Commons Sitting of 4 April 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]; Hessle Gas Bill [Lords]; Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords]. Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

RAILWAY BILLS (GROUP No. 3).
Sir LEWIS McIVER reported from the Committee on Group No. 3 of Railway

293
Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Thursday, at Eleven of the clock.
Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
They have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to further extend the periods for the commencement of the construction and for the completion of the tramways, tramroads, and other works, and for the taking of lands authorised by the West Cumberland Electric Tramways Act, 1901; to extend the period limited by The West Cumberland Electric Tramways Act, 1903, within which distributing mains for the supply of electricity were to be laid down; and for other purposes." [West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers upon the Hessle Gas Light and Coke Company." [Hessle Gas Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Constitution of the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation; and for other purposes." [Clyde Navigation (Reconstitution) Bill [Lords.]
Notices for the Third Reading or consideration of eighteen Private Bills appeared on the Paper, and as each title was called objection was taken by a Nationalist Member, and the Bills were deferred to the following day.
MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, eleven Bills stood over from yesterday and appear upon the Paper to-day by the order of the House. I beg to call your attention to the fact that the Standing
294
Order lays down that proposed private business must be divided equally between Government and private Members' time. I understand that all the eleven Bills are to be taken in private Members' time. This would be a breach of the Standing Orders.
*MR. SPEAKER: The discretion in these cases is given by the Standing Order to the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, and if the hon. Member complains of his conduct he can take the usual course.
SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N.): Is there no way of preventing perfectly captious objections?
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.): Order, order; take the Chair yourself!
*MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in these interruptions; they are most disorderly. The hon. Member asked me a perfectly proper Question. I am not aware of any mode in which I can interfere, and I am not the judge of whether objections are captious or not.
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Hear, hear! That is all I want.
The following were the Bills objected to—

Chelsea Electricity Supply Bill; Epping Gas Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water Bill; Loughborough Corporation Bill; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society Bill; Weybridge and Walton-upon-Thames Electric Supply Bill. To be read the third time To-morrow.

295
Accrington Corporation Bill (by Order); Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill (by Order); Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment) Bill (by Order); South Suburban Gas Bill (by Order); Wrexham Gas Bill (by Order). Third Reading deferred till To-morrow (Evening Sitting).
Acton Sewage Bill (by Order); Ilfracombe Harbour and Improvement Bill (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow (Evening Sitting).

Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill (by Order) [not amended]. Consideration deferred till To-morrow (Evening Sitting).
Otley Improvement Bill (changed from "Otley Gas and Improvement Bill") (by Order); Seaham Gaa Bill (by Order); Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill (by Order). Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow (Evening Sitting).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

PETITIONS.
  JUVENILE SMOKING BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSED PREMISES (HOURS OF CLOSING).
  Petition from Liverpool, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petition from Edinburgh, against; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Aberdeen (two); Innellan; and Macduff; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petition from Lancashire and Cheshire, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Durham; Newlyn; Sancreed; and Waltham-stow; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Wandsworth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Erdington; and Ruskington; to lie upon the Table.
  SUGAR TAX.
  Petition from York, for repeal; to lie upon the Table.
  WYER, THOMAS ROLAND.
  Petition of Thomas Roland Wyer, for inquiry into his case; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896 (GRANTS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  Return presented, relative thereto, [ordered March 16th; Mr. Jesse Callings]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS)
  Copy presented, of Report No. 30 (Pitcairn Island, by Mr. R. I. Simons) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Railway and Transit Facilities in the Sneem District—Withdrawal of Clyde Shipping Company.
  MR. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether any agreement was entered into between the Clyde Shipping Company, the Russell Steamer Company, and the Great Southern and Western Railway, or between any two of them, previous to the withdrawal of the Clyde Shipping Company from the south-west coast service; if so, was the Congested Districts Board aware of the nature of this agreement; is he aware that all new rates quoted for Sneem by the railway company are in excess of those previously quoted by the Clyde Shipping Company, and in the case of some classes of goods show an increase of from 20 to 50 per cent., as, for example, in the case of timber, petroleum, and cement; whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the proposed service of carts from Kenmare, seeing that the Clyde Shipping Company used to carry fifteen tons per week on an average to Sneem; and whether he proposes to secure that the railway rates will be reduced in such a way that no additional charge will fall on the people of the Sneem district in consequence of the withdrawal of the Clyde Shipping Company.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Board have no knowledge of any such agreement. It is the case that the railway rates are higher than the steamer rates were, but this is almost invariably the case. The Board understand that, even while the subsidy to the Clyde Shipping Company was being paid by them, many Sneem traders, being dissatisfied with the irregularity of delivery and the
  298
  absence of storage, had their goods conveyed by rail to Kenmare and carted them thence at their own expense. The Board have now secured from the railway company through rates, with a regular delivery and storage at Sneem, at a great reduction on the former railway rates. There has been no time, as yet, to test the adequacy of the service of carts. I do not see that the railway company can properly be further pressed in the matter.

  British Supreme Court at Shanghai—Title of "Chief Justice."
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the title of Chief Justice has been taken away from the Judge at the head of the British Supreme Court at Shanghai; and whether, in view of the importance attached to the title by British residents in China, the former appellation can be restored.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the Member for the Barnsley Divison of Yorkshire on the 23rd † ultimo.

  Rates and Expenditure of London Local Authorities.
  MR. W. F. D. SMITH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will grant a Return showing, since 1895, the total amount of money expended and the rate in the pound raised for all county purposes, including education, in the county of London, and for all local purposes by vestries and borough councils, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The following statement containing particulars
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 952.

  299
  extracted from the published Local Taxation Returns will, I hope, give

  Year.

  1895–6.

  1896–7.

  1897–8.

  1898–9.

  1899–1900.

  1900–1901.

  1901–2,

  1902–3.

  Expenditure.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  London County Council (excluding capital expenditure and loans to other local authorities)

  *†2,450,822

  *†2,521,231

  *†2,597,408

  *†3,377,470

  *†3,832,786

  *†4,153,663

  *†4,274,288

  *†4,575,077

  London School Board (excluding capital expenditure)

  2,208,640

  2,355,828

  2,419,364

  2,545,192

  2,698,351

  2,828,502

  3,003,976

  3,136,634

  Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards † and Metropolitan Borough Councils (excluding expenditure out of loans and payments under precept to other local authorities)

  2,657,948

  2,847,212

  3,096,257

  3,244,255

  3,485,155

  4,010,403

  4,316,044

  4,644,797

  Average rate in the £ of rates raised for the purposes of—

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  London County Council

  1

  2·9

  1

  2·9

  1

  1·8

  1

  1·8

  1

  1·3

  1

  2·3

  1

  3·0

  1

  3·3

  London School Board

  10·3

  1

  0·1

  1

  0·9

  11·7

  1

  0·9

  1

  1·7

  1

  2·4

  1

  2·7

  Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards†

  §1

  5·9

  §1

  6·0

  §1

  6·6

  §1

  6·2

  §1

  7·0

  §1

  7·7

  —

  —

  Metropolitan Borough Councils

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10·5

  2

  0·1

  *Excluding in 1895–6, £231,061; in 1896–7, £238,572; in 1897–8, £246,919; in 1898–9, £250,803; in 1899–1900, £253,815; in 1900–1901, £256,507; in 1901–2, £269,427; and in 1902–3, £273,931, distributed by the London County Council to sanitary authorities in London, under the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894. The expenditure in respect of these sums is included in the statement under the heading Metropolitan Vestries and District Boards, etc.

  † Excluding for the years 1895–6 to 1897–8 sums transferred by the London County Council to their Consolidated Loans Fund. Such sums are, for 1898–9 and later years, included in the statement. They amounted in the year 1898–9 to £588,320.

  † Including the Woolwich Local Board of Health.

  § Excluding, for the years 1895–6 to 1900–1, the average rates in the pound of rates raised under the Burial Acts, the Baths and Wash houses Acts, and the Public Libraries Acts,

  my hon. friend the information he desires:—

  Danger of Fire from Explosions caused by Electrical Mains.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a recent action against the Corporation of Manchester in which the plaintiffs succeeded in recovering damages for losses sustained through a fire caused by an explosion in one of the corporation's electrical mains; and, seeing that the plaintiffs based their claim on the ground that the linking-up system laid down in the streets of Manchester causes a difficulty in localising leakage and constituted a public danger, will he state whether this system is generally adopted in London, and whether any improved system has received the consideration of the Board of Trade.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir, the attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the action referred to by the hon. Member. An improved system in which the mains are separated into sections connected by suitable fuses, and whereby the difficulty in localising leakage and consequent risk are much reduced, has received the consideration of the Board of Trade, and has been adopted in all undertakings established during the last two years in London and elsewhere. I also understand that the improved system has been applied voluntarily to many existing undertakings in London.

  Repair of Cable between Tory Island and the Mainland.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the telegraphic cable connecting Tory Island with the mainland of county Donegal was broken or injured during the past winter; and that this cable when in use affords the only means of communication with the mainland during stormy weather when the small boats of the islanders cannot venture out; and whether, in view of the danger both of the outbreak of epidemic sickness, and of the exhaustion of provisions during prolonged rough weather, he can promise that the cable will be repaired at an early date.
  302
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am sorry that it has not been possible to undertake the repair of the cable to Tory Island during the winter months. In the meantime a suggestion has been made that communication should be established by means of wireless telegraphy, and I hope to arrive at a decision at an early date

  Loss of the "Khyber"—Telegraphic Com- munication between Lighthouses and the Shore.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in the Board of Trade inquiry into the loss of the "Khyber," information will be obtained from the keepers of the Wolf, or other lighthouses in the neighbourhood, if the lights of the ship, or signals from her, were seen on the night preceding the wreck; and, if so, whether early steps will be taken to provide telegraphic communication with the shore to obviate the recurrence of similar disasters.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Yes, Sir, steps have already been taken by the Board of Trade with a view to obtaining the evidence of the keepers of the Wolf and Longships lighthouses, who were on duty at the time of the recent wreck of the "Khyber." With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to a similar inquiry on the 27th March†.

  Regulations for the Sale of Poisons— Amendment of the Law.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having regard to the frequency of suicides by poison, and loss of life through the administration of poison by misadventure, will he state whether the Government still propose to amend the law regulating the sale of poisons; and, if so, whether there is any probability of a Bill being introduced by the Government this session.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I fear that on this subject I cannot add anything to the reply which
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 1175.

  303
  I gave to the hon. Member on March 13th† last.

  Postal Officials and Licensing Petitions.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether it is permissible for any one in the postal service in the course of the performance of his duties to ask for signatures to a petition for the granting of a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquors.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The action described by the hon. Member would be very irregular, and I shall be glad if he will furnish me with particulars of any such case.

  Return of Burgh Charities (Scotland).
  MR. HALDANE: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he is in a position to supplement the Return already promised by him of Parochial Charities in Scotland by including in it Burgh Charities.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) The Secretary for Scotland is prepared to supplement the Return to the extent proposed by the right lion. Member.

  Completion of New Buildings for Victoria and Albert Museum.
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he can say when the new buildings of the Victoria and Albert Museum in Cromwell Road are likely to be finished, and if efforts will be made to have them completed before the close of the present year; when will the new wing of the Museum in Imperial Institute Road be opened, and how soon can the temporary sheds which are now used for the purposes of the Museum between Prince's Gate and Queen's Gate be dispensed with.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The contract for the building of the Victoria and Albert Museum is to be finished in February, 1907. It is impossible to hasten the completion. Hon. Members are perhaps not aware that the foundation stone was laid by Her late Majesty's
  † See (4) Debates, cxlii., 1204.
  304
  desire at a date considerably earlier than the works could be begun; hence much apparent delay. As regards the Royal College of Science in Imperial Institute Road, the building cannot be ready for occupation before the spring of next year. None of the temporary sheds can be vacated until then at the earliest.

  Suggested Laying out as Public Garden of Ground in front of Victoria and Albert Museum.
  MR. COGHILL: To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the Board of Works will consider the advisability of laying out all the unoccupied portions of the area between Prince's Gate, on the West; Queen's Gate, on the East; and Prince Consort Road, on the North, as a public garden, as no other use has for a long time been, made of it.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) The land to which my hon. friend appears to refer is situate on the south side of Prince Consort Road, and is believed to be the property of the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851. The First Commissioner does not know of any other unoccupied area in this vicinity which could be available for a garden.

  Conversion of Gas Lamps in Palace Yard and Speaker's Court into Incandescent Lamps.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolver-hampton, E.): To ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what would be the cost of converting the twelve gas lamps in Palace Yard and Speaker's Court, which give the minimum of light, into incandescent lamps of the type with which all the other lamps in Palace Yard are equipped.
  (Answered by Lord Balcarres.) Conversion means new lanterns in each case, and the cost per lamp has hitherto averaged £10; the total cost would therefore be £120.

  Sale of Disused Warships in Foreign Countries.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty

  305
  in what foreign countries the "Porpoise," "Sandfly," ''Lizard," and "Havannah" have been sold by tender; whether tenders were publicly invited for the purchase of these vessels; whether they have been sold to be broken up; and, if so, what steps are taken to secure compliance with this condition.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The "Porpoise," "Sandfly," and "Lizard" were sold at Bombay, Malta, and Sydney respectively. The sale of the "Porpoise" and "Sandfly" was advertised in the public Press, and the purchaser of the former vessel was bound with two substantial sureties in a sum equal to the amount of the purchase money.to break her up within one year. In the case of the "Sandfly," a statutory declaration was obtained from the purchaser that she would be broken up and not sold to a belligerent. Particulars of the sale of the "Lizard" are not yet to hand by mail. As regards the "Havanuah," this vessel was sold by public auction at Portsmouth, and as she was not afloat, but high and dry and forming part of a street in Cardiff, she will presumably have to be broken up before she can be removed. The land on which she rested has to be cleared of all debris within a certain time.

  Pacific Cable Loan and Public Buildings Expenses Acts Annuities.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury for what term annuities created for the purpose of repayment of the Pacific Cable Loan, under the Act of 1901, run; and whether any annuities for repayment of advances under the Public Buildings Expenses Acts of 1903 have been created; and, if so, for what term.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The annuity under the Pacific Cable Act is for a term of fifty years (Civil Service Estimates, page 464). Two annuities have been created under The Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1903, each being for a term of twenty-nine years (Civil Service Estimates, page 45).

  Increase of British Troops for India.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether the
  306
  Government of India has asked for an increase of the British troops permanently stationed in India; what is the increased number of troops asked for; and has this request been agreed to by the Government.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The question of the addition of certain units to complete the Field Army in India for mobilisation has been raised by the Indian Government, but the details are still under consideration.

  Irish Local Government Accounts— Printing as a Public Work.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the auditor of the accounts of the Kerry County Council maintained that printing was a public work; and whether, in view of the fact that this question of printing affects the whole of Ireland, the Local Government Board have been advised that printing is, or is not, a public work.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am informed that the auditor treated the printing contract as a public work within the application of Section 18 of the Local Government Act, 1902, and I understand that the King's Bench Division recently decided in favour of that view.

  Rent Reductions in County Kildare.
  MR. KILBRIDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the percentage of reduction for the nine months ending December 31st last in the county of Kildare on rents fixed for second statutory term.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The percentage of reduction was 12·36.

  Strength of Royal Irish Constabulary in County Mayo.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the strength at which the Royal Irish Constabulary has been maintained annually in the county of Mayo from 1899 to 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The average actual strength of the free force

  307
  was as follows:—In 1899, 465; in 1900, 478; in 1901, 490; in 1902, 472; in 1903, 468. In addition, there was in 1899 and part of 1900 an extra force of fifty men, of the cost of which the county paid as moiety.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants— Case of John O'Driscoll.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received an application from the evicted tenant John O'Driscoll, on the Hegarty Estate, Coolcogher, Banteer, county Cork, to be reinstated on his holding, which is now untenanted; whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the landlady has assigned the said holding to her son J. J. Hegarty; and, if so, what steps the Commissioners propose to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) An application has been received from John O'Driscoll, claiming reinstatement as the representative of T. D. O'Driscoll. The Commissioners have made inquiries and have been informed that T. D. O'Driscoll was not an evicted tenant, but that he surrendered the holding for a monetary consideration, and that the owner's husband expended over £3,000 on the holding on resuming possession.

