform was brought forward which provided for three Array Corps for service abroad and three Army Corps for the defence of this country. That scheme was thrown aside, and then the Government gladly adopted what had been called the blue-water theory. He belonged to the blue-water school, but not to the blue-water school run mad, which was what was being placed before the House at the present moment. They were told that there was no object in keeping any force in this country for the purposes of defence. He would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he meant that, in the event of there being any complications such as had been referred to in India or elsewhere, there was any guarantee that in the event of a portion of our Navy being employed convoying troops to India or elsewhere they could rely absolutely upon all the navies of Europe taking no advantage of the position in which this country would then be placed. The idea was ridiculous.
  He wished to draw attention to what they were promised. He would like to ask would the present Government have been the Government of the country to-day if a few years ago they had told the people that at this period the Secretary of State for War would have brought forward Estimates not only as large but larger than ever they had been before in time of peace; and coupled with that they would have a reduction of the Army. The present Secretary of State for War a year ago published a Memorandum and what were the main points of it. Upon the very first page he said that his duty was to provide a remedy for the evils that existed; not a remedy for one, but for all the evils complained of, and for excessive expenditure as well. Had he carried out those proposals? The next thing he put before them in the same circular was the great desirability of providing employment for the men after they were discharged. The

  207
  right hon. Gentleman said that one of the great difficulties of enlisting men for a long period of service was that of finding employment for them upon their discharge. He had told them that it was most desirable that every man enlisting for a long term of service should be practically certain of employment at the end of that term provided there was nothing against his character. The right hon. Gentleman also called their attention to the value of professional officers in time of war, and to the scarcity of junior officers.
  What had he done to meet those requirements? In regard to junior officers he had met the difficulty by what he would venture to call the snobbery and jobbery methods of offering commissions in the Foot Guards and cavalry of the Line to any young men who happened to come forward, without any educational test whatever, providing they had a certain yearly income. That was what he had laid down as being vital to achieve this reform in the Army. His proposals this year included a proposal to reduce the Army immediately by some 7,000 men, and at the close of the year to reduce it by no fewer than twenty battalions, or 17,000 men, which meant an economy of about £180,000 out of £29,000,000; and they had to submit to this paltry economy in order to be deprived of twenty battalions of the Regular Army. He told them that the Militia was practically useless unless it had longer training and a larger number of trained officers, but notwithstanding that he took the full amount of money in the Estimates; the right hon. Gentleman had made no provision for that longer training or for remedying the scarcity of officers. While showing by these Estimates that there was only a reduction of £180,000, he showed at the same time that we were short of quick-firing guns to such an extent that an adequate supply would not be forthcoming until the year 1908. He also showed in the same paragraph that the reserve of artillery was almost infinitesimal and was far below what it should be, namely, at least 20 per cent. The conclusion of the second Report would be utterly delightful and ridiculous if it wore not so serious, for it wound up with an apology, showing
  208
  that what he had led the House to expect last year they were not to have this year and that it was all in abeyance. They were to save a sum of £180,000 and spend £29,000,000 and this after the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to a substantial reform. He had told them that the following were to be held in abeyance:—The addition of Reserve officers, short-service battalions, the creation of nineteen additional territorial units, the territorialising of the short-service battalions, and even the creation of this much talked of striking force. In other words he told them that all he advocated last year and upon which the country to some extent must have relied was to be left in abeyance. He ventured to assert that if the right hon. Gentleman last year had told the House and the country that the Estimates for this year would be just as large as last year; that they would have 17,000 men less; and that coupled with this state of things they would be destitute of quick-firing guns and without a sufficient supply of the most modern rifles, and in fact be in a worse position than they had been in for the past ten years as a fighting force, he did not think the Government would have been occupying the Treasury Bench to-day.
  The right hon. Gentleman began his speech some days ago by stating that complaint might be made that he was not going fast enough. Their complaint was that he was not going at all, and that he had not carried out any of the propositions which he laid down last year. He had done this in the face of the words he had just read, in which the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself to economy and stated that he would not stand at that box if he thought in any future year he would be obliged to bring forward such formidable Estimates. He used words to thate ffect, and he said the other day that he was not pledged to large expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman thought of a change in our military system, but what was that change? He had seen no change in the military system and he saw nothing he had done, with the exception, of some very simple practical Departmental improvements. There had been some slight improvement in the Army Medical Department and in the Army Veterinary Department. He had handed over the

  209
  aquatic defences of our ports to the Navy, and some fortresses to the Canadian Government, but outside these very small measures he saw no very broad change in our military policy. True, the right hon. Gentleman put changes before the country and led the people to believe that they were going to be carried out, but as for making any change in the military system, or any reduction of the Estimates worthy of the name, nothing of the kind had taken place.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he had six Armies to deal with, and how had he dealt with them. The first was the British Army in India, and he would tell the House how the Army in India had been dealt with. He made no attack upon the Secretary of State for War in this matter, for he only regarded him as the mouthpiece of the present Government. The Government had succeeded in placing the British Army in India in the very worst position which it had ever occupied. Last year some 4,000 or 5,000 men went out as reliefs who were altogether unfitted for the task, for they were men who were physically unfit, and who in years were immature. At the present moment the class of men serving in the Army in India were constantly to the extent of 25 per cent, in hospital. He ventured to assert that in the event of that Army being required to be placed upon the Afghan frontier another 25 per cent. would certainly vanish before they could be placed in that position. That was what the Government had done for the British Army in India. As for the Home Army, the right hon. Gentleman had reduced it by 17,000. With reference to the Militia the result of his action was to injure that force most materially. [An HON. MEMBER: How?] He would give the hon. Member the words used by the Director-General of Recruiting, who knew something about this? He asserted that a large number of recruits joined the Militia solely with the intention of going into the Line; that this had done much to popularise the service, and that the process no doubt would continue.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: What have I done in the matter?
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he would tell the right hon. Gentleman if he would exercise a little patience. The right hon. Gentleman had held a sword over the Militia. He had told them that they were absolutely worthless. How could any commanding officer take an interest in his regiment if he was told that the Militia were absolutely useless and that they ought to be abolished? The Militia was really the very best recruiting ground we had for the Army. It was known that out of a strength of 90,000 they took some 35,000 recruits annually, and of these 15,000 passed into the Army. These men could never have been obtained for the Army if the Militia had not trained and fed them and given them time to mature.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: An enormous majority never go to the Militia at all.
  *CAPTAIN NORTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell me that the Militia does not give to the Regular service 15,000 recruits annually?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, sir. The hon. Gentleman said that the Militia fed and trained them. A very large proportion never go into the Militia at all. They never see a Militia regiment or officer. They go straight into the Army from the depôt in thousands.
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he was well aware that a large proportion of men did not go into the Militia, but he maintained that a large number did go into that force. They served two or three years in the Militia, and, having attained a certain standard of physique, a very large number of men came from the various Militia regiments to the Line who otherwise could never be taken into the Line. Did the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I know that in some cases 60 or 70 per cent. of the men enlisted for the Militia at the depot go straight into the Line.
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid he did not deny that a large proportion went direct, but having some knowledge of

  211
  this matter he maintained that a large number of the men year by year passed out of the Militia into the Line after one, two, or three years service. He had not the slightest doubt on that matter.
  As to the Volunteers he thought the Committee, as a whole, were undoubtedly not in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals to reduce the Volunteer force, because it was the only school of arms we possessed. The Report of the Director of Auxiliary Forces clearly proved that the Volunteers, even though they might contain a large number of men who were not up to the requisite standard, did tend to foster the military spirit of the country and enabled us to get a greater proportion of recruits than we should otherwise obtain.
  The right hon. Gentleman had asked if anyone would sweep away any portion of his work. This Government had never attempted to attack the real question. After all, the real question which lay at the basis of Army reform was the question of recruiting and providing the men. That was the difficulty that had confronted us in the South African War and in the Crimean War. That was the difficulty with which we, not having conscription, had always had to deal. How had it been dealt with? One good thing had been done in this direction, namely, that the men had been obliged to furnish certificates of character before being taken into the service. The Inspector-General of Recruiting stated that there was unanimity of opinion that this had resulted in raising the tone of the Army and popularising it with the better class of the population. What had taken place? False characters were produced by the thousand and the recruiting authorities had brought this to the knowledge of the Government. A Bill had been prepared in order that the danger and difficulty in regard to characters might be dealt with. But the Government last session were too much engaged in desiring to jump on Russian Jews, who took refuge in this country, to pass that measure through the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the recruiting of the Foot Guards was satisfactory. The Report of the Inspector-General said it was unsatisfactory. Moreover, the
  212
  more they departed from the proposal to take nine-years men, and the more they reverted to the original proposal of taking three-years men, the greater difficulty there would be in the recruiting of the Guards. The present infantry had been kept up to strength mainly because other branches of the service, owing to the South African War, were above their strength, and because the labour market being in a bad state, the unfortunate man, who from, starvation was obliged to enlist, had no option but to enlist in the infantry of the Line.
  The question of civilian employment was a thing which the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself in his circular to attend to. The right hon. Gentleman said it was a matter of supreme importance. The report of the Inspector-General said—
  "In connection with this subject it will be observed that only nine appointments have been filled during the year in Government offices outside the War Office."
  That showed a material diminution in the number of ex-soldiers employed in Departments under the Government. He was well aware that a certain number of men were employed in the Post Office. He exonerated the authorities for not taking a large number of ex-soldiers in the Post Office for the reason that the duties had become highly technical and that it was not possible to employ them very much except in the position of auxiliary postmen.
  Referring to what had recently been done with regard to the Highland Light Infantry the hon. Member said he had often heard the Secretary of State for War lay stress on prestige, bands, banners, and uniforms, and yet the Government went out of its way to flout the traditions of that part of the country which had furnished some of the finest soldiers who ever shouldered a rifle, and to insult the sentiment of the people by dissociating the Highland Light Infantry from the rest of the Highland Brigade.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there had been no change whatever propose in the Highland Light Infantry.
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid his point was that the Highland Light Infantry had

  213
  been permanently grouped with other regiments to which they were not allied.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. Member was under an entire misapprehension, The Highland Light Infantry were associated for administrative purposes with other infantry regiments in the Lowlands, but they were not now brigaded with Lowland regiments.
  *CAPTAIN NORTONsaid that as far as his information went, this peculiarly Highland regiment was being grouped with Lowlanders; that it was contrary to their sentiment, and would do damage in the future to recruiting. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was leaving a soft place for his successor; but he agreed with the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean that, so far from its being a soft place, it would be one of exceeding difficulty. What the Committee had a right to demand was that something should be done, and that the promises the right hon. Gentleman made a year ago to this House and the country should be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that when he came into office he found that the Army was a danger to the State and that the Estimates were excessive. What had he done to make the Army a less danger to the State, or to introduce economies in Army expenditure?
  *COLONEL WELBYsaid that when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War brought in his scheme last year he wished it every success; although he could not see the application of it to the military possibilities of this country. Since then, however, there had been a very great change in the policy of the Government. In reply to Questions, and in speeches in the House, the Government had shown that they had adopted the blue-water school theory in its entirety. He did not himself see how the blue-water theory was compatible with what he regarded as the principal part of the scheme of last year—that was, the separation of the Regular Army into two parts: one for foreign service and the other for home service. If they adopted the blue-water theory they no longer wanted troops for the defence of this country. He disagreed
  214
  with the blue-water theory in its extreme form, because, carried out to its logical conclusion, they did not even want Volunteers. He believed that that would be a great misfortune, for the Volunteers had been an exceedingly useful recruiting ground, as was shown in the late war, and it was probable that in future, in the event of war, there would be a still greater response from the Volunteers. In addition to that, it appeared to him that the Volunteers encouraged the military spirit in this country; the brought, out the fighting spirit of 'the race, and had co-ordinated and organised it. It was that military spirit which had carried us through recent campaigns. The country was fond of going to sleep over military matters and then waking with a start; Volunteers were a valuable protection against recurrent panics. If there was not a strong and sufficient force for home defence when we were engaged in a war with a foreign nation, our Fleet would be constantly on guard round our shores; and everyone who had studied naval strategy knew that it was sometimes necessary to concentrate the Fleet at a particular point to strike some important blow. The theory of a raid by 5,000 men was a mere theory and might be upset, as nothing happened so often in warfare as the unexpected.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War gave two reasons for adopting the theory of the blue-water school. The first was that the Navy was nearly double the strength of a few years ago, which was a weighty reason, and the second was that the whole of sea warfare had been revolutionised during the present campaign in the Far East. But what had occurred in the campaign in the Far East tended to show the uncertainty of naval defence. He had recently spoken to a naval officer of high rank and had asked whether that gentleman thought our Navy could have done better than the Japanese Navy in the present war, and his reply was—
  "I believe they would have done as well, but they would have lost more ships because they are bolder and have more ships than the Japanese, and can therefore more easily risk losses of ships than the Japanese can."
  All these things pointed to the fact that sea warfare had become more

  215
  difficult than it had been in the past. There was more danger in the future that some disaster would overtake the ships guarding our shores, and such a thing might throw open the waterway, if not for more than two or three days, sufficiently long for a strong force to be passed over from some Continental country, in which case there would be an invasion of this country, perhaps by many more than 5,000 men.
  This uncertainty as to military affairs was not only unsatisfactory to the House of Commons, but it must be a great difficulty to the Army Council. A change of Minister there or of the Ministry might result in the policy which was now adumbrated being entirely changed. How, then, could the Army Council threw their heart into their work at the present time when they did not know what policy would be required of them in the future. Everything pointed to the fact that this question ought to be lifted out of the range of Party politics, and that a scheme ought to be arrived at between the two great Parties in the State which should be lasting in its character.
  Much had been said about the shrinkage of the Volunteers. Now no one who had the welfare of the Volunteers at heart would for a moment regret that reasonable conditions as to physique and training should be imposed in order to make the force efficient for modern warfare. Every soldier felt that the more efficient a force was, even though it shrank in numbers, the more valuable it became. But it was a mistake to announce that the Volunteer force was going to be reduced by so many thousands of men. The great difficulty with regard to the Volunteers defending this country lay in the stiffening of that force, in the backbone of it. The right hon. Gentleman said that its backbone was the Home Army, but nobody knew whether the Home Army would be here or whether it would be ordered abroad. What was required was to go thoroughly into the system of our Army, to take the numbers as we could get them and set to work to organise them, and when that was done and they were fitted for the requirements of modern warfare any deficiencies of the scheme should be
  216
  boldly put before the House and country in order that they might see whether anything could be done to improve it. He thought it would then be found that the Home Army would require stiffening. In early days our Army had not to repel invasion, but to serve in the wars against France. There were then two ways of raising an Army, one was by means of contractors, which we should never adopt now though we had contractor for almost everything, and the other system was by an apportionment of men to the different counties and towns of this country. He could not see why a force of 100,000 men should not be raised by an apportionment of men from every county and town. If a town or a county could not find the men required of them then a fine of, say £100 per man might be inflicted on them, so that the Government could find a man elsewhere. But whatever the force might be it should be thoroughly trained. A man should be trained for two or three years, when he should pass into the Reserve. He should be resident in his own county or the military district to which he belonged. He could then be called out like an ordinary Reservist, but he should be paid an amount sufficient to enable him to live in the district, or he might be employed by the county or the town to which he belonged. By such a system as that there would be no difficulty in retaining the voluntary character of the Army, and a force would be obtained for home defence sufficiently strong to enable the Navy to feel that they could be spared from these shores for days, if necessary.
  With regard to the shortage of officers, which was stated to be one of our pressing needs, the right hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire said one of the difficulties in procuring officers was the size of the College at Sandhurst. and that in time could be overcome. He understood that the two years course had now been reduced to one, but he hoped in that one they would not attempt to cram in all the book knowledge that should be acquired in two. He had known many cases of young officers who had joined his regiment who were book stale, and the consequence was they would never look at a book until they had

  217
  to prepare for another examination. As regarded the cavalry, the right hon. Gentleman had done a great deal to reduce the expenses in certain directions, but he was afraid that in many cases the expenses had gone up. The fact was that the standard of life all round had risen. But there was one direction in which he thought a considerable diminution in cavalry expenses might be effected. It was an unpopular thing to suggest, but he thought military polo tournaments were a source of very great expense. It was only necessary to think of the price of polo ponies to realise what an item polo must represent to cavalry officers. In regard to the Foot Guards, it was often forgotten that the officers used to have long periods of leave really as part of their pay. It was impossible for a subaltern in London to live on his regimentalpay. Many men with private means used to go into the Foot Guards, and used their terms of leave to manage their own private estates. It might be argued that such men were not wanted in the Army, but no regiments ever fought better than the Foot Guards officered by these men, and he thought it might seriously be considered whether men having private responsibilities at home could not be granted longer leave. Another matter was as to the stations at which regiments were stationed. The fact of having four battalions of Foot Guards permanently at Aldershot might affect the class of officers who joined the regiments. Why should not the old system have been kept up, under which the Guards were stationed at London, Windsor, and Dublin? It would probably benefit recruiting if a battalion of the Foot Guards were quartered in Edinburgh. At any rate the system of quartering a number of battalions away from the Metropolis and the cities specially identified with the Sovereign was worthy of consideration. As regards the Militia it seemed to him a question of pay or position; if they could not restore the force to the place it held 100 years ago in public estimation, when young men sought it for position, they must increase the pay. As regards Volunteers, he hoped they would arrange so that all cost of equipment and training should be borne by the State and not by the officers, so that whatever pay an officer received it
  218
  should be a real emolument, and that he should not receive 5s. and perhaps pay out £1.
  *MR. CHARLES. HOBHOUSEsaid that if, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, the Militia were of such poor physique that it was impossible to send them abroad, he would like to know for what purpose the Militia Bill, making service abroad compulsory, was to be introduced. As to the Indian question, there had been a failure to point out that in every case the pretensions of Russia as to her strength at this or that particular point had been a long way in advance of the facts of the case. In Manchuria the Russian battalions were exaggerated by the Russian Press to double their actual size and much of the success of the Japanese had been due to the fact that they had not allowed themselves to be bluffed by the assertions of the Russian Press. In the same way he thought that if we allowed ourselves to be frightened by the bug-bear of Russian strength on the Indian frontier, we might have to make preparations for which there was no real necessity.
  The right hon. Gentleman had declared that what had been said in this debate was moderate and fair in tone, and he trusted that he would not say anything which would depart in any way from that standard of moderation and fairness. He wished, however, to point out that the question of expense, so far as it had been brought to their notice in the Estimates, and in the Memorandum which accompanied the Estimates, had not been debated as closely as it might have been. The proposal before the House was to reduce the Estimates by £1,000,000. The Secretary of State for War had declared that the present Estimates were abnormal. He said there were special items and peculiar circumstances which made this year an impossible one to have a normal Estimate. What were those special items and those peculiar circumstances? As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Oldham, the Secretary of State for War had had the advantage of an enormous accretion of appropriations-in-aid which he could never hope to get in subsequent years. Those appropriations took off his shoulders the greater part of