  Construction of Pier at Falchorrib, County Donegal.
  MR. HUGH LAW: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a sum of £1,000 was provisionally allocated by the Irish Government (in agreement with the county council of Donegal) for the construction of a small pier at Falchorrib, county Donegal, and that the sum has been found insufficient; and whether he will recommend the addition, out of the unexpended balance of the Marine Works Act, of such money as may be required to carry out the work in a satisfactory manner.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts are as stated. It has been ascertained that works at Falchorrib, to be effective, would cost a sum greatly in excess of that mentioned. I am unable, as at present advised, to give any undertaking in the matter.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Army Clothing—Sale of Surplus Stores.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will say what was the sum realised per suit for the suits for discharged soldiers which have been sold; what is the sum usually paid per suit for such suits; and what would have been the cost of storing such suits, if warehouse room had been hired, instead of selling them.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT. Cheshire, Macclesfield): As the House has been already informed, the prices realised per suit were 5s. 6d. for the first 10,000 and 5s. 7½d. for the second 10,000. The cost price was 11s. 9d. It is estimated that the hire of storage would have amounted to £100 a year, but owing to the special sizes of the suits concerned the issues would have been small and the hiring would have lasted for many years.

    Army Contracts—H. Lotery & Co.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the firm of H. Lotery and Co. hold any Government contracts; whether the tender forms have a labour schedule of prices; and whether these prices are being paid.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: This firm holds a Government contract. The tender form does not contain a labour schedule of prices. The usual wages clause is included in the contract under which the firm is bound to pay the wages generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district where the work is carried out.

    Wormwood Scrubbs Rifle Range.
    MR. BULL (Hammersmith): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the rifle range at Wormwood Scrubbs has been permanently closed; and, if so, will he explain why; and whether, in view of the expenditure incurred in making the ranges safe and the loss of employment to persons in the neighbourhood, he will consider the

    309
    advisability of using the rifle butts at the east end of the common, avoiding the proximity to the prison, particularly in view of the difficulty which exists in establishing rifle ranges in the metropolitan area.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: This range will be kept closed until some means can be found for securing real protection from danger. It was found that many bullets had fallen into the prison enclosure near the range, and, therefore, presumably into the open space behind the range, which is open to the public. In view of this danger it would not appear advisable to take the course suggested by my hon. friend. I am fully aware of the great inconvenience caused by the closing of the range, but I can assure the House that every endeavour will be taken to discover such means of protection as will enable it to be reopened.

    The Transvaal.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table the Report of the Colonial Secretary for the Transvaal for 1904.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): The Report shall be laid.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will lay upon the Table the last Annual Report of the Medical Officer of Health for the Transvaal.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I will consider whether this can be included among the other Papers which will be laid. Meanwhile I will cause a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.
    MR. WHITLEY: These Papers have been circulated in the Transvaal. When may we expect them?
    MR. LYTTELTON: A copy will be laid in the Library at once. I hope the Blue-book will be out before Easter.

    Inspector-General of the King's African Rifles.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state by whom the suggestions for the reorganisation of the King's African Rifles were made; and whether the same involves an increase to the salary and travelling allowances of the Inspector-General.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The reorganisation of the King's African Rifles was carried out on the recommendation of the Inspector-General of that force. The increase in the salary and travelling allowances of the Inspector-General, recently approved by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has no connection with the reorganisation scheme.

    Transvaal Constitution.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be in a position to lay upon the Table the Letters Patent dealing with the Constitution of the Transvaal.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Letters Patent and the despatch accompanying them will, in the ordinary course, reach South Africa on or about April 22nd, and will be published in the Transvaal as soon as possible after that date. I propose to lay them here at the same time as they are published there.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Are we to know nothing about this before the Easter vacation?
    MR. LYTTELTON: If the hon. Member likes to spend part of his Easter vacation in the perusal of these documents he will no doubt have an opportunity of doing so.

    Zionist Settlement in Africa.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies by whom the expenses of the Commission sent out to report on the tract of country offered by the British Government for the purpose of a Zionist

    311
    settlement have been defrayed; if it is proposed to send an effective expedition against the Mahdi, as recommended by the Commission; and by whom the expenses of such an expedition will be paid.
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Commission to which the hon. Member refers is, no doubt, that sent out by the Executive Committee of the Conference of Zionists. I am not aware by whom its expenses are defrayed. I have no information concerning any recommendations which the Commission may have made.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: Are we to understand that, at any rate, this country will not pay the expense?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Of that the hon. Member may rest assured.

    Cheap Mattresses—Insanitary Flock.
    MR. FULLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the alleged insanitary condition of certain cheaper kinds of flock used in the manufacture of cheap mattresses; if so, whether he proposes to take any steps, by initiating legislation or otherwise, to mitigate this alleged evil.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): My attention has been drawn to this question, and reports have been received from the district inspectors of factories, which are now under consideration. The reports go to show that the general conditions of employment in this industry have improved in recent years, though the conditions are still far from satisfactory in many cases. The Home Office is only concerned with the matter in so far as the health of the workers engaged in the industry may be affected, and I shall be prepared to make use of the powers which are given me by the Factory Act for the protection of the workers in places where insanitary conditions prevail. Any measures, however, which may be required for preventing the spread of infection generally would be a subject for the consideration
    312
    of the Departments concerned with the public health.
    MR. FULLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate the fresh legislation which he declares to be necessary?
    *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think I said it was necessary, but that the subject was one for the Departments charged with the duty of looking after the public health.

    Metropolitan Police—Linguistic Attainments.
    MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether members of the Metropolitan Police learn foreign languages at their own expense, or whether they receive any allowance in money, time, or advantages in the matter of promotion for so doing; and, in the event of any expense being incurred by the State in the matter, whether he will state the amount expended on such teaching during each of the last ten years.
    *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Members of the Metropolitan Police Force receive no allowance in any form for learning foreign languages. A few months ago, however, I sanctioned the expenditure of a small sum in prizes to officers who attain proficiency in Yiddish.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)inquired whether officers in the Navy were not granted three months leave in which to learn a foreign language and extra pay when they attained efficiency therein.
    *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I am aware of that.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why not do it with the police?
    *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The matter there is somewhat different. It would have to apply to men as well as officers. I will consider if anything can be done, however, in this direction.

    Transfer of Duties from the Treasury to the Local Government Board.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Return will be presented setting out the material parts of the enactments contained in, applied by, or incorporated with the Baths and Wash-houses Acts, 1846 to 1899, or the Burial Acts, 1852 to 1900, as respects dealings with property, loans, and matters connected therewith, proposed to be transferred from the Local Government Board to the Treasury, under the provisions of the Bill introduced on March 7th.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The hon. Member would appear to be under some misconception as to the object of the Bill referred to, which is to transfer certain functions, still remaining rather anomalously with the Treasury, to the Local Government Board, the Department properly responsible in matters connected with local authorities. To elucidate the question, I am giving directions for a Memorandum to be issued, which, I think, will give the information desired by the hon. Member in a form most convenient to the House.

    Treatment of Habitual Criminals and Paupers in Scotland.
    MR. CHARLES DOUGLAS: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether His Majesty's Government will appoint a Committee, consisting of representatives of the Government Departments concerned and of local authorities in Scotland, to consider and report upon the treatment of habitual crime and pauperism.
    *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): I would remind the hon. Member that such an inquiry, on a wide reference, was very fully carried out in 1894 by a Committee presided over by Sir Charles Cameron. I doubt whether there is sufficient reason for reopening the whole question; but His Majesty's Government will be glad to consider any proposal regarding particular aspects of it which the hon. Member may wish to make.

    Irish Constabulary and Prisoners.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the Lord Chief Baron at the Derry Assizes on March 20th, to the effect that he knew that the Constabulary were instructed by the Government to ask questions of a prisoner, and that he would not allow that as evidence, and that he considered it as illegal that the police were obliged to ask these questions, but he was obliged to carry out what he considered was the law of the land; and whether, in view of this judicial pronouncement upon the practice, the Government will issue orders that it shall be forthwith discontinued.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Dublin University): May I be allowed to answer this for my right hon. friend? My attention has been called to a newspaper report. I have no means of knowing whether it is accurate or not, but it would appear to me that it must be inaccurate, inasmuch as the police, so far from being instructed to ask questions of prisoners, are expressly directed not to do so. The words of the direction are: "The Constabulary are rigidly enjoined not to converse with their prisoners or question them with respect to the offences with which they may be charged."
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did you get information from the Lord Chief Baron?
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I have no information except that obtained by reference to the newspapers.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Will you ask the Lord Chief Baron if he used this language?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Pole Carew and Butler Estate, County Cork.
    MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that immediately subsequent to the

    315
    purchase agreement on the agricultural portion of Pole Carew and Butler Estate, Banteer, county Cork, similar agreements were signed by the inhabitants of the village for the purchase of their houses; and that within the past week an official of the Estates Commission visited the place and informed the village occupiers that their purchase agreements are to be set aside and they must revert to the old terms of tenancy; and, if so, will he say if this inspector has acted with the knowledge and sanction of the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, what explanation can the Commissioners give for not adhering to the purchase system in this case.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): I beg to refer to the Answer which I gave to this Question on Monday† last. Until the report of the inspector has been received the Commissioners will not be in a position to reply to these inquiries.
    MR. FLYNN: When may we expect the report? Were the tenants told that if they were prepared to pay the purchase money in cash the sale would be sanctioned?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I must have notice of the latter Question. The former I cannot possibly reply to.

    Kerry County Council Audit.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the auditor, Mr. Cyril Browne, in his report to the Kerry County Council certified that the accounts of the county council were submitted by the accountant with such neatness and accuracy as to materially facilitate the business of the audit; and whether, in view of the reports of previous auditors as to the secretary's work, and that Mr. Cyril Browne has stated that the secretary of the county council was a very capable officer, he will explain why Mr. Browne has acted in the partisan manner in which he did in his report.
    †See (4) Debates, cxliii., 1208.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. But the report contains no observations adverse to the secretary, nor is it of a partisan character as suggested.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the auditor of the accounts of the Kerry County Council did not object to or criticise in his Report the manner in which the Limerick and Kerry Railway money was credited in the accounts and estimates, though it involved the apportionment of a sum of £33,000; and, if so, will he say whether the auditor, if he had any objection to make to the manner in which this money, or any portion thereof, was credited, should have informed the county council instead of making a private objection to the Local Government Board; whether this private report was made before or after the date of the auditor's public report; and whether this auditor had any and, if any, what previous experience of county council accounts
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is a fact that the auditor communicated with the Local Government Board on this subject prior to the date of his public report, but the latter alone concerns the county council and the public. The auditor had no previous experience of county council accounts, but had considerable experience in the audit of accounts of other public bodies.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state exactly what previous experience this auditor had had?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously I cannot state exactly.

    Kerry County Council Printing Contract.
    MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the evidence in connection with the printing contract, as contained in the sworn affidavit of the Kerry County Council's secretary, which showed the reductions effected in the cost of printing and advertising throughout the county by the

    317
    recent competition, and the evidence of the editor of the Kerry Post that he was a member of a former combination, and that recent competition broke this combination and greatly reduced the prices for printing arid advertising, was received and considered by the auditor at his recent audit, seeing that the auditor made a report on the contract; and, if considered, will he say why no reference was made to this evidence in support of the county council by the auditor in his published report; and whether he forwarded this evidence to the Local Government Board.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The auditor decided in favour of the county council, and there was therefore no reason for him to set out in detail the evidence upon which his decision was based.

    Dublin Cab and Car Regulations.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what was the full amount of fines inflicted on cab and car owners and drivers of hackney cars plying for hire in the city of Dublin, for the year ending February 28th, 1905; whether these fines are appropriated by the police in addition to the rate of 8d. in the £; by what authority the Commissioner pays for policemen travelling on tramcars, and on what occasions they are supposed to do so; whether such policemen are stationed in or on the trams for the purpose of catching car drivers who are over the number allowed on the hazards; and whether the police exhibit any pass or ticket when travelling on such trams.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The amount was £151 8s. 6d. Fines so imposed are payable to the police account, as appropriations in aid of the Vote, under the authority of statute. The police travel on tramway cars, in accordance with the service regulations, when their duty requires them to do so, and they occasionally use such cars for the detection of offences. The fare is paid in the usual manner.

    Baldoyle Races—Overcrowding of Trams and Hackney Cars.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
    318
    of Ireland whether he is aware that several drivers of hackney cars were summoned by the police for overcrowding on the occasion of the Baldoyle Races on St. Patrick's Day; will he say whether any prosecutions have been instituted against the drivers of tramway cars on the same occasion; and whether he will instruct the police to deal in an equal manner with all offenders who may overcrowd their vehicles.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No prosecutions have been instituted for the overcrowding either of hackney cars or of tramway cars on the occasion mentioned. The police deal impartially with all offences against the law, and no instructions are required of the nature suggested in the Question.

    Kerry Evicted Farms.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland when the Congested Districts Board purchased the two evicted farms at Cragg and Ardcrone, county Kerry; what amounts they paid for these farms; what use the lands have been put to by the Board since the date of purchase; and what action the Board intends to take in connection with these farms in the future.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In November, 1903, the Board bought the tenant purchasers' interests in these farms for £300, and in March, 1905, they paid off the Land Commission annuity by a payment of £2,793 10s. The Board have used the lands for grazing cattle, and they intend to dispose of them to landholders to be migrated from the congested districts of the county.

    Shinrone National School—Instruction in Irish.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Reverend P. O'Halloran, having taught Irish as an extra subject in the Shinrone National School, presented his class for examination on August 9th, 1904; that twenty-four of the pupils successfully passed the examination; and that the Commissioners of National Education on September 17th refused to

    319
    pay any fees on the ground that the teacher was a clergyman; and can he state on what rule this decision was based.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The manager of this school was informed by the Commissioners that payment to a clergyman for giving instruction in extra branches could not be allowed. Classes in extra subjects must be open to pupils of all denominations, and instruction by a clergyman would be calculated to confine the attendance to pupils of a given denomination. Under Rule 74 no clergyman can be recognised as the teacher of a day national school.

    Irish Agricultural Department.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will furnish a Return showing the names and salaries of the temporary clerks transferred to the Irish Agricultural Department at its inception, giving their present positions and salaries; and a similar Return in reference to the temporary clerks appointed to that Department since its establishment.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Return will be prepared and forwarded to the hon. Member. It is not, however, considered to be of sufficient public importance to lay on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper.

    Music Teaching in Irish Schools.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some five years ago, under the scheme of improved technical education for the youth of Ireland, four assistant musical organisers were officially appointed to give Irish teachers and children musical instruction in sessions of not more than a month; and that the Treasury now declines to continue these organisers because of the cost; and, if so, whether, in view of the success of this instruction and of the resolutions of the Commissioners of National Education, the Catholic Hierarchy, and the Synod of the Episcopalian Church, requesting a continuance of the system, he will take steps to induce the Treasury to reconsider
    320
    their decision and continue the appointment of Irish musical organisers as before.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Temporary organisers in music were employed for a definite term of five years, which expired on March 31st. An inspector of music has now been permanently appointed. It is not proposed to reopen the question.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg 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 March 31st, and it is not intended to renew their appointments.

    Transit Facilities in the Sneem District.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he state whether any agreement was entered into between the Clyde Shipping Company, the Russell Steamer Company, and the Great Southern and Western Railway, or between any two of them, previous to the withdrawal of the Clyde Shipping Company from the south-west coast service; if so, was the Congested Districts Board aware of the nature of this agreement; is he aware that all the new rates quoted for Sneem by the railway company are in excess of those previously quoted by the Clyde Shipping Company, and in the case of some classes of goods show an increase of from 20 to 50 per cent., as, for example, in the case of timber, petroleum, and cement; whether his attention has been called to the inadequacy of the proposed service of carts from Kenmare, seeing that the Clyde Shipping Company used to carry fifteen tons per week on an average to Sneem; and whether he proposes to secure that the railway rates will be reduced in such a way that no additional

    321
    charge will fall on the people of the Sneem district in consequence of the withdrawal of the Clyde Shipping Company.
    MR. WALTER LONG: A reply to this Question cannot conveniently be given within the compass of an oral Answer, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate my reply to it with to-night's Votes.