  219
  the burden laid upon him by the cost of the new guns. The special items to which he referred were not special in anything but name. He remembered that on the first page of the Memorandum he used the word "special" eight times. It was almost as frequent as the use of the first person singular. He confessed that he had been unable to detect any items which were really special. The right hon. Gentleman said that the cost of guns and harness was special, and that no part of this expenditure ought, in his opinion, to be brought into the charge for this year. He seemed to forget that harness and guns were liable to a good deal of injury by wear, and therefore he ought to have added something to meet this depreciation. Then he ruled out of account as a special item all the expenditure in connection with loans. Why? The loans had increased in past years, they had increased this year, and they must increase in the future.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERdissented.
  *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but this year he was going to spend a large sum of money upon Salisbury Plain and £3,370,000 upon loans. He was aware that he had got £6,500,000 unexpended out of the barracks and permanent works loan which was going to be expended in the future. The sinking fund for the loans would not diminish, but increase, and there was a possibility of the sum which should be devoted to the sinking fund being still further reduced. What would happen if all these sums were included? They ought to include a sinking fund charge for the artillery and a larger sum for the repayment of loans; and they also ought to include a large sum in consequence of these extraordinary appropriations-in-aid. If they did this the consequence would be that the nominal decrease would not be a decrease at all, but an increase of the normal expenditure, unless the whole system was changed, and this increase would be nearly £500,000.
  The right hon. Gentleman had said that the only way to reduce expenditure was to reduce the numbers, but he could not agree with that argument. They might have saved £10,000 upon
  220
  clothing, and £10,000 upon ranges which had been first built and afterwards abandoned as useless. They might also have saved this year a very considerable sum in moving half a battalion of troops from Malta to Egpyt, because, first of all, they reduced the establishment of troops in that country below the establishment which ought to have been maintained. In this particular case the establishment fell below the proper numbers, and to make it up they had to send out units to make good the requirements of the Egyptian Government. Those were instances which with better administration would have diminished expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that a large number of the men were useless for the purpose for which they had been enlisted, and the whole of the remedies he had promised last year, with one exception, remained unfulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman on the 11th of December last said—
  "If my scheme is in abeyance I will not remain an hour in my present position, but my hopes are as bright as ever."
  What did he now say in this Memorandum. He said that those parts of last year's proposals which were dependent upon the creation of short-service battalions must necessarily be in abeyance. It seemed to him that there was a most extraordinary coincidence in this. The Secretary of State for War in speech and in writing had twice used the word "abeyance." He said he would resign if these reforms remained in abeyance, and then he went on to point out that the whole of his scheme was practically in abeyance. What were the essential parts of his scheme? He would take them from the Memorandum itself. He said the short service battalions were essential to his scheme and they were in abeyance. He said they must have an addition of Reserve officers; that was also in abeyance. He also said that they must create nineteen additional battalions and that proposal was left in abeyance. And lastly, he declared that there must be a territorialising of the short-service battalions and the creation of a striking force, and both those proposals were in abeyance. What part of this scheme was it which was not in abeyance? He confessed that he found it impossible to give an answer to that, and he believed

  221
  the right hon. Gentleman could not answer it across the floor of the House. They might be told that the long-service enlistment was not in abeyance, but that, and that only, was the one part of his scheme which had been realised, and this had only come about in order to make good a deficiency with which the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to do, and for which he was in no way responsible. He did not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too hardly to make good his undertaking and fulfil his promises to the House, but they were told the other night by the Colonial Secretary that men of honour redeemed their bond. The Secretary of State for War gave them his pledge a year ago, and six months ago, to do certain things if certain hopes which he held were not fulfilled. Those hopes were not fulfilled, and the Army, from his point of view, was so much the worse in consequence; and therefore, they had a right to ask him to redeem his promises, and if he did not do so the only person to whom they could go for a fit and proper definition of his conduct was the Colonial Secretary, and they must in future treat the right hon. Gentleman as a person who had been dismissed from serious calculations with regard to statements of this kind. But there were other things quite apart from the personal conduct of the right hon. Gentleman which were more important, because when the right hon. Gentleman had gone they would abide.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS) BILL [BY ORDER].
  *MR. WHITMOREsaid he rose to move the Instruction standing in his name, which was to omit from the London County Council's Bill that portion of the tramways which started east of Westminster Bridge, traversed
  222
  Westminster Bridge and the Embankment, and then crossed over Blackfriars Bridge. He expressed his regret at having to speak again on this well-worn subject, but made no apology for so doing because that apology should come not from him but from those who continued to propose these Bills. He and those who supported him only asked the House to reaffirm a decision at which they had arrived on more than one previous occasion, whilst those who opposed the Instruction asked the House to cancel the vote it had previously given. In 1892 and 1898 similar Bills promoted by the London County Council were rejected by the House of Commons, and in the present Parliament in 1903 and 1904 similar proposals were rejected by majorities of twenty-eight and thirty-eight. On this occasion no new facts had come before the House to cause it to reconsider its previous decisions. He based his appeal to the House to reject the proposals of the London County Council on the considered Report of a Joint Committee which sat to consider the question of London traffic in 1891, and which reported that a street tramway was not the best way of dealing with this problem, the solution of which was to be found in shallow under-street tramways and in tube railways. He and those who thought with him also attached considerable importance to the fact that subsequent to that time different railway companies had taken powers to construct tubes to connect up different parts of London.
  He repudiated the suggestion that those who opposed this Bill were opposed to easy, cheap, and direct means of communication between the industrial population of the South and the industrial population of the North of London. It was because, in his opinion, this Bill would not have that effect that he opposed it. At this moment a tube railway was approaching completion which would commence at Waterloo, close to the Elephant and Castle, and run thence to Charing Cross and northwards to Baker Street. In addition, there was a tube in course of construction running between Charing Cross and King's Cross, whilst there was a railway in operation running from the South of

  223
  London through Black friars northward. Together these railways would give the industrial population very cheap, direct, and quick communication between various parts of London, similar Bill was rejected last year on the grounds that the Traffic Commission appointed at the instigation of hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the question of London traffic had not reported That Commission had not reported up to this time, and that being so how could the House sanction the construction of those tramways before they knew the deliberate and considered view of that Commission. He did not think any hon. Gentleman who consulted a map of London would say that the best means of bringing the industrial population of the South into communication with the industrial population of the North of London was by a tramway over Westminster Bridge and down the Embankment to Blackfriars Bridge. Surely the best way would be by a tube under the Thames or a tramway over a bridge less distant from the working-class population than Westminster.
  He appealed also to the artistic sense of the House. London was gradually becoming a city of beauty and the centre of its beauty must always lie, from historic and artistic causes, largely in the region between the towers of Westminster and the dome of St. Paul's. Through, that region ran our great river in so devious a course, that it was impossible to obtain direct arterial communication along its banks. By a curious accident that much derided body the Metropolitan Board of Works built on the side of the river a worthy Embankment; while the action of that House had lined the Embankment with gardens of much charm. If one place was to be picked out in any part of London into which should not be thrust unnecessarily an alien stream of continuous and heavy traffic it would be this region. He therefore appealed to hon. Gentlemen opposite who had a proper sense of the dignity of Central London to join with him in saying that until proof had been given that it was absolutely necessary that this alien traffic should go on to the Embankment they would oppose the Bill. He begged to move.
  *SIR FREDERICK BANBURY, in seconding the Instruction, said he did not propose to base his arguments for opposing the London County Council's Bill upon artistic, but upon practical grounds. There was no violent hurry for this measure. We had gone along for many years without having a tramway on the Embankment, and before such a work was proceeded with it was only commonsense to allow the Royal Commission, which had been sitting now for two years, and which would in all probability deliver its Report in a few months, to report. The only conclusion he could come to as to the reason for this Bill being pressed was that hon. Gentlemen opposite were afraid that the Report of the Commission would not be favourable to them. There was no great demand for these trams down the Embankment. There had not been any omnibus traffic on the Embankment for the last thirty years. In two or three months we were going to have a line of steamers on the river upon which the London County Council were going to spend £350,000, and now they proposed to spend a large sum of money in laying down a line of trams on the Embankment to compete with their own steamers. At the same time there was a railway under the Embankment which would shortly be electrified. It was not a project which business men would undertake, and he could only assume hat the London County Council, having the ratepayers behind them, and without considering to what extent they were spending the ratepayers' money, having been beaten for the last ten or twelve years had determined to bring this Bill in every year. This was a different Bill to that brought in in the previous year. That did not propose to run down the whole of the Embankment but to stop it the Savoy, and it might be argued that it would meet the tramway running underground from the Savoy to Holborn, but, even so, that tramway was not completed and there was no hurry on that score. There was no omnibus traffic down he Embankment and had not been for thirty years, and though there might be certain amount of traffic over the bridge it only meant that those who now got ff the tram on the south side of the ridge would get off on the north side;

  225
  they would not be able to continue their journey any further practically than they could at present.
  The police evidence before the Royal Commission was very strong; they pointed out that if the trams were carried over Blackfriars Bridge into the City the congestion of traffic would be so great that it would be impossible to carry the traffic on. With regard to the congestion of traffic, he pointed out that a tram could not deviate from the fixed line, and that if it broke down congestion was at once caused. Then people who wanted to ride on a tram had to go into the middle of the road, which again necessitated a stoppage of the traffic. Then the laying down of a tramway took a considerable time, during which the road was impassable and everyone was put to inconvenience, if they were to allow the tramway to pass over the bridge the whole of the roadway would be taken up in order to put down the line. Let anybody who wished to go to Liverpool Street from the House consider what that would mean and what the state of the road would be for the next six months. He had always said and believed that if the Royal Commission reported in favour of such a scheme as this all opposition would cease. In his opinion that, in itself, was a very strong argument in favour of the instruction.
  Before he sat down he wanted to make a small personal statement. In opposing these tramway schemes he had no personal object to gain of any sort or kind. He had been represented in the Star as driving down the Embankment in a fur coat in a motor-car; he could only say he never had a fur coat and never owned a motor-car. When he travelled down the Embankment he was usually on the Underground Railway or on foot, though he sometimes drove his own horse. He believed the line when made would not be used, that it would cost a great deal of money, that it would create congestion, that it was quite unnecessary, and that the agitation in its favour had only been got up for a political purpose.
  Motion made, and question proposed, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the London County Council
  226
  (Tramways) Bill to omit Tramway No.1, Tramway No.1a, Tramway No.2, and Tramway No. 2a."—(Mr. Whitmore.)
  MR. CAUSTONsaid he seldom troubled the House by making a speech, but as he had the honour to represent a South London constituency much interested in this matter he desired to make an urgent appeal to hon. Members to reject this Instruction and to pass the Bill. The proposal before the House was somewhat different to that which had been rejected in the previous year, because this included the crossing of Blackfriars Bridge, which was not in-included in the other Bill. He contended that at this time of driving competition London could not be turned into a pure pleasure and playground. The Embankment was built with the money of the ratepayers of London as a whole, and the ratepayers as a whole had a right to look upon the Thames Embankment as a road to be used for the benefit of the public at large. It was not constructed for the benefit of those of the North alone. He agreed with the hon. Member in saying he would like to see the Thames Embankment left the picturesque thoroughfare it was from the artistic point of view, but this House could not make London a beautiful place without regard to its commercial wants. The Embankment, it must be remembered, was not built with the money of private individuals for their own special luxury. The hon. Member had spoken of tubes, and had also stated that the London County Council were providing steamboats and now wanted to compete with them by means of these electric trams. Such a suggestion was absolutely absurd. The necessity for this Bill was shown by the fact that in four hours in the afternoon 930 persons went over Blackfriars Bridge in omnibuses and found the trams on the other side, and that in the same period no less than 30,000 found their way across the bridge to the trams on the south side. It must be remembered that those 30,000 people who went home in the evening came back in the morning to their work. All that was asked by the Bill was that there should be a continuation of those trams over the bridge and down the Embankment. They would do no harm to the omnibuses or motor omnibuses which had been referred to.

  227
  The proposal was a very simple one and he hoped it would receive the support of the House.
  An objection which had been raised to the Bill in times gone by had been that a Royal Commission was sitting. He looked upon a Royal Commission sitting as a blocking notice to any sort of measure of reform or matter of progress brought before the House. Reference was made in the petition in favour of the Bill to the necessity for a continuous route. All the South London boroughs had petitioned in favour of the Bill with the exception of Bermondsey, and several town's meetings presided over by the mayors of the respective boroughs had been held at which resolutions were passed unanimously in support of it. The hon. Member for East Islington who opposed the Bill last year was now prepared to waive his objection. There were very few persons who as frontagers had a right to oppose this measure. He thought that as a matter of fact the frontagers on the Thames Embankment would be greatly benefited by the proposed tramway, because it would afford great accommodation to everybody who wishe o go to the West End. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons objected to the tramway because of the noise which would be caused, but he wished to know if they preferred the noise of a motor omnibus to that of a comparatively quiet tramcar. He hoped the House would look at this question from a practical business point of view, and not merely as though the Embankment were only a place of ornament. The ratepayers were entitled to the use of the Embankment, and he asked the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, where the details could be fully considered.
  MR. COHENsaid that he intended to vote against the Instruction, notwithstanding the fact that he had voted in its favour on a previous occasion. He had never opposed the tramways on the Embankment because he thought that they would be ugly; on the contrary, he thought that they would be attractive looking. But he was not willing any longer to be influenced by the only consideration which prevented his supporting the tramways in past years—namely,
  228
  the long-promised Report of the London Traffic Commission. He did not believe that Report when it did appear would bring absolute salvation to the London people. The Commission had been listening to some exceedingly interesting evidence, and it seemed to him that that evidence had so fogged their minds that they were unable to present a Report with the conclusions at which they had arrived. He thought the argument with respect to motor omnibuses which had been advanced was the most slender that could be brought against the proposed tramway. Were they going along the Embankment when no other omnibuses had ever attempted to carry traffic there? The ordinary omnibuses had hitherto avoided that thoroughfare. In this matter they should rely not so much on prejudice as upon reason and argument. It seemed to him that the Thames Embankment was of all thoroughfares most adapted for a tramway to be laid down, and to prohibit it was to pursue a course which was neither intelligible nor intelligent.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid the hon. Member for Chelsea who moved the Instruction wanted to know why it was that this proposal was renewed, and also whether there were any new facts which had not been brought forward on previous occasions. His answer to that was that nearly all the previous projects of the County Council had been fragmentary, and open to the objection that they had termini and dead ends which this particular scheme had not. Another additional fact was that the London Road Car Company had issued a circular begging the House of Commons not to authorise a tramway over Westminster Bridge. He did not think the hon. Member for Chelsea would attach much importance to the circular of a rival company with which they had been bombarded. One of the circulars against the scheme came from a seedsman at Inverness, and Messrs. Tilling, the omnibus proprietors, were opposing the Bill because the construction of the proposed tramway might affect their pecuniary interest. Another letter was from a firm of upholsterers in Tottenham Court Road. They opposed the tramway on the broad ground that it might lead to a tramway in that

  229
  thoroughfare. These were new facts—the objections were all interested and prejudiced, because the objectors had a pecuniary interest in opposing the tramway over Westminster Bridge. The hon. Member for Chelsea had asked the House to remember that four years ago a Joint-Committee recommended tubes as against tramways. The hon. Member should know that tubes as a means of communication were not so popular as they had been, and if he wanted corroboration of that he should go to the Stock Exchange and ask whether they were as anxious to promote tube schemes now as they were five or six years ago. They were neither popular nor healthy, and commercially they were not likely to be so successful in the future as the promoters said they would be. Neither tube railways nor motor omnibuses were so cheap, so clean, or so speedy as electric tramways. An under-river passage was not possible, it would cost a million of money, and it would mean a dip from Kennington-lane to the Gaiety Theatre or Southampton-row.
  He could understand objection on aesthetic grounds if these tramways were to be iron monstrosities like the New York elevated railway; but the cars would be worked on the conduit system, they would be inoffensive in appearance, advertisements being altogether dispensed with. Motor omnibuses were longer and wider than the tramcars, and were dearer and dirtier. [Cries of "Why?"] Meet three motor omnibuses on a hot day in July and smell them. This tramway would not compete with the steamboats, and, if the House sanctioned the scheme, the tramways at Westminster Bridge could be connected with the tramways at Blackfriars Bridge very speedily. The hon. Member had dragged in Vauxhall Bridge. The answer to what he said on that subject was that the County Council did not build Vauxhall Bridge. He believed that the contractors were so hampered by the Thames Conservancy that they lost many thousands of pounds in carrying out the work. All sections of the London County Council were in favour of this scheme; the City, which was formerly very hostile, had only rejected it by one vote, all the London borough councils were in favour of it, and in fifteen days 110,000 signatures
  230
  had been obtained to a petition in favour of the scheme. If the tramways were brought over the bridges and a circular route was formed, the crushing that now went on at the terminus on the Surrey side of Westminster Bridge would be avoided. Westminster Bridge was wide enough—86ft. between the parapets—and the width of the Embankment varied from 80ft. to 110ft. Colonel Yorke had said in his evidence before the Commission that it seemed to him that the Embankment was a route eminently suitable for tramway traffic. There was less reason for opposing a tramway over Blackfriars Bridge, because fewer omnibuses went over it. 232 omnibuses passed over Westminster Bridge, whereas only 160 passed over Blackfriars Bridge. They believed that if they had only a circular route they would be able to avoid the crushing at the termini at both bridges, while much greater facilities would be given to the other traffic.
  It was said, Why not wait for the motor 'buses? but motor 'buses were more noisy and much dearer than electric trams, and by moving all over the road they were an inconvenience to passing traffic. Mr. Robertson had given evidence that the working expenses of the electric trams was 6d. per mile, while the motor 'buses cost 1s. per mile for working expenses. He went to the motor exhibition and was very much interested in it. He wanted to buy a car for the Fire Brigade Committee. There were three of them on the job—they never did these things singly, or on War Office lines—and the motor-car which they tested cost in working expenses elevenpence halfpenny to one shilling per mile. Besides, the life of a motor 'bus was not more than two years, while that of an electric tram car was fourteen years. Therefore, on the ground of economy, the electric car held the field against the motor-bus. There were nine bridges which served twelve square miles of territory with 1,000,000 of population; and that 1,000,000 of population was denied all access from north to south. The result was that London, from a housing point of view, was becoming lop-sided. By a complete system of electric tramways the unequal distribution of population in congested districts would be equalised. He appealed to hon.