    Sir J. N. Humble's Estate, Waterford.
    MR. O'SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an originating application has yet been lodged with the Estates Commissioners with regard to the estate of Sir J. Nugent Humble, in the county of Waterford; whether the attention of the Commissioners has been already directed to the fact that many of the holdings proposed to be sold to new tenants are holdings from which other tenants have been evicted within the past twenty-five years; whether the Estates Commissioners will enter into negotiations with the new tenants with a view to the reinstatement of the former tenants; whether they are aware that an area of untenanted land is in the occupation of Sir J. Nugent Humble, the vendor, or of his brother, Mr. Charles Humble, on his behalf; and whether they will make the sale of this land to them, in view of all the circumstances, a condition of their declaring the holdings now proposed to be sold by the vendor to be an estate.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; and the Commissioners cannot express an opinion on the matters mentioned in the Question until the estate is fully before them.

    Mountmellick Petty Sessions Clerk.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sergeant Fitzsimons still continues to act as Petty Sessions Clerk at Mountmellick; and, if so, whether he will state what extra remuneration he is receiving for this work over and above his ordinary pay, and who is discharging his duties as police sergeant.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The question whether the sergeant is to receive extra remuneration will not be decided until the case of the suspended clerk has been dealt with. The sergeant continues to discharge his police duties.
    MR. DELANY: Can the sergeant act both as clerk and m prosecutor?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have an Answer to that Question later on.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a petty sessions clerk is debarred by statute from acting as prosecutor in the Court with which he is officially connected, and that Sergeant Fitzsimons is invariably prosecutor at the Mountmellick Petty Sessions Court, he will see that some other person is appointed to the position of acting clerk to that Court.
    MR. WALTER LONG: A petty sessions clerk is not debarred by statute from acting as prosecutor in the Court of which he is clerk. Instructions, however, have been issued that the sergeant is not again to act as prosecutor while temporarily employed as clerk. He has prosecuted in one case only since he has been so employed.

    Cattle Houghing near Athenry.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of 24th March some cattle belonging to Mr. Murphy, of Gloves, near Athenry, were houghed, and others had their tails cut off; whether he has any official information as to the cause of this outrage; if any arrests have been made in connection with it; and what steps he has taken or intends to take to enforce the law in this district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: On the night of 24th March, sixty-seven cattle, the property of Mr. Murphy and others, were driven off two farms at Gloves, and were found roaming two miles away on the following morning. Three of them were cut on the back—one severely. No cause can at present be assigned for the

    323
    outrage. No arrests have been made by the police, but they are carefully pursuing their inquiries into the matter. As already stated, I have called for a special report as to the condition of this district, which is engaging my earnest attention.
    MR. KILBRIDE: Were any of these constables on this station ever under the direction of Sergeant Sheridan?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. SLOAN: Is it not the fact that not a single policeman was on duty this night, as they were all engaged in a spree in the police barracks?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have no information of that. I should be sorry for my hon. friend to cast such an aspersion on the police unless he had some definite information.
    MR. SLOAN: I, too, should be sorry to do so. I ask for information, but if I give some to the right hon. Gentleman will he inquire.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Certainly.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Did the police after their spree go out after the cattle.
    MR. DUFFYasked if a public meeting had not passed a resolution protesting against these slurs on the district.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! These Questions are not in order.

    Lambert Estate, Athenry—Destruction of Walls.
    MR. CHARLES CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on the night of 24th March the greater part of the walls surrounding the farm of John O'Loughlin, on the Lambert Estate, near Athenry, were levelled to the around and his cattle driven off; will he say what arrests have been made in connection therewith; and what steps the Government intend to take to enforce the law in this district.
    MR. WALTER LONG: A gap about six feet wide was made in the wall of Mr. O'Loughlin's farm, the object being to afford a passage for the cattle which were driven off this farm and the adjoining farm, as mentioned in my reply to the last Question.

    Burdett Estate, King's County.
    MR. REDDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Burdett Estate, at Banagher, King's County, consisting of about 400 Irish acres of prime land, at present let to graziers on the eleven months system, is shortly to be sold in order to satisfy various claimants to the property of the late owner; and whether, in view of the number of small uneconomic holdings, most of them upon bog land, that exist in this district, he will recommend the Congested Districts Board to buy in this estate with a view to resale to tenants in need of enlarged holdings.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This estate is not suitable for the purposes of the Board, who do not propose to acquire it.

    East Limerick Schools.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say whether any managers of national schools in East Limerick, within the past few years, have been in treaty with the Commissioners of National Education about obtaining grants for the building of schools, and so far have failed in their efforts; and, if so, will he say what has been the cause of the failure; and when he expects that the Commissioners will be in a position to issue their new code of rules as regards building.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This Question should be addressed to my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and I would ask the hon. Member to address him accordingly.

    Miss Burton's Estate, near Mungret, County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that negotiations have been in progress for sale to the tenants of

    325
    the estate of Miss K. J. Burton, situate near Mungret, county Limerick; that a tenant named Michael M'Mahon was some years since evicted off this estate; and that in February last this man, before he could make arrangement for getting back into his holding, made inquiries of the Estates Commissioners as to whether, in case of reinstatement, they could make him a grant to restock his farm; and, if so, will he explain why the Estates Commissioners refuse to make any grant, as the whole estate is about being sold out.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners ascertained from the owner that she was unwilling to sell this particular holding unless the tenants generally should agree to purchase. The question of a grant to an evicted tenant will be considered when the estate upon which he is to be reinstated comes before the Commissioners.

    New Education Rule 127 (B)—Munster Protest.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolutions passed at a meeting of the Munster School Managers Association, held on March 28th, protesting against the proposed new rule of the Board, 127 (B); and whether the Commissioners of National Education will give due consideration to this and other protests from managers and teachers in various parts of Ireland before seeking to put the proposed rule into force.
    MR. WALTER LONG: These resolutions have been received, and will be duly considered by the Commissioners.
    MR. FLYNN: Have not a large number of similar resolutions been passed by public bodies all over the country?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Very likely.

    Leonard Estate, Galway.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board have purchased the Leonard Estate, Tuam, county Galway, and
    326

    is it the intention of the Board to divide the fifty-five acres of untenanted land outside the demesne amongst the small tenants in the district; and, if so, will Stephen Joyce, whose farm consists of about eleven acres, and another tenant named John Daly, whose farm consists of about one and a-half acres, be suitably provided for.
    MR. WALTER LONG: This land is untenanted and remote from a congested district. The Board purchased it with the object of exchanging it for land within congested districts in order to relieve congestion. It is not intended to transfer any portion of the land to the persons named.

    Mayo and the Marine Works Act.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when he will be in a position to make a statement in connection with the Mayo schemes under the Marine Works Act of 1902.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Government await a reply to a communication recently addressed to the Midland Great Western Railway Company. I hope soon to be in a position to make a statement in the matter.

    Technical Education in Kerry.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board have refused to give grants towards the technical education schemes arranged for the congested districts of the county by the Kerry County Council; and whether, seeing that more than half of county Kerry is scheduled as congested, he will state what steps he proposes to take in order to prevent the working of the schemes of technical education being paralysed in these districts.
    MR. WALTER LONG: 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

    327
    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.

    Sir Douglas Brooke and his Tenants.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a speech made by Sir Douglas Brooke, Baronet, at an Orange meeting held at Maguiresbridge, in the county of Fermanagh, on March 9th, in which he stated that at the time of Mr. Gladstone's second Home Rule Bill he had given out rifles to his Protestant tenantry and had taught some of the Protestants how to shoot these rifles straight, that there were a good many of these rifles still in the country, and some of them in his residence, Colebrooke, and that he would issue them to loyal Orangemen should the necessity to do so arise; and if so, whether, having regard to the position of Sir Douglas Brooke as a justice of the peace and deputy-lieutenant, his language has been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor; and, if so, what explanation, if any, has he given for the use of such language.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Lord Chancellor informs me that he knew nothing about this speech, and does not think it very important to consider what was said in reference to incidents of many years ago, and which may never recur.
    MR. MACVEAGH: But how many of these rifles are in the district? What does he consider about it?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I am afraid I am unable to do more than give the House the reply of the Lord Chancellor. I cannot say what he considers.

    Return Relating to Government Servants in Ireland.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state if he has any intention of bringing forward the Motion standing in his name to discharge the Order of this House for the Return relating to Government Servants in Ireland; and, if so, on what date.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I regret that I must bring forward the Motion to which the hon. Member refers. I understand that the hon. Member has a Question to the Prime Minister as to the date.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Has the hon. Gentleman used his influence with the Government to get time for the discussion of it?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I can add nothing to my Answer.

    Legislation by Reference.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the growing inconvenience arising out of the system of legislation by reference; and whether, in cases where Government Bills refer to other statutes, the material portions of the statutes so referred to will be set out in a schedule to such Bills.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I quite admit that inconvenience has been caused by legislation by reference to other statutes. I do not believe it will be possible to prevent that system of legislation in view of the time which, in modern conditions, the House takes to deal with controversial matters. I do not think the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is the best way of meeting the difficulty. I imagine that whenever an important Bill is under discussion dealing with any proposed legislation by reference there would be no objection to printing as a Parliamentary Paper the statutes already passed to which reference has been made. That course has been on more than one occasion adopted, and I think we should be ready to adopt it again.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the convenience of the legal profession and of the general public?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to consult the convenience of the legal profession.
    MR. J. H. LEWIS: And the public, too?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If they require this information they can only obtain it by the method that I have suggested.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the more material parts of the statutes referred to had been scheduled to the Behring Sea Fisheries Bill with great advantage.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not concerned in that particular case. The plan I have suggested does not differ materially from that suggested by the hon. Gentleman, and it seems, on the whole, to be the more convenient plan.

    Agricultural Rating Bill.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when the Second Reading of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, etc., Continuance Bill will be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very anxious to pass the Second Reading of this Bill before the Easter holidays, but no pledge can be given as regards the time until I see what Parliamentary time will be expended on other matters that must be dealt with.
    SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: Will public notice be given before the Bill is introduced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope it will be taken as sufficient notice if I say that if I possibly can I intend to read this Bill a second time before Easter.

    Sparkbrook Small Arms Factory.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the date on which the Cabinet decided to suspend the decision of the Army Council to reduce the establishment at Sparkbrook Small Arms Factory.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question of the Sparkbrook Small Arms Factory as such never came before the Cabinet at all, nor was the Cabinet concerned with the case of particular Government
    330
    factories. What did come before the Cabinet were certain general questions raised by the factories in the Metropolitan areas, and questions arising out of them. I think it was in reference to that general decision of the Cabinet that the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was written and published.
    MR. WHITLEY: When was this larger question decided by the Cabinet?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it was early in February, the first Cabinet we had after the recess. But I cannot be absolutely certain.

    Return relating to Government Servants in Ireland.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will give a day for the discussion of the Motion standing in the name of the Secretary to the Treasury for the discharge of an Order of this House for a Return relating to Government Servants in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot fix a time at present. I hope it will not be very long delayed.

    Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now say approximately when the Government Bill for establishing a Minister of Commerce and Industry, referred to in the King's Speech, will be introduced.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The date is not yet fixed.

    Imperial Defence.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any one of His Majesty's Ministers is responsible for advising the Crown as to the general schem of Imperial defence which has been recommended by the Committee of Defence; and, if so, which Minister has that responsibility.
    MR. A. BALFOUR: The Committee of Defence is, as the hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware, a Committee whose

    331
    duty it is to advise the Cabinet, and it is for the Cabinet, or for the head of the Cabinet, as the case may be, to advise His Majesty in connection with this and other matters.
    MR. BLACK: Is the Prime Minister himself responsible for Imperial defence, and if so, when will he make a statement of his policy?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that is a relevant and a proper Question. I have already said, in answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, that in my judgment it would be very proper to take an early opportunity of putting down Item E of the Treasury Vote, for which I am responsible, and which raises any question with which the Committee of Imperial Defence is concerned. I think it is desirable that on that Vote I should make a statement to the House. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that I cannot put that Vote down until Mr. Speaker has left the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. I should like it to come on on an early day after Easter.
    MR. TREVELYAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of making a statement on the Vote now under the consideration of the Committee of Supply.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the course suggested by the hon. Member a most undesirable one, and one which it is specially desirable to avoid. By putting down this Vote E the larger questions of Imperial defence can really be raised. You cannot discuss them satisfactorily, in my judgment, either on the Navy or the Army Votes, and it was because the House felt that that this other occasion was contrived.

    Canada and the Colonial Conference of 1902.
    MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the resolutions which were originally submitted by the Canadian Ministers to the Colonial Conference of
    332
    1902, showing how far these were accepted by the Colonial Secretary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question of what Papers should be laid on the Table in connection with this Conference was very carefully considered at the time with the advice of the Colonial Prime Ministers. I do not think it would be desirable now to reopen the question, and it certainly could not be reopened without consulting those Prime Ministers again.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Coal Mines (Weighing of Minerals) Bill: Mr. Compton Rickett, Mr. William Abraham, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Francis Sharp Powell, Mr. Atherley-Jones, Sir Harry Samuel, Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Parrott, Colonel Blundell, Mr. Joseph Albert Pease, Colonel Sadler, Sir Thomas Wrightson, Sir Hugh Shaw-Stewart, and Sir James Heath.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the better Prevention of Corruption." [Prevention of Corruption Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Married Women's Property Act, 1882." [Married Women's Property Act (1882) Amendment Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for amending the law relating to the Administration of Oaths for the purpose of Proceedings in Prize Courts." [Prize Courts Bill [Lords.]
    Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate, with Amendments, the enactments relating to Naval Prize of War. [Naval Prize Bill [Lords.]

    SUPPLY.
    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."
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I must apologise to the Committee for intervening now, but I think they will excuse me when I recall the fact that the debate last night was concluded by a very important speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I think it would be almost discourteous on my part if I were not to attempt, at any rate, to establish some case in reply to that which he put before the Committee last night. I am quite sure it would be most unsatisfactory to me if I were to allow the Committee to accept all the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman and to assume that there was no reply to any of them. I think there is an ample, a sufficient, a complete reply practically to every proposition the right hon. Gentleman advanced. I do not for a moment expect that hon. Members will agree to everything I have written or said, but I do think it is a reasonable proposition that they should make themselves fairly acquainted with the substance of my communications, whether written or spoken. I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman has been too much occupied to do me this honour. The right hon. Gentleman dealt in the first place with the question of the infantry of the Line. He spoke of the injury that might be done—would be done in his opinion—to the battalions of the Line if any of them were placed on a short-service establishment, and he adduced reasons which led him to
    334
    take that belief. I want to examine those reasons.
    He told the Committee that in the proposals I have laid before the House the battalions of the Line would be compelled to spend no less than eighteen years of their existence in India, and that great medical difficulties would arise by the prolongation of the service of the men in India. He said that the idea of extending the service from seven to nine years was a mistake, that it would infallibly produce certain evil consequences, and that it was therefore to be condemned. I am going to ask the Committee to judge of this matter. I am going to give them the facts as they appear to me and ask them whether the verdict lies with me or with the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, the idea that any proposal I have ever made to the House involves the retention of the men in India for a longer period than that for which they have hitherto been retained is an entire mistake. I do not suppose the Committee is as familiar with these matters as I am, but the right hon. Gentleman is. He knows perfectly well that under the existing system battalions remain in India fifteen, eighteen, and even as long as twenty years. A battalion has only just returned from India which has been there for over eighteen years. I do not regard that practice with favour. I think it is an unfortunate practice; but to suggest that any alteration which I have ever proposed would either perpetuate or accentuate that practice is an entire mistake. On the contrary, the moment you set the battalions free from the double-battalion system you are in a position materially to abbreviate the period of service abroad. That is not an assertion of my own. It is the result of a calculation made with the greatest care, and the thing is easily explained. If you have a battalion which is dependent merely on a depot, you can remove that battalion as a battalion, from this country to the Colonies, from the Colonies to India, and can bring it back again. When you are sending out, as we do now every successive year, drafts to that battalion, the number of men involves exactly the same amount of transportation as the transportation of the battalion itself, and

    335
    it has been one of my principal inducements in submitting these proposals to the House that we can institute a system by which a battalion can go from here to India, that it can be removed from India to, say, for instance, the Cape as a battalion, and that it can be brought back on a reduced establishment from the Cape to this country as a battalion, and that by doing so you will greatly reduce the period of Indian service, which is now imposed.
    The right hon. Gentleman said we were making a great mistake in departing from the seven years period of service. I do not know whether he was relying upon his recollection or whether he was dwelling on his present knowledge. But I venture to suggest to the Committee that he was absolutely misinformed with regard to this question of seven years service. The proposition is that some revolutionary proposal is being made whereby a longer period of service than seven years is being imposed on the soldier, that the change will involve great disadvantages in health and discipline, and that it will greatly prejudice the chance of the soldier obtaining employment on his discharge. What are the facts? For years past the service of nine out of ten soldiers has been not seven but eight years. At this moment, out of the whole of the Army, no less than 155,000 men are serving for eight years and upwards, as against 111,000 men who are serving for a less period. If it be true that that service of seven years is so detrimental to the Army, we shall have to make revolutionary changes greater than those I have suggested, because—let the Committee mark the figures and then say how they are going to change the matter. Are we to make a break in a practice which has grown up enormously to the advantage of the Army? Who tells us that the Army is any the worse for the fact that 155,000 men, or by far the larger proportion of the Army, are serving for eight years? No one. Does any one tell us that we should alter that system? No. And if the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures he will find that for one man who is serving seven years there are four men who are serving for eight years. Therefore, I think he was a little behindhand in regard to his knowledge of the actual facts when he was suggesting that we
    336
    are making a great departure in proposing to establish nine years service.
    The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, is an advocate of a return to the seven and five years period of service. There, again, I want to test his statement. If he is an advocate of such a return, accompanied by a reduction of the number of battalions—because that, I think, is an accepted axiom on the other side of the House—I want something a little more specific. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, in the first instance, that if you do return to the seven and five years system you will have a Reserve entirely inadequate to your needs. Let us suppose that we adopt the further suggestion and reduce battalions. I do not want them to specify the particular number of battalions which they wish to abolish, though I should like them to throw the handkerchief so that we might know which is to fall. It is, I think, a fair thing to say that this reduction of Regular battalions is the accepted doctrine not only of the Leader of the Opposition——
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have never said so.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I sincerely welcome the admission that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the view that we ought to have a reduction of Line battalions, and I entirely exclude him; but he will not deny that that doctrine has been accepted with alacrity and is being insisted on with great determination by some very influential members of his Party. Now I want to know where you are going to begin. Do the Committee desire to abolish the Gordon Highlanders or the Seaforth Highlanders? Do the Irish Members wish to get rid of the Connaught Rangers? This is the particular application of the doctrine. If you are going further than the reduction of fourteen battalions, I presume you must have some limit to your destructive energies; and I suggest that we should limit it to thirty battalions, including the fourteen of which I have spoken. Are you going to get rid of the Dublin Fusiliers, the 100th Canadian Regiment, the Highland Light Infantry, the North Staffordshire Regiment? I might quote the whole list. That is the whole point.
    MAJOR SEELY: Who proposes it?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. member for the Isle of Wight asks who proposes it. That is exactly what I want to get at. I do not propose it; that is quite clear. Either it is proposed or it is not. I was told it was the policy of the Opposition to economise by reducing the Regular Army, and I want to know whether they are serious or not. Let us suppose that we can eliminate the element of controversy, for I think there might be some controversy if you were to propose to abolish the Gordon Highlanders, or some public objection to getting rid of the Highland Light Infantry. I will confine myself to the reduction of fourteen battalions, about whom there has been a certain amount of consensus of opinion. We have 156 battalions of Line infantry in the Army; of those fifty-two are in India and thirty-six are, or shortly will be, after the reduction of one battalion, in the Colonies. Suppose you get rid of fourteen battalions; then, after providing for the existing garrisons of India and the Colonies, you will have fifty-four battalions only for the purpose of relief and reinforcement in case of war. Now, is there any evidence at all, theoretical or practical, that fifty-four battalions, fifty-four units, will satisfy our Imperial needs in time of war? If that be true, all I can say is that it is in direct contradiction to every single scrap of evidence I have ever seen since I took office. I suppose it will not be desired that we should return to the position which was so greatly complained of during the war, when the whole Regular defence of this country was entrusted to eight battalions of the Line. Let us say that you enlarge that number to sixteen. With your sixteen and your fifty-four battalions you will have a very slender measure of reinforcement for the Army of India. But let us go a little further and suppose that, with the hon. Members opposite, you are going to abolish thirty battalions of the Regular Army. What would happen? You would have, in the event of war, for the whole purposes of war, for the reinforcement of your Army in India, your Army in the Colonies, and the defence of the United Kingdom, only thirty-eight
    338
    battalions of infantry. Is that what the Committee desire? Would they be really content with that result? And that is not the end of it, for the moment you begin to reduce the battalions, you reduce the Reservists of the battalions, and you would reduce them at a very rapid ratio, much more rapid than if the whole of the Army were concentrated in this country. Battalions abroad are not producing a large Reserve; it is the battalions at home; and directly you examine the figures you will find that you will be lamentably and increasingly short of Reserves—not to furnish reinforcements in time of war, but to mobilise your battalions so as to enable them to go to war at all. I think it is fair that the Committee should formulate their opinions upon a problem of that kind; it is the kind of practical problem with which I am trying to deal. I need hardly point out that this will involve the entire destruction of the linked battalions. Personally I regard that, for the purpose of drafting, as a pure advantage, though I am not quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition so regards it. But this is certain—that if you decrease the number of battalions at home and retain the number of battalions abroad, the system of linked battalions for purposes of drafting falls to the ground instantly.
    *SIR LEES KNOWLES: I am not at all certain that there is a consensus of opinion in the House as to the abolition of the fourteen Line battalions. There is the alternative proposal to reduce the number of men in the battalions from 1,000 to 500, and so to avoid the abolition of the battalions, and the esprit de corps attached to them.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The very next remark I was going to make was in exact continuation of the hon. Member's line of thought. What I suggest to the Committee is that it is a far more profitable operation, if you are going to insist on this reduction, to reduce the battalions to such strength as will enable us to economise while retaining the power of recruiting Reserves and the power of re-creating the battalions in the event of war. You would effect the same economy as if you reduced half the number of battalions, and at the same

    339
    time you would reserve the cadres. The right hon. Gentleman made some remarks on what he alleged to be the shortage of the Reserve under the proposal I have made. I was unable to trace the origin of those remarks; I do not know where he got them from—certainly not from me. I think he suggested that there would be a shortage of some 66,000 men on the Reserve; that is an absolute delusion. There will be no shortage on the Reserve; there will be a surplus on the Reserve. Among the figures I presented to the House I gave a figure of 90,000 men of the infantry Reserve, but it was limited by the conditions which I imposed upon that Reserve. If you were to take the existing Reserve conditions, instead of having 90,000 you would have, under the cheapest terms ever proposed in the British Army, an increased Reserve of 150,000 men. I hope, then, that we have heard the last of this suggestion that the Reserve, even under the conditions I propose, is inadequate.
    The right hon. Gentleman suggested that I had made some modification in the views I have suggested to the House in regard to the Militia; but that is a misconception. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that I have entertained certain views with regard to the Militia, and I confess I entertain them still. I think the Militia ought to be made, and can with great advantage be made, the main, possibly even the sole, future component of our territorial Army. Yes, but I never made that proposal to the House of Commons. I am addressing myself to the charge made against me by the right hon. Gentleman last night, that I had modified in any particular the proposal I had made to the House. I believe I was right at that time in supposing that the scheme, which I confess I still favour, would not have found equal favour in the eyes of the House of Commons, and I never did propose to the House any serious modification of the Militia force. I said then, and I say now, that it was essential to eradicate from the Militia those units which were clearly of no advantage; but at the same time, I have said over and over again that, in deference to what I believed to be the general feeling of the House, I should not pro-
    340
    pose any substantial alteration in the Militia. The proof of that is to be found in the fact that we have taken for the Militia Vote this year precisely the same sum that we took last year. Therefore it is a little hard that I should be charged with having withdrawn or altered the proposals which I am represented as having made to the House with regard to the Militia.
    I noted the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he was in great doubt as to what would be the effect on recruiting for the Militia of the proposal to render the force liable to foreign service. I do not share the doubts of the right hon. Gentleman. I was present at the debate on the Militia Bill in another place, and I heard one Militia officer after another get up and say that this proposal would be regarded as a claim both by officers and men. Still, it will be important to see the result of this proposal, for upon it depends whether or not we can make effective use of the Militia.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no change in his mind or in his intention, or in any proposal which he has now submitted to the House, from the original proposal with regard to the Militia which he laid before the House last year. Lord Lansdowne thinks differently, according to the extract from his speech on the Militia Bill which I read to the House last night. I quoted it for this reason. Lord Lansdowne speaks in the name of the Government. We complain that in this House we hear a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks and desires and wishes, but we do not hear anything at all of what the Government are determined to do. Let me read again what Lord Lansdowne 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 the proper place of the Militia is that it should form a part of that Army which in times of peace remains at home, but which in times of national emergency shall he 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—that he would have preferred

    341
    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 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."
    We have here two contradictory conceptions of the position of the Militia. The first, Lord Lansdowne says, was originally put forward under the authority of the Government by the Secretary of State for War; but they have given that up and adopted a different course. Will the right hon. Gentleman now say that he is one and the same person in this respect as he was last year?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The interpolation of the right hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity of referring to the Papers with regard to the Militia which I laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: I am not mistaken. It is Lord Lansdowne, if any one.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Lord Lansdowne was quite right. What he said was quite correct.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNEEMAN: Then it was concealed from us in the House of Commons.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There was never anything more open to this world. I never concealed from this House that it was my desire to have the Militia included in the short-service Army. But I never made the proposal to the House. In the Memorandum which I submitted to the House, I said that a change of the magnitude which I suggested could only come about after a much fuller public discussion than had yet been given to it, and that therefore no sweeping alteration in the Militia was at present contemplated. I never made any other proposal to the House; I have had no reason for withdrawing any proposal which I did make,
    342
    and Lord Lansdowne has accurately described the position. My hon friend the Member for Portsmouth spoke yesterday about the impossibility of making the Militia a territorial force. That seems to me a paradox. The Militia is essentially the territorial force of the country. If I have received one, I have received numbers of communications from great country towns saying that if we could form these territorial battalions they would place at our disposal all the resources of the locality. If you say they have already done so under the existing Militia arrangement, I say they have not. But I am confident that the moment you start these territorial battalions you will have the whole local feeling and sentiment on their side.
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: If you merge the Militia in your new territorial regiments the Militia, as Militia, ceases to exist.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will tell the hon. Member about his own battalion in Hampshire. That battalion at the present moment is being bled at every point. In that battalion there are 156 men under twenty years of age, and there are 164 men disqualified under existing rules from service at all. The total strength of the battalion is 463 men. Does the hon. Member think that battalion would be better or worse if it were relieved from the pressure it is now under? I will tell the hon. Member exactly what has happened. The recruits of that battalion have been drawn out by the Rifle Brigade, by the Royal Marines, by the stokers of the Royal Navy, and, above all, by the Volunteer corps. Does the hon. Member really think that that battalion would suffer at all if it were made a territorial battalion, and it had not only barracks established in Winchester, but had full access to the traditions and activity of the Army?
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: If the right hon. Gentleman says that we, as battalions, are not worth having, there is nothing more to be said, and we must go, but, if you merge us with territorial regiments, we shall no longer exist as a Militia unit, and all our sentiment, traditions, and

    343
    esprit de corps, as Militia, disappear; we shall be a totally different institution. I do not say this ought not to be done if it is necessary, but do not let us be told it is the same thing.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: There never has been any question and there is no intention of merging them in another battalion. I have left the opportunity to a certain number of Militia battalions to accept the responsibility if they desire, and I have ample evidence that apparently I would get battalion after battalion to accept the responsibility proudly.
    Let me come for a moment to another item, the question of the Volunteers. The right hon. Gentleman attacked me for quoting certain figures with regard to the Volunteers. I believe that what I have proposed for the Volunteers would lead to an amelioration in their condition which has never been suggested for them, and would put them in a position that has never been approached both for standing and efficiency. In what I said about the internal condition of the force I was but quoting statements of its officers. I said nothing in malice, I exaggerated nothing. All I claim is the right to examine the Volunteers in the light of reason and common sense, just as we examine every other branch of His Majesty's forces.
    The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the ''blue-water" school and said that he belonged to the "silver-streak" school. Well, if we are liable to be invaded, we must have the kind of troops which will enable us to face the great Continental nations. Will any one suggest that we should reorganise the Volunteer force so that it may be able to meet the troops of those nations? If they had to meet a French, a German, or an Austrian army corps should we really organise our Volunteer forces as we are organising them now? Should we not give them transport, cavalry, guns, training, corresponding to that of the troops against which they were likely to be engaged? I want to know whether we really believe in this theory at all. I do believe in it, though not in the exaggerated form the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me. If hon. and right hon.
    344
    Gentlemen opposite do not believe in it let them accept the logical development of their views. There is no half-way house in this matter.
    I must say I have been impressed by what I must call the uncompromising unreality of this debate. I have taken but a small part in it. I spoke yesterday and I am now endeavouring to reply to the Leader of the Opposition to-day. Therefore, if unreality exists I am not responsible for it. I still feel we are not in contact with the realities of the situation at all. I still think we have had no suggestion from either side of the House.
    AN HON. MEMBER: It is not for us to make suggestions.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That only proves what I say; but I think it is time the House did suggest——
    AN HON. MEMBER: You clear out first.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If they have any suggestions to make. We have not had any one get up and say, "I believe that our Army as at present constituted is fit for the protection of the country in the absence of the Navy; I do believe the training we give them, their organisation, is perfectly satisfactory."
    When I state the results of my examination into the condition of our different forces I know it is not popular. It is not agreeable to receive the criticisms of hon. Gentleman on both sides, but I know that is not only my fortune, but will be the fortune of every Minister who stands in this place and ventures to look facts in the face, to test the real fighting value of our aims. The moment you venture to suggest that this or that branch of the Army requires investigation, or demands reform, you are met by an indignant chorus of reproach. I am old enough to remember that there was a certain Marshal Lebœuf in a neighbouring country who told the French people that everything in the French army was ready to the last gaiter-button. It was my fortune to see that country, within a year from the