  231
  Members to allow the tramways to go over both the bridges and to have regard and consideration for the interests of the poorest of the poor, who would be most convenienced if the proposal of the Bill were adopted.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down made the extraordinary statement that all the local authorities in London were in favour of these tramways.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid that what he had stated was that no borough council had petitioned against the Bill.
  *MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid they had not petitioned against the Bill, because the London County Council opposed their locus standi. He rose mainly for the purpose of informing the House that the Council of the City of Westminster, which was the only district directly affected by this tramway, was strongly and unanimously opposed to the proposal. That was a state of things which should not be lost sight of; and too great importance ought not to be given to such statements as had been made by the hon. Member for Battersea. He did not propose to follow that hon. Member into the smaller questions he had raised. He ventured to urge the House to look at this matter from the point of view of two broad issues. First, for the House to take this matter out of the hands of the Royal Commission on London Traffic and to settle the most important part of the question which had been committed to their consideration would be an absolute negation of the whole functions of a Royal Commission. That Commission had been considering this question most impartially, had taken a great quantity of evidence, and was on the eve of reporting; and yet this was the moment which the London County Council had chosen to forestall the decision of the Commission by committing the House to a plan to-day which might be found to be an anachronism to-morrow. Secondly, a new method of locomotion had been introduced since the Traffic Commission had been sitting. He did not think the House would accuse him of
  232
  being over-partial to motor-cars, but he held that the development of the motor omnibus, long waited for, had an important bearing on the question of London traffic. Those who looked for a solution of the difficulties of locomotion in London to a combination of tubes for long distances and omnibuses for short distances were fortified in their views by the invention of the motor omnibus, which moved as quickly as a tramway car, was manipulated with greater ease to the traffic, and did not involve the expenditure of the ratepayers' capital. This system of motor omnibuses would not place the locomotion of London or the vast field of employment which it involved in the hands of a central authority, but would leave it open to private competition. He supported the Instruction.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said he wished to make an appeal to the House to come to an early decision on the subject. There was an unofficial understanding between Members interested in the Bill that the division should be taken as soon after ten o'clock as possible.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid he wished to add one word in confirmation of the statement of the right hon. Baronet. Although he had no official connection with the matter it was distinctly understood that there should be a division about this time. The Leader of the House would remember that when that day was first allocated to Army Estimates, a strong feeling was expressed that the time should not be eaten into too much by other business.
  SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEwho spoke amid loud and persistent cries of "Divide," said he objected to the proposal to carry the tramway across Blackfriars Bridge, and he thought it would have been more in consonance with what was right and proper if the County Council had first permitted the Report of the Royal Commission on Traffic in London to see daylight.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 171. (Division List No. 100.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

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

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

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

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Graham, Henry Robert

  O'Dowd, John

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Hamilton Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Heath, SirJames (Staffords. NW

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Purvis, Robert

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Helder, Augustus

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Randles, John S.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

  Bill, Charles

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bingham, Lord

  Hoult, Joseph

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bond, Edward

  Howard John (Kent, Faversham

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

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

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Robinson, Brooke

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hunt, Rowland

  Roche, John

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Bull, William James

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Butcher, John George

  Keswick, William

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopfore-

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Chapman, Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sheehy, David

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

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

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Lowe, Francis William

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lowther, Rt. Hn. J W (Cum. Penr.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Cullinan, J.

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tuff, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Denny, Colonel

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Tumour, Viscount

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Doughty, Sir George

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Malcolm, Ian

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

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

  Ffrench, Peter

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Moore, William

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Younger, William

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

  Mount, William Arthur

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Muntz, Sir Phillip A.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Galloway, William Johnson.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Mr. Whitmore and Sir

  Garfit, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Frederick Banbury.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Black, Alexander William

  Allen, Charles P.

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Blake, Edward

  Asher, Alexander

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Boland, John

  Brand, Hon. Arthur G.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  O'Malley, William

  Brigg, John

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Harwood, George

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Rea, Russell

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Burns, John

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

  Caldwell, James

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cameron, Robert

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Roberts, John H (Denbighs.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Cawley, Frederick

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Rose, Charles Day

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Runciman, Walter

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Johnson, John

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

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

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Joyce, Michael

  Shackleton, David James

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lamont, Norman

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sinclair, John (Farfarshire)

  Crombie, John William

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Crooks, William

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Davies M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Spencer Rt. Hn. C. R. (Northants

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Levy, Maurice

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Sullivan, Donal

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Lloyd-George, David

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lough, Thomas

  Tennant, Harold John

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lundon, W.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

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

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Thomas David Alfred (Merthyr

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Evans Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  M'Crae, George

  Ure, Alexander

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Kean, John

  Vincent, Col. Sir C. EH (Sheffield

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Wallace, Robert

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

  M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Findlay Alexander (Lanark, NE

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  White, George (Norfolk)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

  Gardner, Ernest

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

  Gilhooly, James

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

  Woodhouse, Sir JT. (Huddersfd

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Young, Samuel

  Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Grant, Corry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Benn and Dr. Macnamara.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  MR. SPEAKER: In the circumstances, in order that this matter may be disposed of by a Committee, and to give the House another opportunity of dealing with it and settling it in a more decisive manner, I shall give my vote for the ''Noes."

  SUPPLY [3RD ALLOTTED DAY].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,101,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army (including Army Reserve) at Home and Abroad (exclusive of India), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,101,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Swift MacNeill.)
  *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that there were two points to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee—one had already been touched upon, and the other was new. The alterations in the organisation of the War Office to which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn attention were not really due to the initiative of the Secretary for War, to the activity of the Department, or even to the Government itself. They were due to certain Committees appointed by the Government. He did not mean to say that all the decisions of the Committees were wrong, but he did urge that no Government ought to resort to legislation by means of Committees outside their own body, as to whose composition the House was largely ignorant, of whose opinions they knew nothing, and whose proceedings were carried on in secret. He did not believe that that method was in harmony with past history. The Cardwell reforms were drawn up by Mr. Cardwell himself and considered by the Government; and he thought it would have been more to the credit of this Government if their scheme had been due to the Government and not to a Committee. It was to be noticed that in all his statements the Secretary of State far War had abandoned a certain amount of direction and control which, so for as could be judged, was now taken by a secret Committee of three, with whose names and persons the public were not familiar. The first four were really changes of name, such as had been effected hundreds of times by the War Office without attracting particular attention, while the last eight were concerned with work which used to be done in the Military Secretary's Department without fuss or bother, and carrying with it no really important or responsible duties such as would justify the prominent place given to the changes in the Memorandum.
  With regard to the blue-water theory, the view of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State was very definite—viz., that invasion was an impossibility and raids were not a serious source of anxiety. The acceptance of such a theory would justify, and ought to be accompanied by, far greater changes than the Secretary of State had proposed either this year or last.
  238
  But it was merely the expansion of a doctrine, never before accepted by a Government, though held by various Members for the last five years. In 1901, when the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth advocated the theory, the Prime Minister said his view was the logical conclusion of the extreme naval school, and that if it was correct we were bound to disband the Militia, to cease giving subventions to the Volunteers, and not to trouble our heads about garrisoning any of our fortresses. Every one of those proposals had now been made by the Secretary of State for War, and he did not think that such changes ought to be made upon the ipse dixit of a Defence Committee, of the composition of which the House was largely ignorant. The Defence Committee was responsible neither to the House nor, necessarily, to the Government. It appeared to be nothing more than a private Committee of the Prime Minister's, to which he summoned or from which he excluded whom he pleased. Admiral Fisher and Sir G. Clarke were the two men who brought the Committee into existence, and, in the words of their own Report, it was—
  "A provision for obtaining the expert advice required for shaping national policy."
  If, therefore, the other members depended upon expert advice, the two gentlemen who created the Committee also guided its decisions, and upon their advice the House was asked to accept the view that in future the blue-water theory was absolutely to control the military and naval policy of the country, although doubt was creeping into the minds even of advocates of that theory whether the policy could be sustained in its entirety. There was no recorded expert opinion, either military or naval, to be found in support of the extreme blue-water theory, but, on the other hand, there were some tolerably recent examples of naval operations which might be held to modify, if not to destroy, it. He was not arguing against a strong, efficient, and sufficient Navy. He was afraid that hardly enough stress was laid upon the sufficiency as apart from the efficiency of the Navy, The blue-water theory must rest upon rather the relative than the positive