    345
    time that statement was made, invaded and devastated by war, and the French people had to pay the price for accepting that statement. I have not the slightest doubt that the Marshal's statement was exceedingly popular. I am certain that the Chamber applauded him loudly. From the personal point of view nothing would be more satisfactory to myself if I were able to slate that, according to all the information at my disposal, I am convinced that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. I do not think so; nothing will make me think so; I believe any one in my position will feel it to be his imperative duty to probe into the condition of every branch of our forces, and must be prepared for what I was prepared for, criticism, much of which no doubt is just; but a good deal of which I venture respectfully to say is not only unjust, but uninformed. I would take the opinion of the Committee. I ask if the gravamen of the charge that is laid against me can be sustained; I ask if I have not met the Leader of the Opposition on every single point; and I ask the Committee to say that there is not only a good deal to be said on this side, but that the enormous weight of experience and fact lies on this side.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he begged to move again the reduction of £1,000,000 moved the previous day by the hon. Member for Oldham, although he was fully aware that his hon. friend the Member for Sheffield was anxious to move a reduction dealing specifically with the Volunteers. He thought it was only right that in setting up this reduction of £1,000,000 some reply should be made to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. In spite of all the lucidity of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War they did not know what the right hon. Gentleman was driving at. He was not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman through all the various parts of his speech in reply to the Leader of the Opposition; but he would only take three heads so as to show the right hon. Gentleman the difficulty the Committee found in trying to understand what he intended to propose. The right hon. Gentleman turned to the Leader of the Opposition and said in regard
    346
    to the Reserves and the number of battalions and the general reduction, "I have made my position perfectly clear. You say, 'go back to the old seven years and five years system.' I propose, on the other hand"—and the right hon. Gentleman forgot he was speaking in the presence of the First Lord of the Treasury, whom they were all glad to see in the House—"I propose that we should have a long-service Army which should provide us with the necessary men for India, and also a home-service Army providing us with a Reserve." Quite so. They knew the right hon. Gentleman proposed that; but was it going to be done? The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps tell them—for, after all, the Committee would see that the whole thing hung together—that he proposed to convert the Militia into a kind of home-service Army. Nothing could be plainer. There were a great number of officers of Militia in the House who viewed with great concern that proposal, as was shown during recent debates. Some thought it wise and some thought it foolish; but all of them wanted to know. He could give the names of many commanding officers of Militia regiments who assured him that they could not obtain officers or men for their corps because of the state of uncertainty they were in. But when the Leader of the Opposition mentioned this the right hon. Gentleman said: "No, no; I propose to do this when I am allowed; but certain people will not allow me to do it." What a ridiculous state of affairs! Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to do it at all? And if so, when? But, if he did not propose to do it, what about the short-service Army which he now told the Committee he was not going forward with? The right hon. Gentleman fell foul of the Leader of the Opposition because he proposed to return to the seven years with the colours and five years with the Reserve, and said that that would never provide an adequate Reserve for India, which the short-service Army would provide. But if there was not going to be a short-service Army were they to have any Reserves at all?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas under stood to reply: "We are."
    MAJOR SEELY: Well, they were. They had got it at last. Now, since they were assured that they were to have a short-service Army—which many hon. Members disapproved of—the Committee would be glad to know definitely, here and now, when they were going to have this short-service Army—not the Militia. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell them; or could the Prime Minister tell them, when this short-service Army was to begin? There was no reply. There would be no reply. They all knew that the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, which had many merits, was not approved of by the War Office over which the right hon. Gentleman had control. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in regard to the Volunteers had not the approval of those concerned with the Volunteer Department of the War Office. They knew, or at any rate, they heard, that the Committee of Defence would not agree to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. Well, it did seem to him that it was time that there should be an end to all this mystery, this concealment, this evasion. If they were to have a home-service Army and a Reserve, they could not enlist men for nine years service and three years in the Reserve and put off the formation of the short-service Army to the Greek Kalends. If they were to have a home-service Army the House of Commons ought to be frankly told that they were. Many hon. Members believed that the formation of a home-service Army would be a death blow to the Militia, and the Volunteers would probably, in the long run, absolutely fail to produce the result which the right hon. Gentleman and all of them sought, and pave the way to a military system wholly unadapted to our needs. They were told that a home-service Army was going to be formed.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: It is not on the Estimates.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that, as his hon. and gallant friend had just remarked, it was not on the Estimates; and it was a most irregular procedure for the House, the previous night, to pass the Second Reading of the Army Annual Bill, seeing that we had an entirely new Army.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that the hon. and gallant Member was under an entire misconception. There were a number of battalions now which could be utilised for short service. There was no necessity for a change in any way.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid they were now beginning to get at the facts. This was surely a most extraordinary suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The Secretary for War said that he would proceed to form a home-service Army without any reference to the House of Commons, and that there were in this country battalions corresponding to a home-service Army. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that he had, on the sly, been enlisting men for two years? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] He immediately withdrew the words "on the sly" in any offensive sense. He merely wished to show the absurdity of the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman could form a short-service Army without communication with this House, and that he could enlist men for two years with the colours and six in the Reserve. What about the drafts for India? Were they going to be affected? Of course, this was an entirely new departure. Such a revolution in our military system had not been heard of since the days of Pitt; and the House, naturally, did not want to have a knowledge of it by a kind of side wind. It was not only the effect of the home-service Army on the military problem of the country, but its effect on the Militia and the Volunteers that had to be considered. The right hon Gentleman tried to make the House believe that he now proposed to form a short-service Army, against which many Members seriously protested, without reference to the House, and which was to take the place of the Militia. Were they to have two home-service Armies—one to take the place of the Militia, and another to be set up in five months time when the drafts for India were needed?
    Then, in regard to the foreign-service Army, there was an absolute point of disagreement. The right hon. Gentleman had invented an entirely new school of his own. They had had the blue-water school and the War Office school. Now they had the Clacton Beach school, which

    349
    said that a few dinghies could land a force on these shores and that we should have to surrender to the enemy in six days. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman did say that competent naval officers had said so.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that he was bound to confess that the extreme naval view had adopted that statement; but he never had.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that that was the extreme naval view, and the right hon. Gentleman had stated it with approval. But the right hon. Gentleman himself adopted the view of a possible raid of 5,000 men as a maximum; and the Committee would be glad to know if that was the view of the Clacton Beach school. He protested against the surrender policy. It was no part of his proposal to go into this at any length, but it did seem to him that the suggestion of the Committee of Defence that in the event of this country losing command of the sea they would surrender within six days was most disgraceful.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Has the right hon. Gentleman the smallest proof that the Committee of Defence had ever laid down such a proposition?
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he had only the statement of the Secretary of State for War. The theory propounded by the right hon. Gentleman was that if we lost command of the sea——
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a contingency which has never been discussed.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it was not a contingency to be discussed, because he, for his part, thought it was a very proper contingency to discuss. If the evil day ever came and we lost command of the sea temporarily our proper course was not to surrender but to labour andsufferuntil werecovered it. [Laughter.] He would beg those who laughed to remember that he had on his side those who had studied the question deeply and also those who had studied naval strategy
    350
    in all its bearings. His point was that while invasion might or might not become more or less likely or possible, a blockade had become absolutely impossible. When it was remembered that the whole of the Japanese fleet found it impossible to blockade the narrow entrance to the harbour of Port Arthur there was something to be said for the theory that the starvation of the people of this country was an impossibility, and the steadfast qualities of our people did not lead them to regard lightly the policy of surrender. The idea that if they lost command of the sea they were to abandon all the causes they held dear was one he would never endorse. [A voice: No one does.]
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I strongly object to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. This is neither the Vote nor the occasion for the hon. Gentleman to give his favourite version of the views of the Committee of National Defence.
    MAJOR SEELY: We should be glad to know what the views of the right hon. Gentleman were.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Our rules lay down a proper occasion when our views should be given.
    MAJOR SEELYasked how it was possible to discuss Vote 1 of the Army Estimates and what men were to be obtained until they had arrived at some kind of agreement as to whether the men were required for this country or not. It was very easy to say this question should be discussed on item "E," but the Committee had been put off discussing this matter for over a year by such statements as that. The Committee passed last year provisional Estimates on the understanding that the whole matter would be put right in the course of the year, and they now found themselves in a greater state of obfuscation than they were last year. He applied to hon. and right hon Gentlemen to say, Did any one know what the War Office proposed to do with the Militia? Did any one know what was intended to be done with the home-service Army? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech had attempted to show that all reductions were impossible On

    351
    the other hand the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said large reductions were essential.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I did not say no reductions were possible. I said if the House intended to maintain the Army in its present condition there could be no reduction.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid the right hon. Gentleman had said the only possible way of reducing the Estimates was by the reduction of the home-service Army. That was not part of the scheme when these Estimates were produced. Therefore on the scheme produced it was impossible to make reductions. Economy had been assented to by both sides of the House and yet they could not proceed with the reductions because they did not know what was intended with regard to the home-service Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers, and what was to govern the policy of the Government on this question. It was no good doing anything until they knew what was wanted, and if the Government would give some lead the whole Committee would be grateful. He trusted that whatever school of thought governed the policy the Government would never admit that they belonged to the school of surrender. He begged to move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £9,101,000, be granted for the said Service."—(Major Seely.)
    *SIR CHARLES WELBYsaid he did not cavil at the delay which had taken place in carrying out the schemes which the right hon. Gentleman had put before the House last year. He was, on the contrary, grateful for it, because it had given the country time to grasp and consider those important and far reaching proposals. He confessed that the right hon. Gentleman was something of an enigma to him. When he listened to the general statements of principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman he found himself in general agreement with them. When he pointed out our peculiar position as an island power, when he pointed out the very limited danger of invasion
    352
    and the necessity of our keeping our Army up for the purpose of warfare abroad, and when he pointed to the Indian frontier as the main source of danger he was in agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. But when the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to his concrete proposals based on those broad statements of principle, then it was impossible to reconcile the principle with the proposals made. He was now referring particularly to the proposals with regard to the Regular Army. He found himself to a large extent in agreement, with the Militia policy which the right hon. Gentleman now put forward as against that put forward last year, assuming it to be a genuine scheme to improve and strengthen the Militia force, but he could only approve of it on condition that the plan of home-service battalions should be dropped. There was no room in our military system for both. It was extremely difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman in regard to his proposals for the Regular Army. For the first time it was recognised that the Regular Army existed for war abroad only, and yet our small Army was to be divided into a home-service and a foreign-service Army. That proposal was, moreover, not compatible with our obtaining a large and efficient Reserve, which was our great need at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that his home-service battalions would have a large Reserve, large in numbers no doubt, but of very young men insufficiently trained, who had only seen two years service in the ranks and no foreign service at all. On the other hand, the general-service Reserve would be trained men, but quite inadequate in numbers. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that the chief business of the Army in the future was the defence of India against a European Power, and yet he gave this country a force far less efficient for the purpose than that which we now possessed. The Government had declared that in their deliberate opinion it was necessary to have not less than 100,000 men ready to be sent from this country to reinforce the Indian Army and to make the frontier of India secure, such a force would include some seventy battalions of infantry, and how would they be provided under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme?

    353
    There would be a certain number of Guards and general-service battalions, perhaps thirty in all, and for the remaining forty the right hon. Gentleman would have to fall back upon the home-service battalions. The composition of these had been so fully exposed that it was unnecessary to deal with it at length. They contained only a very small proportion of long-service men, while as for the remainder, about one-fourth would consist of boys of from eighteen to twenty years of age with less than two years service with the colours and no experience outside these islands, and the rest would be men from the Reserve, but still young men who had not served outside these islands and who had not the training which would fit them for service in the field.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid it was not contemplated that boys of eighteen to twenty years of age should be sent to the Indian frontier. The battalions would have the same composition as obtained in any army in Europe.
    *SIR CHARLES WELBYsaid his point was that the battalions would consist mainly of Reserves, which the right hon. Gentleman did not deny.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERremarked that the hon. Member stated that the men would be from eighteen to twenty years of age. That was not so; the battalions would be composed of men above twenty years of age.
    *SIR CHARLES WELBYsaid the right hon. Gentleman was making the large assumption that he would get his recruits at the age of nineteen. But even assuming that, and that he sent no man until he had served one year with the colours, the men would not be more than twenty-one years of age, and the great bulk of the Reserves would be young soldiers with little military experience. Battalions so constituted would be vastly inferior to the battalions now available, and he would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether his military colleagues in the Army Council were fully satisfied as to the efficiency of the battalions for that particular purpose.
    354
    He was glad to note a tendency in certain quarters to go back to the principle of the Cardwell system, in the virtues of which he had always been a believer, though he was perfectly conscious of its shortcomings. The more he saw of these new schemes which appeared and passed away with bewildering rapidity, the more he was convinced that the Cardwell system was, on the whole, the best and the most adapted to the requirements of the country. If, however, the best was to be made of that system, there must be an adequate number of cadres, and he entirely agreed with the Secretary of State that our Regular Army was none too large. To praise the Cardwell system in one breath and in the next to advocate a large reduction of battalions was altogether inconsistent. Hitherto the Cardwell system had been perpetually overstrained, but there were circumstances at present which would give it a better chance than it had had yet. New battalions had been added, and the Secretary of State had been able to prevail upon the naval authorities and the Council of Defence to admit the possibility of withdrawing a certain number of battalions from colonial stations. These things greatly simplified the problem. The most cogent criticism against the Cardwell system was that in the form in which it had hitherto existed it did not yield a sufficient Reserve according to modern ideas. It was indisputably true that a system of seven years with the colours and five in the Reserve did not yield a sufficient Reserve, and to meet that fault the three years and the two years enlistments had been proposed. In his opinion that was beginning at the wrong end. The way to increase the Reserve was not to reduce too much the period of colour service, but to lengthen the period of Reserve service. The fault of the Cardwell system was that it engaged the men for twelve years, and so lost hold of them at the age of twenty-nine or thirty, when they were in their full fighting power. He would like to see men engaged for twenty-one years, with a colour service of six or seven years, and a Reserve service of fourteen or fifteen years, with the Reserves so classified that as the men got older and more advanced in their Reserve service their liability to active service

    355
    should be proportionately diminished. As to whether the men would engage for twenty-one years, his view was that the period of colour service affected the question far more than the period of Reserve service, and as he understood it was now the view of the War Office that it was almost as easy to get men for nine as for nine as for three years he could not believe that a period of six or seven years with the colours followed by fourteen or fifteen years in the Reserve would act as a deterrent.
    He had the greatest horror of amateur schemes with regard to the Army, and, if he might say so without offence, that was the main blot on the scheme of the Secretary of State. It was the scheme of an amateur—an able and enthusiastic amateur with a great knowledge of the subject, but still an amateur, and the weak point was that the right hon. Gentleman had not the best opinion of the Army behind him. That was where the present scheme differed from the Cardwell scheme. The late Lord Card-well did not invent his own scheme. He called together the best of the young and progressive school of officers he could find, such as the present Lord Wolseley and Lord Cromer, and they hammered out a scheme, and then, having satisfied himself that it was sound, he made himself responsible for it. Only in that way was it possible to arrive at any firm foundation for a final settlement of the problem of Army organisation. If there was one thing the Army sorely needed at present it was a final settlement of this question. He should vote against the Amendment because he believed it was altogether unreasonable and impracticable, but he earnestly hoped that Members would not be told that by voting these Estimates they had committed themselves to certain principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, to the division of our small Army into two parts, or to the creation of short-service battalions which, besides being ineffective in themselves, would be absolutely fatal to the Militia.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONbelieved that it was only by carrying a substantial reduction such
    356
    as was now proposed that the House would be able to bring to an end the present waste in the management of the Army or to secure any effective reform. It was now known that the Army was required not for the defence of these islands, but for the defence of the Indian frontier, and he suggested that the Secretary of State should tell the Committee definitely upon what the provisions of the Government for the defence of the Indian frontier were based. Any attempt to consider as a whole the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was unreal until the Committee knew what the requirements were and upon, what they were based. The Secretary of State had said that he was endeavouring to meet the demands not of the Council of Imperial Defence, but of the Indian Government. Those demands changed with every Viceroy, and frequently with the Commanders-in-Chief. One Viceroy would get on the mountains in the direction of Tibet, Afghanistan, or Persia, while another would remain behind the natural frontier of India, extending railways, laying out the necessary camps, and providing for the defence of India within its natural frontiers. Upon which of those policies was this scheme based? One Commander-in-Chief, like the late Sir Donald Stewart, would uphold the defensive policy, while another would march through Afghanistan and into the territory of another Power on his way to Moscow. Which of those policies was to prevail? These were not questions which could be decided permanently by the Government of India, they must be decided by the Council of Defence, and it was only by the Council of Defence laying down a settled policy and Parliament approving of that policy that there could be any fixed principle upon which to base the number of Regulars that should be kept. That was a serious consideration in regard to which the House had had no definite information. Upon that policy depended whether the white garrison to be maintained for the defence of the Indian frontier should be 75,000 or 150,000. Which of those numbers did the Government seek to maintain? It was not only the question of the number of Regulars; it was also the question of the time there would be

    357
    to prepare for the defence. If they waited near the Indian frontier there would be plenty of time to train the troops and send them out; but if they were going to advance into the territory of a neighbouring Power, 150,000 Regulars able to march at once would be necessary. That was why so much depended upon the settlement of the policy, and why he thought the right hon. Gentleman was wrong in deprecating discussion in the House of Commons.
    With the criticisms of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Auxiliary Forces he generally concurred, not because he thought expert opinion was not of great value, but because it had been directed very much to the maintenance of Regular troops. At the same time it could not be that the Committee of Defence disapproved of the present system of Auxiliary Forces, and that they were in favour of increasing the Regular strength and reducing the strength of the Auxiliary Forces, or else the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would have been more adequately supported. Either the Committee of Defence had not approved of that policy, or the Government had not supported the Committee. He believed that, generally, the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman towards the Auxiliary Forces had been most unfortunate. In his own experience of the Volunteers and the Militia, service both by officers and privates was readily given—in the Volunteers especially, and to some extent in the Militia. It was felt that they were wanted and the service was therefore readily given. He thought the Volunteers and the Militia had got keener of late years because the relations between them and the Regulars had become better. But if the right hon. Gentleman taught the country and the Regulars to look down on the Auxiliary Forces he would take the life out of the movement. The Volunteers and the Militia had both been increasing in efficiency of late years, especially in the mounted corps and the artillery, which were the two branches of which alone he had any experience. These branches would become more efficient still. It was not merely a question of reducing inefficient units. In that they all agreed with the right hon.
    358
    Gentleman. That was one thing, and to reduce efficient units was another, and under the right hon. Gentleman' scheme it might quite well become necessary to reduce efficient units. He was opposed to that general idea because, after all, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to save £1,000,000 a year from the Army Estimates. He could not save that out of the £2,000,000 devoted to the service of the Militia and Volunteers. It was a very small proportion of the £2,000,000 he could save. The saving ought to be made on the £28,000,000 spent on the Regulars, and on the expenditure on military works which brought up the cost to nearly —35,000,000. He believed the Auxiliary Forces did great good in stimulating the martial spirit of the nation and in saving us against conscription. We should concentrate on reducing the number in the Regular force, which could be done if we had a clear conception what our Indian frontier policy was to be. It was on that the country expected a saving to be made.
    Sir HOWARD VINCENTsaid he had been anxious to move a separate reduction in order to call specific attention to the question of the Auxiliary Forces for they should not be confused with the upper branches of the service, and in that way to evoke a definite and distinct expression of opinion wholly independent of foreign policies.
    Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If I may, I would make an appeal to the Committee and the Government whether it would not be desirable to take the division which was postponed last night in order that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may address himself in a clear and detached way to the question which he wishes to bring before the Committee. I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee.
    COLONEL BOWLES: I should like to say that there are Members who wish to speak on other questions besides the Volunteer question.
    *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I understand it will still be open to hon. Members to

    359
    speak on the broader question even if this Amendment is removed by a division.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is so, certainly. Supposing the Committee came to a decision on the Amendment it would be open for any Member of the Committee to raise any further question or to raise the general question.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was perfectly ready to give way if the Committee desired. It seemed to him that many hon. Members were unwilling that the division should be taken now. As to the treatment of the Militia and Volunteers the great difficulty they had to complain of was the absolute uncertainty which prevailed with respect to the policy of the War Office and the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman had been so good as to address the Committee five times on the Army Estimates. He had made speeches of considerable length which were no doubt full of details. Speaking for himself he (the hon. Member) did not really understand where they were in regard to the Militia and Volunteers. In the Memorandum which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before the House he proposed definitely to reduce the Volunteers by some 45,000 men, and thereby bring them down to a maximum strength of 200,000, which he considered as absolutely sufficient for the defence of these islands so far as the Volunteers were concerned. It was upon that issue that he was anxious to take the opinion of the House, because he knew from sources of information which were open to himself and to other hon. Members that there was the greatest dissatisfaction in many quarters with that proposal. He wished to say at once that he had no authority whatever to represent the whole of the Volunteer force. All that he had ever contended in this House was to have been very much interested for upwards of thirty years in the Volunteer force and to have had command of a very large regiment in that body. As to representing the whole of the Volunteer force, he had never laid claim to any position of that kind. It was not necessary for the Secretary of State to say, as he had done, that he did not look upon him as the representative of the whole body. At any
    360
    rate, he represented a considerable body in the Volunteer force, and he would say, on behalf of that body, that they were anxious to co-operate in every possible way with the Secretary of State, but it did seem strange that the right hon. Gentleman in laying his proposals before the House of Commons should asperse either the condition of the Volunteer force at the present time, or do wrong to that service in the past. He had no doubt that the observations of the right hon. Gentleman came from him in the heat of debate and in great excitement. His language was very fluent, and perhaps words escaped him which exceeded the meaning he was anxious to give to them.
    There was one matter on which he hoped the Committee would have fuller information. On February 23rd the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "It has been suggested that the Volunteer force is by itself an immense contribution to the Army in the field. That is a delusion. I am not blaming the Volunteers, who have other calls and duties to meet."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to give certain particulars in connection with the South African War. On a recent occasion he quoted the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for the year 1900 as his authority for what he had said with regard to the Volunteers. The following extract was also from that Report—
    "In consequence of the duration of the war in South Africa, and the additional forces sent to that country, a considerable number of special corps or units were formed during the year, either to take the place of troops sent to the Cape or to themselves proceed on service abroad.
    "The special measures were as follows:—

    "1. A large number of Imperial Yeomanry were enlisted.

    "2. The City of London Imperial Volunteer Regiment was raised.

    "3. Service companies of Volunteers for each regiment in South Africa from their affiliated Volunteer battalions at home were sanctioned.

    "4. Volunteer waiting companies were formed, the men of which were at once passed to the reserve until their services were required.

    "5. Volunteer Medical Staff Corps were formed for service in South Africa as well as for home service.

    "6. Royal Engineers and Electrical Engineer Volunteer Companies were formed for service in South Africa."

    361
    Surely that was a very material and effective contribution from the Volunteer force for service in the field, and hardly merited the aspersion which was, east upon it by the Secretary of State. Then yesterday the right hon. Gentleman repeated an allegation which caused very considerable pain to a large body of men when he stated that of the Volunteers who came forward for service in South Africa no less than 33 per cent, were inefficient for military service. This was what the Inspector-General of Recruiting said—
    "The strength of the detachments furnished by the Volunteer units varied according to the number of the Volunteer units affiliated to the Territorial Line Regiments. The total raised was 11,648, of which over 8,000 proceeded to South Africa by the middle of May; the remainder were sent out later as drafts, or belonged to the waiting companies, being passed temporarily to the Reserve until their services were required.
    "The number who volunteered for the Infantry Volunteer Service Companies amounted to 20,929. Of these, there were rejected—

    "a. For want of physique or on medical grounds, 3,528.

    "b. As not complying with the regulations as to efficiency, 3,333.

    Leaving fit for active service of those who volunteered, 14,068."
    The regulations with regard to efficiency were of a very serious character. The men required to have two years service, to be single men, and to be marksmen. He was unwilling to institute comparisons between one branch and another, but he must remind the Secretary of State for War that his predecessor stated in 1899 that no less than 30 per cent, of the men who had enlisted in the Regular Army were found on medical examination to be ineffective in the field. It was really unfair for the Secretary of State to take a portion of the Reports of officers in high command and responsible positions, and quote them to the House as conveying an adverse opinion of the military authorities in regard to the Volunteer force.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I quoted the opinions of officers of the Volunteers themselves.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid he was coming to these officers presently, but he should like to read to the Committee
    362
    one final extract from the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting—
    "A consideration of these figures, and the early dates on which the Yeomanry and City of London Imperial Volunteer Regiment were able to embark, is a striking testimony to the untiring zeal and public spirit displayed by the members of the Imperial Yeomanry and Mansion House Committees and the members of the Auxiliary Forces."
    The Secretary of State never took the trouble to turn over the page and quote the opinion of the Inspector-General on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to the opinion of Colonel Mathias, a very distinguished officer, now commanding the 75th Regimental District at Aberdeen. He also quoted Major-General MacKinnon, an officer who had the complete confidence of the entire Militia, Volunteer, and Yeomanry forces. He himself had had no communication with Major-General MacKinnon, but he had every reason to believe that the state of uncertainty which existed greatly hampered the work of his Department. Major-General MacKinnon, in the opinion which was quoted, was careful not to say that the opinion was formed after he had seen the City Imperial recruits. The opinion he afterwards formed——
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER rose to speak, but
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT,declining to give way, said his right hon. friend was very kind in interrupting. He was anxious not to be unfair to him in any way. They all knew his zeal, and they read with delight the speech he made at Liverpool when he said he was a most sympathetic person towards the Volunteer force. He only wished the right hon. Gentleman would give the House greater evidence of the continuance of that feeling if it was still unchanged. He should have liked to hear the right hon. Gentleman quote the opinion of General Douglas, the present Adjutant-General, and a member of the Army Council. He would be astonished if General Douglas, the Adjutant of the Scottish Volunteers, came forward and said 40 per cent, of that force was inefficient in physique. He was an officer connected with the Volunteer force. He agreed that they had heard exceedingly

    363
    little of the opinion of the Army Council and a great deal of the opinion of the Secretary of State for War, but he thought it would be more effective if his right hon. friend quoted the opinions of experienced military members of his own Council. No doubt some men, at the time of their enlistment, were wanting in physique, but everyone connected with any military body would admit that a very considerable improvement took place in a few months in the physique and development of those men. It was untrue to say that Volunteer officers took anybody, good, bad, or indifferent. That was done with regard to the second and third contingent of Imperial Yeomanry sent to South Africa, but it was not done in any properly conducted Volunteer corps. He was astonished that this inefficiency, if it existed, had only been so recently discovered. The Commission appointed by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor to inquire into the Militia and Volunteer forces, a Commission presided over by the Duke of Norfolk, took quite a different view. That Commission examined a considerable number of witnesses and expressed their opinion that the Volunteer forces had had a great effect in educating the people of Great Britain to look on the Army as a national institution, whilst it had broadened the minds of the Regular soldiers, and they deprecated any change which would modify the spirit which their status authorised, or any fundamental change in their position. He could not understand why the Secretary of State for War, who had only been at the War Office some twelve or sixteen months, should insist in reducing the number of men in the Volunteers when men were offering to serve from all parts of the country.
    As the Prime Minister was in the House he would venture to make an urgent appeal to him to take some notice of the very strong feeling prevailing in this country with regard to the reduction of the numbers in the Volunteer forces. He asked his right hon. friend to look at the Report of General Miles and note his view of the question, which was that to curtail their numbers and make them into indifferent soldiers was the worst of all policies. The right hon. Gentleman was the President of the Committee of Defence.
    364
    That Committee had arrived at the opinion that an invasion of this country was very unlikely and that we could depend upon the Navy for our safety. That was the opinion of the English people 100 years ago, but when they saw a great invasion being prepared in France a great panic sprang up and 300,000 Volunteers were enrolled. That scare died out and the Volunteers were neglected until 1859, when another scare took place and Volunteers were again enrolled. The United States of America had taken advantage of the lessons of the South African War; they were 3,000 miles from the nearest European State and yet they had taken steps to render invasion of their country impossible. Was this country doing the same? We were only twenty-one miles away from the nearest Continental State, and that we should be dependent on these theories—for they were nothing more—was, he thought, absurd. The South African expedition was to be a military promenade, in the course of which we were to walk up and take Pretoria, and it was thought that 5,000 men would be an unusual number to send out for such a purpose. We sent out altogether 400,000 and spent £250,000,000. He urged his right hon. friend not to do away with the Volunteer force but to put an end to this extraordinary uncertainty as to its future. The growing want of officers was a thing that the right hon. Gentleman had admitted he was responsible for. A farthing on the income-tax would give the Volunteer force all that was suggested by the Duke of Norfolk's Commission, the Report of which had been in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman for nine months. The right hon. Gentleman approved of that Report, but not a single thing had been done to give effect to its recommendations. He appealed to the Government to stop this bickering at the Volunteer force which rendered such good service in the late war and which was so anxious to work with the right hon. Gentleman, but which could not stand the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman. He assured the Prime Minister that the country was attached to the Volunteer force. There was an almost unanimous feeling on both sides of the House that the recommendations of that Norfolk Commission

    365
    should be given effect to and that the Volunteer force should be kept up. They did not desire to do anything at the expense of the Militia and Regulars. All they wanted was fair play for the Volunteers.
    *SIR J. DICKSON POYNDERsaid the Volunteer force was so inextricably mixed up with the whole of our military system that it could not be detached and had therefore better be discussed with the general question. The Estimates of £30,000,000, he, thought, were susceptible of a large reduction. He did not propose to say or enter into anything in the nature of a political attack because he believed, and most Members of the House believed also, that the problem of the military defence of the Empire was far too important, and its practical solution far too urgent to allow it to be made a battleground of Party politics. He, however, felt quite justified in examining the scheme and criticising what had taken place in the past, what was taking place now, and what the Committee was given to understand would take place in the future. The policy now put forward for Imperial defence was radically different to that laid down two years ago. It was then laid down by the Secretary of State that a large Army was necessary for this country, partly for offensive purposes abroad and partly for defensive purposes at home. Now, there was complete reversal of that scheme. It was now laid down that the Regular Army should be, in the main, a foreign-service force, for garrisoning our dependencies and foreign possessions; and that as regarded our home defence the Navy was deemed sufficient to protect us from invasion. With great respect, he ventured to say that both those principles erred on the side of the extreme. Formerly, too much stress was placed on military organisation; latterly, too much stress had been laid on naval organisation for home defence. It seemed to him that there should be some intermediate course between the two. There was too much risk involved in the extreme blue-water theory. He recognised that our naval establishments should be maintained at the highest possible efficiency—equal to the two-Power standard;
    366
    and that every one in the House would approve of the opinion of the Committee of Defence that the naval and military services should be in closer association than they had ever been before. But the scientific principles laid down by the Secretary of War seemed to fail to realise the difference between the dangers attached to the invasion of this country and blockading it. To realise the Secretary of State's contemplated catastrophe of capitulation, he anticipated a successful blockade of all our ports by a foreign navy; this was a highly improbable contingency.
    In the military defence of the Empire the main principles ought to be, first of all, a highly-organised Regular Army to garrison our foreign dependencies and possessions; second, a highly-organised Army, known as a striking force, ready at a moment's notice to proceed to any part of the world with its transport; and third, ail unlimited mass of men in this country trained to arms for home defence and also to act as the first real Reserve in the event of our being committed to a great war abroad. How were these ideals to be earned out under our complex voluntary system? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had instituted a system of nine years service for the foreign garrisons; and a home short-service system. The results were so far satisfactory that a large number of recruits had been obtained of a very much better standard than in days gone by. The whole difficulty, however, was that the nine years service automatically decreased the number of Reserves. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that after nine years service the men should fall into a three years Reserve; but he, himself, thought that that Reserve period of service might be profitably extended to six or eight years. He confessed that he did not understand the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman's home-service Army. Last year it was understood that the home-service Army was to be practically substituted for the Militia. This year they were led to believe that this force was to be blended with the Militia; but he ventured to think that whichever method was adopted the important object of a large Reserve could not be realised. It seemed to him that to attempt to have

    367
    a foreign-service and a home-service Army would, under the peculiar commercial conditions of this country, spoil the recruiting for both.
    The Secretary for War believed that a small number of well-paid, highly-trained men was better than a large number of incompletely-trained men; but, in his opinion, we should have, in this country a large number of men, however incompletely trained, ready to be called upon for service in the event of a great war. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was an alarming proportion of the Militia and Volunteers who were not serviceable for war and, therefore, were a chronic and useless strain on the resources of the country. How was that position to be rectified? The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was to substantially reduce the Militia and the Volunteers. But that proposal ran counter to having a large mass of trained men in the country. If a large proportion of these forces were inefficient, something should be done to increase their efficiency, instead of recruiting men of poor physique. If the system of medical examination was insufficient it should be strengthened up. Even if, in the early days of such strengthening up, the numbers of the forces were reduced, that would only be temporary; but, for goodness' sake, do not let them reduce the numbers of these forces permanently. If necessary, much more money should be spent on the Auxiliary Forces of the country so as to increase their standard of efficiency and make them, in time of emergency, susceptible at short notice to a much higher state of efficiency and thereby equal to any call that might be made upon them. In that way the country would have, at the shortest possible date, a large body of Reserves ready to take the field with the Regular Army. The Bill which was to be passed to render the Militia available for foreign service would be sufficient for that branch leaving England in time of war; but much further encouragement could be given to the Volunteers to make a large proportion of them efficient for times of emergency. The War Secretary talked of reducing the number of Volunteers, but not of raising the standard. He would suggest that instead of 200,000 they should have 500,000 Volunteers. They were the
    368
    cheapest item in the whole Army service. This curtailment of numbers was very unfortunate. They had already seen a reduction in the numbers of the Imperial Yeomanry, which was not only a useful, economical, and most admirable mounted force, but one that had done excellent service abroad. In spite of that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce it from 35,000 to 27,000. Not only would the aggregate number be stereotyped and limited, but the regiments and squadrons would also be stereotyped and limited. That would have a most unfortunate effect upon a force which, in the limited period of three years, had proved to be an economical and useful branch of the service.
    At present both forces were short of competent officers. Those willing to-serve could not devote sufficient time to ensure military competence. Suggestions had been made that these Auxiliary Forces should have Regular officers to command them, but there were considerable objections to that plan. If they were to place Regular officers in charge of these units they would immediately check the ambition of junior officers, because they would realise that they could not become commanding officers. They would further, by bringing in a man unknown to the district, put a check on recruiting. If they wanted more competent officers in these battalions in order to raise the standard of efficiency, he would suggest that they should place one of the officers in the Regular Army as second in command, but with wide and extended powers. Such an officer could work in close co-operation with the senior and junior officers, and he was confident that such a scheme would add immensely to the use of those forces.
    A method of establishing reliable Reserves must include a reduction in the Regular Army. In all there were 156 battalions, of which something approaching 100 were appropriated to garrisons abroad and our foreign possessions. So long as they insisted upon the Cardwell system being maintained they would have to maintain the remaining battalions. It appeared to him that if they could co-ordinate their depôts and arrange for a central depôt