  239
  strength, of the Navy; it must be sufficient to meet any possible naval combination that was likely to be presented against it. There were instances of the successful evasion of a superior naval force, the most notable case being that of the carrying of 35,000 troops in 300 transports from Toulon to Malta, and thence to Egypt, in the face of a far larger squadron commanded by Nelson. Japan had recently furnished other instances, while in the manœuvres two years ago the blockaded squadron in the Ionian Islands successfully evaded the blockading forces which were superior in number, and efficiency, and was not sighted until the two Fleets arrived at the appointed rendezvous five days later. But the most recent illustration was afforded by the Dogger Bank incident. The whole of the British Fleets were absent from the Narrow Seas, and, at the very time when the Prime Minister was defying the Russian nation with far greater courage than he had ever shown towards the Tariff Reform League, the Russian fleet was in command of the Narrow Seas, and for three days could have done anything it liked. Surely that showed that invasion was something less than an impossibility.
  It was not known what British military opinion generally was upon the point, but, so far as he had been able to gather, it was opposed to the extreme blue-water theory, as it could not accept the view that invasion was an impossibility. The chances of success might be only one in a thousand or even in ten thousand, but an unsuccessful resistance of that one chance would be so absolutely fatal to the existence of the Empire that no possible means of defence ought to be neglected. He hoped that before they unreservedly committed themselves to this theory the House of Commons would remember that there were arguments on the other side, that the theory was new, and that it could not possibly be put into operation until it was too late to correct any mistakes that might arise in carrying it to its logical conclusion. The experience of many able and distinguished men was against the extreme theory. ["Name."] The Duke of Wellington, for instance.
  240
  [A laugh.] Did the right hon. Gentleman laugh at the Duke of Wellington?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that he certainly did laugh at the name of the Duke of Wellington being mentioned in this connection.
  *MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEdid not think the views of the Duke of Wellington should be laughed at simply because in his days steam power had not applied. The advantages of naval attack was certainly as great to-day as they were then. Steam, if it had revolutionised defence, had also revolutionised attack, and the events of the Russo-Japanese War had shown that, properly conducted, the attack was as powerful as ever. Another authority he might quote was Captain Mahan, who agreed with and emphasised the theory of Napoleon that the invasion of this country was possible.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Will the hon. Gentleman refer me to the passage?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he would endeavour to send it to the right hon. Gentleman; he had been most careful to verify his authorities.
  In conclusion he would point out that the scheme of 1901 was dead; although some traces of it remained in the accounts; the scheme of 1902 was dead and buried; and the scheme of 1904 was in its death throes. The scheme of 1905, so far as anything was known of it, provided relief, but no reserves for India; it did not provide sufficient garrison for the colonial fortresses; it diminished the number of auxiliaries at home, and it increased the cost of the Army as it existed. The House were told that the War Office was to cost less and to be more efficient. As a matter of fact, more officers than ever were there employed, at a, greater cost of £57,000. Last year there was a lack of agreement but no lack of loyalty on the part of the Army Council; this year it was doubtful whether there was either agreement or loyalty. There could not be loyalty without confidence, and co-operation without something like harmony was impossible. The Council was

  241
  said to be divided into water-tight compartments, which suggested cast-iron doors devised to cut off communications and to prevent that interchange of views which was absolutely essential to keep the ship of State going. All the changes which had been introduced by the Secretary of State in Army organisation seemed to him to have reacted to the disadvantage of the regimental officer and the private soldier, the two classes to whom the country was most indebted in the last war.
  *MR. REGINALD LUCASdesired to impress on his right hon. friend the extreme difficulty under which the Militia suffered as to the uncertainty of their destiny. It was manifestly impossible to get officers to go into the Militia when they felt that all their work and the expense they would incur might be absolutely thrown away next year. It was imperative that they should know as soon as possible whether they were to be ended or mended. He did not deny that the right hon. Gentleman had considerable force behind him in the Report of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission when he spoke of the shortcomings of the Militia. But if there was to be a civilian service at all, it could not be demanded of them that they should always be able to do what Regular soldiers did. Militia officers usually had some private duties to attend to, and they did not pretend to be all that a Regular officer was. Militiamen could not be as fully efficient or as fully trained as Regular soldiers; the whole point was that if there was to be a civilian Army at all every encouragement should be given them to make themselves as efficient as they could. The proposals with regard to territorial regiments would not put the Militia officer in the same position as before; the conditions would be altogether different. He believed that if proper encouragement was given the Militia would show as much enthusiasm and zeal as could possibly be derived from any force outside the Regular Army. If they were given the opportunity of making the Militia efficient, of setting their house in order, he thought the country would have nothing to complain of in respect of that force.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is really something absurd in the fact that the House of Commons, which represents, or ought to represent, the country, is still, after more than four years, groping about to find the Army scheme of the Government. We have had several different schemes since 1900. The Secretary for India had a great recasting of the Army which we were told would make us all perfectly safe. Last year we had a new Minister installed in the War Office, a new War Office created; all the chief officials of experience, military and civil, were summarily got rid of; and yet, although these occurrences had occurred, and one would naturally expect that a little time would be required before a solid conclusion was arrived at, the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who is something of a quick-change artist, to adopt a phrase in use in certain places of amusement, was ready after a few weeks with a cut-and-dried scheme. But, unfortunately, we could get no satisfaction on the important point whether that scheme was approved by his colleagues. The Cabinet was absorbed in the investigation of the problem of our military requirements, and we were left in considerable doubt, and remain in doubt to this day, whether the scheme is to be made to suit the requirements or the requirements to be adapted to suit the scheme. We have had a factor introduced into the matter which evidently is of the first importance—namely, the great question of the North-West Indian frontier, and this is held over us to close our mouths if we venture to ask anything about the size or constitution of the Army—very much as that dreadful thing Home Rule is being held over the world in general political matters.
  Last year we had avowedly provisional Estimates furnished; this year we looked for something more solid, but they are provisional Estimates again. The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech explaining those Estimates, said a great deal of himself and a good deal of his successor, whoever he may be, but nothing, or very little, at any rate, of His Majesty's Govenment. But last Thursday something happened to which we have grown accustomed of late years. Communications were vouchsafed to another place which were

  243
  denied to the House of Commons, and the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a speech which throws more light upon the policy of the Government than anything we have heard in this House for the last eighteen months. There are two great questions at issue upon which the whole matter turns. There is the question of the Militia and the question of the terms of service, the constitution, of the infantry of the Line. Now, I think it is so desirable that the House of Commons should have a direct opportunity of learning what the policy of the Government is that I will read what Lord Lansdowne said. He was talking of the necessity of arresting military expenditure, and he said—
  "We have, then, to consider from that point of view what is the proper place of the Militia, and I am glad to believe that in the opinion of most of us"—
  "most of us" is a curious phrase—
  "the proper place of the Militia is that it should form a part of that Army which in time of peace remains at home, but which in times of national emergency shall be available for use in the field beyond the limits of these islands. I have no doubt that if my right hon. colleague had these data to work upon he would have been justified in doing what I believe in his original proposal he desired to recommend to Parliament—
  note the curiously detached way in which one colleague speaks of another; he "believes" that it was his intention to propose to Parliament:
  "that he would have preferred that the Militia should be merged in the short-service Army of which we have spoken in these debates. But sentiment counts for a good deal in these questions, and it became obvious to us"—
  that I suppose again is the whole Government, including the Whips—
  "that a measure of that kind would have done great violence to the sentiment of a force which we greatly honour and which commands the esteem of the country. Therefore we propose that the Militia should retain its identity and that it should not be merged in the short-service Army, but that, on the other hand, it should be so framed, so equipped, and so officered, that it should be fit when occasion arises to take its place alongside the best troops of the Line for the purposes of foreign service. The noble Marquess expressed his objection to accepting these proposals with regard to the Militia until we have disclosed the whole of our scheme of Army reform. We have made no mystery of the great outline of that scheme."
  244
  Well, there was great mystery made in the House of Commons.
  "They were explained last year by the Secretary of State."
  No, not as the opinions of the Government, but as the opinions of the Secretary of State, which is not quite the same thing.
  "They have been set forth again in the Memorandum of the Army Estimates, and they have been more fully gone into in the Commons in the last two or three days. I thought it was well understood that the Army proposals contemplated the creation of a long-service Army, recruited for a term of nine years with the colours and three with the Reserve, liable at all times for service abroad, and that, on the other hand, there should be a short-service Army with a period of two years with the colours and six years with the Reserve, available for service abroad only in time of emergency. That is the broad basis of the new scheme."
  Well, let us look at this new scheme now that we hear what it is. Let me speak first of the Militia. His Majesty's Government, as this shows us, have been oscillating between two extreme opinions. It is either obliterate the Militia, or exalt them. It recalls to me a friend of mine, a colleague in this House many years ago, who paid great attention to the thorny question which is still before us of the liquor traffic, and he said to me—
  "I have devoted many years study to this question, and I have come to the conclusion that there are only two things to do. One would be total suppression, the other free trade in drink, and I do not care, which of the two you adopt."
  Well, that was recalled to me by this incident. You must either obliterate the Militia, because there is no use talking of a Militia if you make a Militia regiment a mere Reserve-creating machine, such as was proposed in the original scheme of the right hon. Gentleman—it is no longer the Militia as we know it, or as it knows itself; it may be something else very much better, but it is something altogether different; and I do not call that maintaining the Militia in existence at all. Then we have the proposals made, in which, of course, we all agree, that it should be improved in its character and strength and efficiency.
  This tendency to go from one extreme to another is also discernible in what the right hon. Gentleman