    369
    into which to draft men for the Regular foreign Army and the striking force, and to have under that central depôt a group of minor depots for Auxiliary training, they would probably produce sufficient men for the foreign Army and the striking force, and at the same time substantially reduce the number of battalions. There would thus be given an opportunity for very considerable reductions, some of which would have to be ear-marked immediately for the higher price to be paid for the Auxiliary Forces of higher standards. By this method the foreign Army would be reduced to the smallest limits, and every man ought to be physically strong and ready for a time of emergency. The Leader of the Opposition struck a very important note on the previous night when he reminded them that men who entered the Army and served for nine years had at the end of that time reached a period of their lives when it was extremely important that they should be assured employment. It was one of the most important and urgent requirements in the Army, especially with a nine years service, that every man on the expiration of his service should, presuming he was of good conduct, have employment assured to him. An analysis of the Poor Law returns of the different counties would show that a serious proportion of the recipients of relief were formerly in the Army. The return of 1904, for Wiltshire, showed that 37,000 vagrants were relieved, and that nearly 5,000 of the number were old soldiers; when it was remembered that many of the recipients of relief were professional vagrants, it would be realised that 5,000 was a very large proportion of the remainder. The matter was so important that it would be worth while having a Return prepared showing the number of vagrants relieved in each county and the number of old soldiers included therein. He thought if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion made from all corners of the House with regard to the Auxiliary Forces, he would have an Army able to meet all national and Imperial demands.
    *COLONEL LEGGEexpressed his sympathy with the Secretary of State for War, who
    370
    not only had to meet criticisms from within and without the War Office but was also expected to give his attention to the gossip of regimental messes and military clubs as retailed to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, was not singular in that respect, but had illustrious predecessors in his office who had been treated in like manner. When an old soldier rose to address the Committee on the topic of the Army he was always told that he was prejudiced against the Auxiliary Forces. On his own behalf he begged to deny that emphatically. He had the greatest sympathy with the Auxiliary Forces and he had no prejudice in favour of any particular branch of the service. He had served both in infantry and cavalry; at home and abroad, in peace and in war. He had been adjutant of a school of instruction for officers of the Auxiliary Forces (Militia and Volunteers), had also been an adjutant of Yeomanry; he had filled the post of instructor of musketry, and therefore he hoped he would not be accused of betraying feeling against any branch of the service if he said anything to which his hon. friends could not assent.
    With regard to the Army scheme it seemed to be generally admitted that the object for which a Regular Army was kept was not the defence of these islands but the defence of the Empire, and they had to bear in mind that whereas in Europe our only land frontier was Gibraltar it was very different with regard to Asia, Africa, and America. The first thing to be decided was the number required for the Regular Army. He wished the question, of Army policy could be withdrawn from Party politics, and he hoped that before the debate was concluded some general agreement would be arrived at with regard to the standard of the Army. That must be based in the first instance on the garrisons kept abroad. They had 75,000 in India, and 61,000 in the Colonies and Egypt, making a total of 136,000, and the question arose as to the number of men that ought to be kept at home in order to augment those forces in the event of war breaking out. It did not seem to him, looking at it from that point of view, that they were asking for an excessive force. In the case of war they

    371
    would want to double their garrisons, and would require a force equal to the present garrisons for reinforcements. The question was how to obtain those additional men. They had tried the original long-service system and had found that there was no Reserve. Then they bad tried the short-service system and found that it gave them a Reserve but no first line. When in 1899 the War Secretary had to mobilise the Army it was not up to strength by 14,000 men. They would have to keep up an Army with a moderately long service for foreign purposes, but at the same time with a short service for the purpose of Reserve. Although our previous system was not perfect and did not give all the men that were required, it was perfectly sound in that men were enlisted for seven years with the colours and for five years in the Reserve. That did not apply to the whole Army at home, where the Secretary for War had the power to pass men into the Reserve at an earlier date. He could not help thinking that some extension of that system would meet the requirements and would be preferable to having two terms of service. They also wanted a reserve of officers. At present the state of things was very unsatisfactory. The reserve was composed chiefly of officers who had retired from the Regular service on pensions or gratuities, and either voluntarily or compulsorily. Those men who retired voluntarily did so because they had had enough of soldiering, and the compulsory section retired because soldiering had had enough of them. That system was not satisfactory; it did not supply a reserve of young officers. When the Reserve officers were called out in the late war, the majority of them were field officers or captains and there were no subalterns. There was the third class of officers who retired on account of age. When they were turned out of the service they had to pass another five or seven years in the Reserve, and surely if a man was unfit on account of age to serve in the Regular Army he ought not to be kept in the Reserve.
    He welcomed the proposition made in another place to make the Militia liable to be called upon for foreign service, There was nothing unconstitutional in
    372
    that provision, and he believed they would be quite ready to undertake that responsibility. There was no utility in keeping any force at home unless it was liable to be called upon for service in time of war. With regard to the training of the Militia he thought the present time allowed was not sufficient, and if the condition of going abroad in time of war was to be imposed the period must be increased. It would be too late when war broke out to train the force. As everyone would agree, peace time was, from a soldier's point of view, the time in which to prepare for war. Very little had been said in regard to the Yeomanry. Their case was a very peculiar one, inasmuch as in 1901 they were placed under the Militia Act. Were they to be made liable for foreign service in the same way as the Militia? The Yeomanry came forward extremely well in the South African War. The Imperial Yeomanry were formed partly from the existing Yeomanry, partly from the Volunteers, and partly from civilians. The first contingent had some training before they went out, the second contingent had none, but in spite of that the latter contingent rendered good service in the war. They could not depend on the theatre of war, however, for the training of our soldiers. He did not wish to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to the amount of training a man should have. They knew the rule with regard to soldiers generally, but the Yeomanry were a superior class of men. They could all ride before they entered the Yeomanry, and no doubt they required a shorter training than was necessary for ordinary recruits. But the idea of training could be carried too far, as was shown in the case of the rider of the winner in the French Grand Prix, who when drawn for one year's compulsory service was put in an infantry regiment on the ground that he could not be taught to ride in less than three years. As to the Volunteers, he should like to see that force brought up to a very high standard of efficiency. He was told that any reduction in their numbers—and he believed a reduction must be effected if they were to be made more efficient—would lead to the loss of seats in this House. He thought that

    373
    could hardly be true, but if it was, it was a serious matter, because it meant that the Volunteer force was more a political than a military organisation. Whatever force we had, and whatever that force might be, it was necessary that it should be properly organised, properly trained, and liable to serve out of the country in time of necessity.
    *LORD HENRY BENTINCKsaid that he appreciated the point of view of the Secretary of State for War in regard to the Volunteers, for if it were true that there was a large percentage of the force not fit to go abroad on active service the right hon. Gentleman could not be blamed for reducing them in an attempt to get value for his money. However the Volunteers were regarded—whether as a means of home defence, or a possible Reserve to draw upon in time of hostilities abroad—it was impossible to regard the proposed reduction as otherwise than a means to obtain efficiency in the future. If the results of the proposal were only to have a stricter medical examination for recruits, the inevitable consequence would be that a larger number of Volunteers when they came forward in case of emergency for active service would be able to pass the doctor. Thus we should have a larger number of Volunteers fit for service than hitherto. He trusted, however, that the Secretary of State for War would not drive the matter of reduction too hard, but would content himself with stricter medical examination. The Volunteers were a cheap force, and the House of Commons would be only too glad to vote an increased sum for them. Personally, he would be glad it the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that something was to be granted in compensation for what he was taking away, and especially that he would pay regard to the recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission that it ought to be a cardinal doctrine that no Volunteer should be put to any expense with regard to his service.
    As to the proposal to merge the Militia into a home-service Army, the Secretary of State for War had been accused of wishing to destroy the only machinery which we had for raising a large body of troops
    374
    in case we were engaged in protracted hostilities. He believed that instead of destroying that machinery the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would very largely increase its efficiency. In case of war on the North-West Indian frontier, for instance, we could at once send out a large number of home-service Reserves to reinforce the active service battalions, while at home we could expand battalions into brigades, and fill the brigades with the remaining Reservists and all the ablebodied Volunteers that came forward. That force could be officered by officers of the Regulars and the competent officers of Militia and Volunteers. Thus instead of sending out a great number of weak ill-trained units commanded by ill-instructed officers we should have a force which could be easily knocked into shape and sent out homogeneous and effective, commanded by officers who knew their business. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would press forward his proposals.
    *COLONEL BOWLESsaid that, personally, he should have liked this Vote to be put down at a later period of the session so that it might have been preceded by the discussion of the Vote for the Committee of Defence. To discuss properly the question of the Army it was necessary to know to what purposes the Army was to be put, and that was a matter which came up more prominently in connection with the Committee of Defence. Consequently, the present discussion would have been far more valuable had Members been in possession of the views of the Committee of Defence. He desired to speak with regard to the two branches of the service which with he had been connected—the Volunteers and the Militia. He could not help feeling that the new scheme for the Militia would be beneficial to the force, but he greatly regretted the remarks of the Secretary of State with reference to the Volunteers. One of the main reasons why the best possible material was not obtained for the Volunteers was that there existed, with regard to that force, the same uncertainty that prevailed throughout the whole of our military system, and until an end was put to that uncertainty there would always be a difficulty in the way of proper

    375
    recruiting. But perhaps the most important factor of all was the doubt as to the purpose for which the force was to be utilised. The Volunteers could be utilised either as complete units or as a feeding force for the battalions of the Line. If the latter was intended there was not so much necessity for the high training that would otherwise be essential. At present Volunteer officers worked under great difficulties; they were not given that scope to which they were entitled in the way of military schools or those conveniences to attend such schools which would be so great an advantage to men with a limited amount of time for military education. When these considerations were taken into account, he regarded it as a matter of surprise that the Volunteer force had succeeded as well as it had, in spite of the War Office and of the Secretaries of State for War. The whole question was one of such uncertainty that it was impossible to give a proper and logical vote without knowing the basis on which the Committee of Defence desired the country to act.
    *SIR LEES KNOWLESsaid he certainly could not vote for any reduction of expenditure upon the Army. Speaking as one interested in Volunteers he was sure that his hon. friends who had taken so much interest in the Volunteers would take their blow like men, and would do their best to live up to the expectations of his right hon. friend and the War Office. Upon the 8th of August last he endeavoured to defend the fourteen Line battalions which his right hon. friend now proposed to disband. He hoped, however, that he would reconsider that proposal, and decide not to disband them. Those battalions had worked hard and had acquitted themselves with great credit. They had attached themselves to the older battalions of the Line and had worked up a magnificent esprit de corps, and he thought it was very hard upon both officers and men that the War Office should think of disbanding them. It should be remembered that the officers had left other regiments in order to join those fourteen battalions, and if they were disbanded those officers would have to pin other battalions, and there would be all the cost of their uniform and other expenses. He had suggested a solution
    376
    as an alternative to disbanding them, and it was that they should be reduced from 1,000 to 500 men, then they would keep their staffs, and at a moment's notice, if necessary, would be able to increase the numbers and again raise those battalions to 1,000 men apiece if war broke out. It would be a great blow to the territorial system and esprit de corps if these battalions were disbanded.
    With regard to the Volunteers he did not think the Committee really appreciated that the Volunteers were volunteers. They could not say to them "go" and "come" in the same way as they could say it to the men in the Line. With regard to the proposed reduction he was afraid it would do a great deal of harm to the country, especially when they were now hearing a good deal about the necessity for physical training. Personally he would like to see every man serve a certain length of time in the Voluneers, the Militia, or the Regulars in order to get that physical training. If they reduced the number of Volunteers they would prevent a certain amount of that physical training. At present they had to submit to a medical examination, and if necessary that examination might be made more strict. Colonel F. Haworth, of the 3rd V.B., the Lancashire Fusiliers, had been quoted as having stated that if the Volunteers were examined by a doctor 25 per cent. of them would be rejected. He had written to the colonel upon this point, and he had been requested to say that what he meant was that the Volunteers would not reach the high standard of medical efficiency which was required by the men in the Line. When people were talking about Volunteers it was generally forgotten at what age men joined the Volunteers. In the above battalion with which he was connected as second in command the average age was nineteen years and the average standard height five feet five inches. A boy could join the Volunteers at seventeen and a-half years of age, and this was very different to what it was fifteen years ago, when the average age was twenty-three years and the average height five feet seven inches. The bulk of the Volunteers were now merely immature youths, but in time they would gradually become fit men. There were Volunteer battalions

    377
    and Volunteer battalions. His hon. and gallant friend the Member for Sheffield spoke for the crack London corps, but he was speaking for a corps composed principally of working men and artisans. They must not expect to get the same standard all through the different corps. The standard required of Volunteers for home defence was not the standard required for the Regulars, because the latter had to serve in India, and by the regulations the Line man was not sent on foreign service unless he had attained a certain mature age. Who fixed these regulations and standards? Not the Volunteers. They only enlisted their men according to the requirements of the War Office. Why, then, should they say that a large percentage were enlisted who would not pass the examination necessary for the Line? Why should they? They were not expected to serve abroad like the Line men, but they passed the examination that was necessary for their particular work.
    It was said that the Volunteers enlisted into the Militia in order to pass into the Line, and that they stayed in the Militia until they became fit for the Line. He desired to say from personal experience that that was not so, because he had examined the figures and he found that an equal number of Volunteers passed into the Line and an equal number into the Militia. It was not the case that they passed from the Militia into the Line. The men as a rule joined the Militia when out of employment, and he knew that every inducement was put forward to persuade them to join the Line rather than the Militia. One point which appeared to have been overlooked was that they had a very large percentage of old soldiers in the Volunteers. He thought it would astonish a good many hon. Members if they were to see the number of medals worn by the members of Volunteer battalions. In his battalion they had a man who had won the V.C., and there were a large number of excellent soldiers in the Volunteers who could not be described simply as ordinary Volunteers. With regard to active service companies, he conceived the idea of them himself, and he believed it had emanated from him because he had had a correspondence on the subject with Lord
    378
    Wolseley in 1899. When it was being discussed as to how many volunteered for South Africa it ought to be remembered that only unmarried men were eligible, and they were obliged to be marksmen; and further than that, no officers were wanted except an occasional captain or subaltern. So far as he was concerned personally, he offered his services in any capacity, military or civil, without costing the State one penny. He was thanked for his patriotic offer, as it was described, by the War Office, but he was not examined medically although he thought he could have given points in athletics to a good many of his friends. People were very often mislead with regard to Volunteers. As to the statement that some of the Volunteers did not offer their services, and would not go out, until 5s. a day was offered them in pay, he wished to say a few words. His district sent three active service companies, and he knew that some of those men who offered their services when the pay was 5s. were men who were rejected when the pay was 1s. per day, and they were afterwards accepted at 5s. a day. That was an absolute fact, and it was very hard that mud should be thrown at the Volunteers and the statement made that they only went out when 5s. a day was offered them. He would not object if they would only hear both sides of the question.
    He would like to say one or two words in regard to the reports upon these Volunteer active service companies, and he would read an extract from the history of the Lancashire Fusiliers, where it was stated—
    "On the departure of the active service companies a very appreciative order was published by Major-General Wynne, C.B,, commanding XI. (Lancashire) Brigade, at Blood River, October 12th, 1900:—
    "On the departure of the Volunteer companies for England, the general officer commanding desires to place on record his appreciation of the good services they have rendered while serving with the Regular battalions of their regiments (in South Africa. Their arrival in April last was a welcome addition to the brigade, and the cheerful and efficient manner in which they have always performed their duties has proved them reliable soldiers."
    And. Lieut.-Colonel C. J. Blomfield, D.S.O., commanding the 2nd Battalion