  245
  has said as to the view of the Government in regard to what is called the blue-water policy—the dinghy policy. The dinghy theory points straight to one thing and one thing only—namely, that we need not maintain any land forces whatever in these islands. But, on the other hand, if we do not accept the dinghy theory, then we are told, "You have nothing before you but conscription. You must have compulsory service of some sort if you reject this theory, and have any regard for the safety of these islands." I belong to a humbler school—what I venture to call the silver-streak school. It is quite good enough for me, and it has been good enough for this country for a great many years, as it may well continue to be. I am not afraid of the conquest of these islands; but I cannot get rid of the idea that there may be in some circumstances a partial invasion, or what is known as a raid; and to say that not even a dinghy can land on our shores is nothing less than an absurdity. On the other hand, I think that we ought to make full use of and never leave out of our minds the advantages which this country possesses from its insular position, while at the same time we ought not to exaggerate them. But to talk of compulsory service in this country is to imply that we are to come down from the vantage ground that we possess to the unfortunate position of our Continental neighbours with hostile Powers on every side. As to this Militia proposal that was before the House of Lords, I will not enter upon that now. But I associate myself with the objection that was made against dealing with the Militia in this piecemeal fashion; and I think we should know more before we alter the conditions of service in the Militia, because, for one thing, we do not know what calamitous effect upon the recruiting of the Militia these alterations of service may have.
  Now I pass to the question of the two Armies. I am opposed to two Armies; and I heard with much pleasure the statement of his views by my hon. friend the Member for Oldham, who pointed out that this question of having two separate Armies under separate conditions had been before Government after
  246
  Government, statesman after statesman, and soldier after soldier, and until recently had been rejected by them all. We are to have a short-service Army with only two years service, and then the men are to be passed into the Reserve; and this Army is not to leave our shores. Where is now the material for the operation of that part of the system? It is postponed, we are told; but I should like to know when to, and whether completely or only in part. What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was that there should be thirty-three battalions of Militia—that was all the Militia he wished to maintain—retained for this purpose, and thirty-eight battalions of the Line, which were to be converted into mere machinery for this purpose. The Government have been frightened out of the Militia part of the scheme. So we are left with only thirty-eight Line battalions to be treated in this manner. What sort of battalions will these be? They will not be part of the Regular Army. They will not be able to support and maintain and relieve the Army abroad. They will be isolated. They will be maintained merely for the purpose of breeding Reserves. As a friend of mine from India said to-day, the Army will be like a swarm of bees—part working bees and the rest mere drones. What will be the number of these Reserves? The right hon. Gentleman is now short of about half his material, and how will he fare for his full number? The old Reserve has been shown to be 6,000 short of the number required to fill up the establishment to war strength. These are figures that I have not seen contradicted. The right hon. Gentleman will, I daresay, contradict them, but they have been before the public now for a long time and have not been contradicted. The right hon. Gentleman takes a strong view about the Reserves. He denies that that can be called a Reserve which is only a force for completing the first Line. He says that the Reserve is meant for filling up and reinforcing the first Line later on. But his Reserve was 6,000 men short even of the first purpose. How much more short will it be when the Militia part of the Reserve is dropped? What will be their quality? They have two years training, they will have no experience of general service, no

  247
  training with a regiment, they will be merely a mob of recruits, and they will be exceedingly young when in the service, as they have to be enlisted at eighteen years of age.
  I do not enter into the question of officers, because I do not understand how it is to be arranged, but I will point out a peculiar thing. Here is the right hon. Gentleman, who is the apostle of esprit de corps. He has declaimed against the double-battalion system because it destroys esprit de corps. But if a man or officer is transferred from one battalion to another of a regiment wearing the same uniform and called by the same name this esprit de corps is destroyed; and here he is to have these Reserves freed from any regimental attachment altogether, and the regimental continuity is destroyed and the local associations are lost, as far as I understand. Is it wise to break up the solidarity and interchangeability of the Army and constitute it into two parts—one deprived of that training and efficiency that comes from varied service and varied experience in foreign stations? On this part we have mainly to depend for our Reserves.
  Now, I turn to the other part of the Army, what is called the foreign or long-service part. Each battalion of it will be eighteen years abroad and six years at home. They will be localised in trying climates. It has always been considered most objectionable to put our gallant countrymen to this use. I remember well in the early days of the seventies, when all these questions were being considered and settled at the War Office, that the question largely turned on this point of the health of our men abroad. We all remember the case of the Presidency troops in India. They were in one sense a splendid body of troops, but their discipline came to be bad. They were kept a long time in India until they were invalided or until they died. Hot only was the discipline bad, but their health was bad also. I have looked up the recent Army Medical Report of 1902. It is essential for the House to bear in mind these matter-of-fact circumstances, for they have really more to do with the efficiency of your system than all the fine theories that
  248
  philosophers can devise. I find that after five years the men rapidly deteriorate in India. During the first five years the average invaliding annually varies from 25 to 30 per 1,000. When you come to the years between five and ten years service, the invaliding is 64 per 1,000. But you are to keep these men in India, and they are to suffer this deterioration in health and condition, and then you are to bring them home and turn them into the world to find their way about. It is a cruel and inhuman system.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Where does the right hon. Gentleman find that system?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Your nine-years men would be seven or eight years in India, and I have shown that after five years the tide turns, and from that time their health becomes worse. Why insist upon the proposed nine years? Even the seven years was an extension of what was desirable to meet the Indian complaints. The Indian Government complained of the great expense of constantly sending men backwards and forwards, and the enlistment was extended to seven years to meet that complaint. But changes have taken place since that concession was made. In the first place, I believe that freights for soldiers to and from this country are almost half what they were in those days. In the second place, under the recommendation of the Committee on Indian Expenditure a year or two ago, the Imperial Government undertook half the cost of that transport so that it is only a quarter of what it was in those days. Yet the right hon. Gentleman proposes to keep these men there two years longer. And what is the effect? He reduces the Reserves by two-thirds and he largely increases deaths and invaliding, two serious evils with no advantage that I can see. I commend these things to the consideration of the House, and I say that any such long prolongation of service is a mistake. These men are enlisted at nineteen years of age, and they are cast back into civil life at twenty-eight, two years later than now, and this makes a very grave difference. In the first place

  249
  it handicaps them because their habits have become settled in a life removed from their surroundings and they will have less opportunity of finding civil employment. In the second place, there is the marriage difficulty, always great, and increasing the longer a man is kept so late in life under the conditions in which these young men serve And in the third place, when a man has served so long he has acquired a claim you can hardly resist to be put on the pension list. This proposal is for long service of nine years with the colours and only three with the Reserve—it is, on all grounds, a retrograde and undersirable step.
  What, after all, does the right hon. Gentleman give us by all these changes that we have not got already? Consider how the old system served us splendidly in the South African War; 90,000, or nearly 100,000, were embarked in a few weeks during 1899 and 1900, and subsequently drafts were sent out to the number of 90,000 more, and that Army was organised for defence and for striking purposes, not for the conquest of a great territory. Now we are told we must have a huge Army and a great Reserve, and a great reservoir of power for the defence of the North-West Frontier. I want to know what are the new facts about the North-West Frontier; how are we to distinguish between prudent watchfulness and restless ambition? High military authorities have laughed at the fears expressed as to danger in that quarter. A mere shaking of the head will not dispose of those authorities; give us the data to support that shaking of the head. I will quote an authority which I have quoted in the House before on an occasion when the Prime Minister flaunted the North-West Frontier in our face. Sir H. Brackenbury—no mean authority—in his evidence given before the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure, said the defence of India was already provided for in that quarter and that it would not be necessary or possible for this country to send out a single man more. What, I ask, has caused the change since that declaration made three or four years ago by an eminent authority, a military member of the Council? I am afraid there are large and ambitious views taken which
  250
  —I will not say encourage—but certainly lead up to the whole idea of this exceptional danger to the North-West Frontier. We hear that as many men will have to be sent in case of a war in that quarter as went to South Africa; and the right hon. Gentleman is not content to stop there. I took down his words when he said we must be prepared to have men entering into a contest with the flower of other nations. That is an entirely new conception of the purpose for which our Army exists; and I would ask the Committee to try to put some limit to the cost of our preparations, to the expenditure of money, and to the demands for men. Lord Lansdowne a Few years ago, speaking on these Army subjects in Edinburgh, said that of the men of serviceable age in this country—and I believe many Members of the House may not be aware of this fact—of the population available of serviceable age, no fewer than one out of four was actually serving at the moment he spoke either in the Navy, Army, or Auxiliary Forces. How much further are we to go? I believe that this exaggerated view of our danger and our necessities will lead the country into greater misfortunes, and I would ask again to be furnished with the data, in order that we may calmly consider these matters.
  I have only a word or two to say by way of going back on the subject of the Militia and Volunteers. As to the Militia, not only the members of that force but all of us are ready for any amount of improvements that may be made, and for great improvements. I believe the Army is steadily improving. I believe even the Militia is better organised, trained, and officered than it was. But go on improving it until you reach a sufficient and satisfactory pitch of efficiency. The Volunteers, also, are ready for any amount of training within reason that you choose to impose upon them, and I am sure that the whole House heard with astonishment the language in which the Secretary of State exposed what he believed to be the almost crippled condition of the members of that force. He has seen the Reports, and if those Reports have any justification what an exposure it is of the general

  251
  physical condition of the whole community! The Volunteers are probably as good as their neighbours, and mostly young men of spirit, and yet we are told that 40 per cent. are unfit for their duties. A statement like that almost answers itself. But there is no reason in anything that has been put before us for accepting a shadowy scheme such as the right hon. Gentleman now puts forward—a scheme many parts of which are old nostrums that have been rejected again and again in past years—instead of a system which, capable of improvement though it may be, has at least done us good service for many years in the past.
  MR. PEEL: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that you now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Peel.)
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid he would take this opportunity afforded by the Motion to report Progress to state that he thought it would be more convenient if they could come to a decision upon this question at this particular juncture. He understood that that was the general desire upon both sides of the House. The feeling was that if they now allowed this general debate to close the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sheffield and others who wished to move a reduction in reference to the Volunteers and the Militia would have a better opportunity of doing so. He thought the course he suggested would be for the general convenience of the House.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he hoped his hon. friend the Member for Manchester would withdraw his Motion to report Progress, because after the discussion which had taken place the House was really able to take a decision upon this question.
  MR. J. F. HOPEasked if following the suggestion which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield would preclude the Committee from having a general discussion on other Amendments.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: An understanding was come to the other day that on Vote 1 the discussion was to be general, however long it might last. I understand that the Prime Minister has placed at the disposal of the House Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for this purpose, and therefore a general discussion will not be precluded upon other Amendments.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Leader of the Opposition had made an important speech, and he should be exceedingly loth to let such a challenge and attack to go unanswered. He might be confronted to-morrow with a specific reduction upon another subject, which would clearly preclude him from replying to the attack made by the Leader of the Opposition.
  MR SWIFT MACNEILL: The Chairman has ruled otherwise.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the House had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition had made a very important speech, and he had made statements which he believed were inaccurate, and therefore he intended to exercise his right to set the House right upon this matter.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLDon't talk it out.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was not attaching any blame to anyone, but in view of the fact that the important

  253
  speech of the Leader of the Opposition had been made at the close of the debate, he simply desired to reserve his right to reply to it.
  And, it being midnight, the Motion to report Progress lapsed without Question put, and the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEcalled attention to the varying dates at which the Act came into force in various parts of the Empire, and suggested that the time had come when the promise he had received that one date should be fixed for the whole of the Empire should be fulfilled. A universal telegraphic system had brought into close relationship all the scattered parts of the Empire which, when this Act was first passed and put into force, were so far separated from each other that it was necessary to have different dates upon which the Act should come into force. He thought the time had now come when those dates should be revised. The War Office might fix upon some date upon which the Army Annual Act should be brought into operation all over the Empire, and the anomalies which were so apparent in Clause 2 should be put an end to. Everybody who had followed this Act knew that while there were only one or two clauses upon the Paper before
  254
  them, in reality this Bill spread over several large folios. Hon. Members had not the vaguest idea what they were assenting to in passing this Bill. That, however, was not his point. What was more serious was that the people principally affected by this measure, had not got the vaguest idea what it was based upon or what it imposed upon them, and the House did not appear to fully realise the control which the House exercised through this Bill over the Army at large. The forces affected by this Bill ought to be afforded the opportunity of making themselves conversant with its provisions. He did not know whether the new proposals which were going to be put forward dealing with the Militia would in any way affect their status upon this particular Bill. The Leader of the Opposition had expressed the opinion that they might be adversely affected. With regard to the schedule it provided that where a hot meal was provided for the soldier it should be furnished at fourpence per night.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is hardly a matter to be discussed upon the Second Reading. It is more a matter for the Committee.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he should have thought that the schedule would have been open for discussion upon the Second Reading, but he would bow to Mr. Speaker's decision. He thought he had raised an important point with regard to the dates in regard to which he got a most definite promise last year. The point he had raised with regard to the Militia was certainly one which should be taken into consideration before this Bill was passed. He begged to

  255
  move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  MR. McKENNAseconded.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,)said he had kept the pledge which he had formerly given that the Act and the Amendments in various years should be made more accessible to hon. Members, and a book setting forth the Amendments had been placed in the Library.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked if the book referred to was purchasable anywhere, and would it be presented as a Parliamentary Paper?
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It will be kept in the Library of the House.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERasked if the alteration which the Militia were likely to undergo would in any way be affected by the operation of this Act? He should like an Answer to that Question. They understood that the Militia was to be placed upon a different footing to what had been the case in the past.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)said that future alterations in regard to the Militia were not in the least concerned in this Act.

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  THE PRIME MINISTER'S ABSENCE FROM THE DEBATES.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Patronage Secretary if he, could give the House any reason for the absence of the Prime Minister from the debates to-day. The right hon. Gentleman left the moment the debate began, and was not present, except for a short time, during the speech of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, nor was he present when the Leader of the Opposition made his speech, nor when the Secretary of State for War addressed the House. The absence of the Prime Minister was the more remarkable because he was the president of the Committee of Defence, and the Army scheme of the Government seemed likely to land them in as much difficulty as the fiscal question. It was owing to the Prime Minister's special recognition of the very great importance of this subject that they had been allotted extra time for the Army debates this week. Did the Prime Minister intend absenting himself from all debates? The right hon. Gentleman had refused to attend fiscal debates and

  257
  apparently he had no intention of attending debates upon a question which was causing as much difficulty on the Ministerial side of the House as upon the Opposition side. He should like to know if the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury could give them any reason for the Prime Minister's absence. Was he unwell, or what was the reason?
  MR. WHITLEYsaid that surely they were not on every occasion to go without an Answer. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had generally treated the House with every courtesy, but the Question which had been put to him was a legitimate one which ought to receive an Answer. This was the only opportunity they had of pressing the matter.
  MR. McKENNAsaid if they were only referring to an occasional absence it would be quite a different matter, but it occurred so frequently that they could only conclude that he desired to show to the public that he really felt a contempt for the proceedings of this Chamber. His absence to-day was only one more instance of the expression of that feeling on the part of the Prime Minister. No doubt the Patronage Secretary would reply that he was not in a position to answer this Question, but at any rate he might undertake, to convey to the Prime Minister the strong expression of opinion which had been made from the Opposition side of the House that his continued absence from debates of first-class importance was a most regrettable incident, which they hoped would not recur.
  MR. CHURCHILLsupposed it was quite useless to expect that any reply would be given to the Question, They
  258
  had got used to being treated, either voluntarily or involuntarily, with considerable discourtesy. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman opposite said anything now he would only reveal that his chief had left him with no defence, and that under the circumstances he felt that the best thing to do was not to get up at this critical moment but allow the debate to lapse. He could assure the Patronage Secretary that they were not disappointed by the fact that he had not given them any Answer upon this Question. In asking Questions of this kind they had got used to being treated with considerable discourtesy. They did not mind this particularly, because they were anxious to impress upon the country the way in which the House was being treated by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not merely leave the House, but he organised a boycott. The right hon. Gentleman had organised on several occasions a deliberate boycott of the House. It was very disrespectful to the House; it was very disrespectful to the Chair.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is an insult to the Chair.
  MR. CHURCHILLsaid this had not only been the conduct of the Prime Minister in the past, but it might be the policy of the future. Tomorrow, he supposed, there was to be another organised boycott. It should be known to what miserable and disreputable shifts the Prime Minister resorted to eke out his remaining weeks and months. The absence of the Prime Minister left the Chair without that protection to which it was entitled from the Leader of the House. Supposing upon this occasion he might be betrayed into

  259
  saying something that would transgress the limits of order: the Leader of the House was not present to support the decisions of the Chair. He was very anxious that it should be known outside this House what extraordinary treatment the House of Commons was receiving from the Prime Minister, for he believed it was quite unprecedented. The Leader of the House not merely shirked his own duties, but he invented and calculated occasions when he could inflict deliberate and studied insults upon the House of Commons. He thought his hon. friend was well justified in raising this question. It had been raised before and it would be raised again. It was necessary to adopt this course in order that it should be made known throughout the length and breadth of the land that in the dregs of his career in office the right hon. Gentleman accepted every humiliation for himself, and offered every humiliation to the House of Commons.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD)said he could only speak once and so had waited until hon. Members opposite had fired off their guns. The Question put to him was one to be put to the Prime Minister. ["Where is he?"] He thought the Question might be put in the form perhaps of a starred Question, perhaps as an unstarred Question. If hon, Members opposite would put that Question down he was quite certain the Prime Minister would answer it.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman, whose courtesy they all acknowledged, quite realised that this was a
  260
  special case. He had suggested that a starred Question should be put down. What they wanted was to secure the attendance of the Prime Minister during the Army debates, and for that purpose a Question put down on the Paper was useless. What the House wanted to know was what the Government intended to do in regard to the Army. But for his absence they would probably have ascertained what these proposals. The Prime Minister was responsible for what was proposed to be done because he presided over the Committee of Defence. His hon. friend the Member for Oldham had pointed out that the House missed much by the absence of the Prime Minister. The most revolutionary changes had been proposed, and there could be do doubt that those changes had had a most disastrous effect upon the morale of the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers. Nothing had been vouchsafed to them as to the real intentions of the Government, and the one man above all others who could tell them was absent from the House. They deeply resented what they regarded, whether rightly or wrongly, as the discourtesy of the First Lord of the Treasury in boycotting the house on the occasion of a great debate to which he himself had invited the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether the Chief Whip would convey to the Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade the importance of his being present at the fiscal debate tomorrow night.
  No reply was given.
  Adjourne at twenty-nine minutes before One o'clock.