    379
    of the Lancashire Fusiliers, wrote, recording his appreciation of the excellent work done by the Volunteers mid stated—
    "Officers, non-commissioned officers and men have shown a most soldierly spirit throughout, bearing privations and hardships with cheerfulness, and evincing on all occasions the greatest keenness and zeal. The commanding officer is convinced that the close association on active service will cement more strongly than before the spirit of good fellowship and comradeship between all battalions of the Lancashire Fusiliers."
    He could give the House further illustrations if they were necessary. He trusted that the War Office would grasp the situation. They all remembered the old fable of the lion being saved by the mouse. Now the fable in regard to the Volunteers seemed to be reversed. The Regular Army went out to South Africa, and were in difficulties, when the Militia, the Yeomanry, the Volunteers, the Colonial troops, etc., went out to assist them, and at any rate they did a great deal to bring the war to an end. Now that the mouse had saved the lion the War Office desired to put its paw down and crush the mouse. He did not mind the Volunteers being screwed up as regarded efficiency. He asked the Committee to remember what some of the regiments had actually to keep up. They had to make payments with respect to headquarters, ranges, and camps and the constant attacks made on the Volunteers and the endless uncertainty which prevailed were extremely unfortunate. If the root of the evil was the desire to introduce conscription let them know it, but, at all events, so far as the Volunteers were concerned, mend them or end them: but, let them know their fate.
    SIR ELLIOTT LEESsaid he wished to call the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the lack provision for mounted riflemen. It was necessary to make further provision for meeting such a crisis as we went through five years ago, when we had to improvise an Army almost equal in numbers to a Continental Army—an Army of 500,000 men. It could not be said that the same emergency would never occur again, for it was easy to conceive that such a contingency might be forthcoming in the future. It was very easy to improvise
    380
    good men for the ranks from the superior material in the Volunteers in the case of a crisis. In modern warfare practically no drill was required. Drill could be learned by any intelligent man in a few days. Very high discipline was required, but that discipline was very much more readily implanted in the superior class in the Volunteers who came forward to assist heir country in time of crisis. This remark applied to those who volunteered in the really dark days of the South African War. They very rapidly acquired the necessary discipline, and more especially those who found themselves serving with and under men whom they knew, and whom they had been accustomed to respect and support. But two things were necessary if we were properly to avail ourselves of the large supply of superior material the nation possessed First of all there must be men to instruct it, and, therefore, we must have a large supply of officers, and, above all, a large supply of trained non-commissioned officers.
    He did not like to hear of the large reduction which was proposed in the Volunteer battalions, because the men who joined the Auxiliary Forces were those who came forward to serve the country in time of war. He would regret any reduction in the permanent staff attached to the Auxiliary Forces. He would rejoice to see an increase in the establishment of non-commissioned officers in the Regular Army, so that in time of crisis there might be a large number of thoroughly trained men available for the training of those who came forward in time of crisis. The men who volunteered might be good representatives of the physique of the nation, but at the same time they might be men who had had absolutely no previous training whatever in rifle-shooting. He could not see any reason why all boys should not be taught at school such an amount of accuracy in rifle-shooting as would be useful to them in case of their services being afterwards required in war. Although boys at school could not be trained to anything like Bisley efficiency in shooting, they could be given some idea of how to handle a rifle which they would never forget all their lives. It was generally admitted that the experience of the Boer War

    381
    and the Russo-Japanese War proved the enormous importance of mobility. On the outbreak of war there would always be a very great demand for mounted rifles, and he wished to know whether sufficient provision was being made for giving the requisite supply. At present our cavalry were being trained very largely in the use of the rifle. He thought they owed a great deal to Lord Roberts in that respect. Personally he believed that in modern war there would be a great demand for mounted riflemen. At present the mounted infantry were trained as companies attached to the infantry regiments. He could not think that that would give a satisfactory result in time of war. The company of mounted infantry would probably be the pick of the regiment, and as every mounted man would be asked for in the field by the general in command, so as to form great corps of mounted rifles, the infantry regiments would be deprived of the services of their best men when they most wanted them, He believed that if occasion demanded a much larger number of Yeomanry than before would volunteer for service abroad. He thought that the Secretary for War should try the experiment of training one of the light infantry regiments in mounted rifle work either at Aldershot or Salisbury Plain.
    MR. BILLsaid that as he had served thirty-five years in a Militia regiment, of which he was now honorary colonel, he would not like to be silent in the discussion on this Vote. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had told the House that the Militia could not be left in its present unsatisfactory condition, that prompt measures must be taken to level the force up to the standard of the Line, and that the period of training should be prolonged. Now, he asked the right hon. Gentleman, what he had done to carry out his own suggestions? All those who took an interest in the Militia would sympathise with him in his desire to suppress regiments which were inefficient in point of numbers of officers and men, and to amalgamate weak regiments belonging to one county. The right hon. Gentleman said last year that two years training were insufficient to produce efficiency in the

    382
    Militia. The regiments in his constituency were recruited from potters and miners, and any scheme which demanded two years for recruiting and training instead of two or three months would never be successful in obtaining the men who now joined the Militia. It would be just as difficult to get officers. The Militia had never recovered from the wastages occasioned by the South African War. Many men passed through the ranks into the Line; many were killed or died, and many left their regiments because it was not possible for them to run the risk of having to go out for a two years period of service. He would suggest that in this matter the Militia should be kept on practically the same lines as at present, but they should have longer recruiting training, and every three years at least there should be a longer annual period of training. Above all, there should be an end put to the present uncertainty with regard to the position of the Militia. If the War Secretary or the Army Council could suggest a course by which the Militia could be utilised by being made co-ordinate with the other forces of the Army and the officers made acquainted with what they had to do, they would come forward in all parts of the country and fill the gaps at present existing in the Militia force.
    *MR. MORRELLsaid that although he was unable to fully support the views advanced with regard to the training of boys at school, though having much sympathy with the Clifton College Engineering School, still an experience of over forty years in connection with Volunteers in public schools, and the class corps and the Universities, told him that something special ought to be done with regard to the so-called class corps. They complained of a shortage of officers and were asked to find a trained Reserve. He did not hesitate to say that a Reserve trained in elementary work of all arms of the service, and treated at drill not as privates but in the rôle in rotation of sergeants and officers capable of going forward in any time, ought to be watched with care; and such, he believed, was to be found in the University corps, or

    383
    could be raised there. They had athletic and intelligent young men there who would train on very quickly, but as it was desirable to have competent adjutants and trainers in order to make the best of the good material found in those corps, he could not support a reduction in money grant, but thought he might urge its better application. These young men trained should soon fulfil. almost any requirement of the Army in the field, and could be quickly made into efficient officers in any Army. He had for some time the command of the Oxford University Corps and had trained young fellows as officers in many different directions. He had often a dozen men aiming at the Regular forces attached to the corps while keeping their University terms, and most of the officers held the P.S.; this seemed the nucleus of a school for trained reserve as officers. If the War Secretary were to put before men of that standard while at the University an opportunity of dealing not alone with drill but with the different sections of work required in the field, he would find that interest would be developed, and that the men who voted drill alone a bore would give a great deal of care and attention to a wider scheme of work. This class of men ought to be considered in any scheme for a remodelled Volunteer service. The Universities, Inns of Court and class corps might work together on similar lines, and be a source whence all arms might draw half-finished material to work up to meet shortage of officers. He would especially note mounted infantry, cyclist, machine gun—service rifle and small bore—scouting, mapping, signalling, tactics, bridging, half-scale earthworks. Education on
    most of these lines was of value in the University work as well as in that for Army service. Knowledge of the applied science attached made men fit and servicable, handy men for the country either at home or in the Colonies. If there was a possibility of doing something of this kind in the college training, these men would never be set aside, unless to put on another plane for special attention. It was clearly reasonable that special consideration should be given to the Universities as centres of education forming a trained reserve of officers available for the auxiliary corps generally, yet who would be capable of assisting in a special way when called upon to furnish juniors for service with Regulars in the field.
    MR. SAMUEL ROBERTScalled attention to the equipment of the West York Artillery, who were at the present moment armed with sixteen antiquated muzzle-loading guns. He had put several Questions on this subject to the War Secretary, but up to the present no satisfactory reply had been given, and it appeared that there were no modern guns available for this corps. He would request the right hon. Gentleman to try and bring this question to a conclusion. A feeling of uncertainty was not fair and it impaired the efficiency of the corps. They ought to be properly equipped if they were required, and if, on the other hand, they were not required they should be informed of the fact.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 234. (Division List No. 101.)

    AYES.

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

    Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Burt, Thomas

    Crean, Eugene

    Asher, Alexander

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Crombie, John William

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Caldwell, James

    Cullinan, J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Cameron, Robert

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Benn, John Williams

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Black, Alexander William

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Delany, William

    Blake, Edward

    Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

    Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

    Boland, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Cawley, Frederick

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Brigg, John

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Doogan, P. C.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Duffy, William J.

    Langley, Batty

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Edwards, Frank

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Elibank, Master of

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cornwall)

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)

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

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lloyd-George, David

    Roche, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lough, Thomas

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Lundon, W

    Rose, Charles Day

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Runciman, Walter

    Findlay, A. (Lanark, N. E.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Shackleton, David James

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    M'Crae, George

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    M'Kean, John

    Sheehy, David

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Mansfield, Horace Rendall

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Mooney, John J.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Gilhooly, James

    Morley, Rt. Hon. John (Montrose

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Murphy, John

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Grant, Corrie

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Newnes, Sir George

    Sullivan, Donal

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Tennant, Harold John

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

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

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Harrington, Timothy

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Tomkinson, James

    Harwood, George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

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

    Ure, Alexander

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W. )

    Wallace, Robert

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Healy, Timothy Michael

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Wason, J. C. (Orkney)

    Higham, John Sharpe

    O'Dowd, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Malley, William

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    O'Mara, James

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Johnson, John

    Parrott, William

    Wills, A. W. (N. Dorset)

    Joicey, Sir James

    Partington, Oswald

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Paulton, James Mellor

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

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Perks, Robert William

    Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

    Joyce, Michael

    Pirie, Duncan, V.

    Young, Samuel

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Price, Robert John

    Kitson, Sir James

    Priestley, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Major

    Labouchere, Henry

    Rea, Russell

    Seely and Mr. Charles Hob-

    Lamont, Norman

    Reddy, M.

    house.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Bigwood, James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Anson, Sir Wm. Reynell

    Bill, Charles

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bingham, Lord

    Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bond, Edward

    Chapman, Edward

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Brassey, Albert

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

    Balcarres, Lord

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Coddington, Sir William

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

    Brown, Sir A. H. (Shropsh.)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Balfour, Rt Hn G. W. (Leeds)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Butcher, John George

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Barry, Sir F. T. (Windsor)

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

    Craig, C. C. (Antrim, S.)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Cripps, Charles Alfred

    386

    387

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Purvis, Robert

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh)

    Pym, C. Guy

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Davenport, Wm. Bromley

    Kerr, John

    Randles, John S.

    Denny, Colonel

    Keswick, William

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Doughty, Sir George

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Doxford, Sir Wm. Theodore

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lawson, J. G. (Yorks, N. R.)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    Leveson-Gower, F. N. S.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Fielden, Edw. Brocklehurst

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse)

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lowe, Francis William

    Seely, C. Hilton (Lincoln)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Sharpe, Wm. Edw. T.

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

    Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Smith, H. C. (North'mb. T'neside

    Gardner, Ernest

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

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

    Garfit, William

    M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh, W.

    Spear, John Ward

    Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fred'k.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Stroyan, John

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (Tr. Hamlets

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

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

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Milvain, Thomas

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Tuff, Charles

    Greene, Sir E W (B'ryS Edm'nds)

    Moore, William

    Turnour, Viscount

    Greene, H. D. (Shreswbury)

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Guthrie, Walter Murray

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Hain, Edward

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Mount, William Arthur

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

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

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

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Muntz, Sir Philip A.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)

    Myers, William Henry

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Helder, Augustus

    Nicholson, William Graham

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

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W,)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Pease, H. P. (Darlington)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Horner, Frederick William

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Percy, Earl

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Pierpoint, Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Viscount Valentia.

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Original Question again proposed.
    *MR. MALCOLMsaid he regretted it was necessary to move a reduction of £500 in the Vote in order to call attention to an injustice
    388
    and an indiscretion on the part of the War Office in regard to their treatment of Highland regiments. In the course he was taking he claimed that he was humbly following the steps of his right hon. friend the Secretary of State

    389
    for War who, when he sat on these benches, brought forward grievances under which he believed the different branches of the Army and Navy were suffering after having made his own personal investigation and after obtaining private information which led him to believe they were substantial. He wished to call attention to the Army Order of 6th January, 1905, and the effect of its promulgation upon the morale of the Highland regiments. That Order dealt with the grouping of regimental depôts under separate and new commands, and it was of the Scottish command that he wished to speak, and more particularly of the Highland and the Lowland groups. The Highland group had all the Highland regiments in it with the exception of one, and that regiment was the second senior regiment of what he might call the Highland Brigade, a regiment whose military prowess was not surpassed in history, and which was the proud possessor of more battle honours than any other regiment in Europe. It was the Highland Light Infantry which it was now proposed should be omitted from the Highland group. It was this regiment whose grievance the right hon. Gentleman said he did not understand.
    He would explain that grievance to the Committee. In the first place, after a close investigation, he was prepared to state that the Highland Light Infantry contained as many Highlanders, if not more, as any other regiment in the Highland Brigade. He wished emphatically to say that no Highlanders objected to the Highland Light Infantry temporarily serving with the Lowland regiments; they would equally object if they were grouped with the Guards or any other regiment whose traditions and history were foreign to that of the Highland Light Infantry, and they asked that this regiment should be grouped in its proper place in the Highland Brigade. Therefore they asked for the cancellation of this Orders so far as it affected Scotland; it had given great offence throughout the length and breadth of Scotland. They also desired to have an official assurance that from now onwards the Highland Light Infantry should be classed as a regiment in the Highland Brigade, and that there should in future be no question as to to whether it was a Highland or a
    390
    Lowland regiment. Nobody knew better than the Secretary of State for War the value to recruiting and to general efficiency of preserving in a regiment the historical and territorial distinctions of that regiment. He remembered that in Liverpool last year the right hon. Gentleman set himself up as the great evangelist of territorial traditions, and he declared that he would do all he could to maintain and preserve them. If his right hon. friend thought he knew the value of such traditions and memories for English and Irish regiments, then he could tell him what he knew, and what many hon. Members knew, namely, that the Scottish people, and the Highlanders especially, revered their martial memories with a fervour and intensity which perhaps was not known on this side of the border. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this was some newfangled fable, but he could assure him that it was a grievance of long standing. These grievances dated back to 1881 when Mr. Childers removed the Highland Light Infantry depôts from Fort George to Hamilton. But Mr. Childers accompanied that removal with an assurance that there would be no difference made in the Highland status of the Highland Light Infantry. That assurance was more grateful to the ears of Highlanders than the totally erroneous statement of the Secretary of State that the Highland Light Infantry were in all essentials a Lowland regiment.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I never said so.
    MR. MALCOLMsaid the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Highland Light Infantry were recruited mainly from the Lowlanders, and that statement was totally inaccurate. At that time there was a considerable outcry against the removal of the Highland Light Infantry, and it had continued ever since. If the Secretary of State for War took the same trouble now to discover what the feelings of these regiments were as he took when he sat on these benches, he would find beyond all possibility of contradiction or doubt that a very considerable feeling existed in Scotland upon this point. But, it might be asked, Why was it, in face of all this

    391
    discontent, that recruiting had not fallen off? The reason was that since the year 1881 there had been a great influx into Glasgow of West Highlanders in consequence of the increasing poverty and agricultural depression, and now about three-fifths of the Glasgow population was Highland. Not only the Highland Light Infantry but other Highland regiments drew more recruits from Glasgow than from any Highland area. Therefore it was no argument to say that this regiment alone was now mainly recruited from the Lowlands. The second occision upon which the Highland Light Infantry considered themselves aggrieved was during the South African War, when the Highland Light Infantry were removed from the Highland Brigade in order to make room for the 2nd. Battalion of Gordon Highlanders at the instance of General Sir Hector Macdonald. This was considered to be an insult to the Highland Light Infantry. That insult might have been voluntary or involuntary, and he believed it was involuntary. Nevertheless there was a real feeling about it and the wound rankled still, and this new Army Order made it sting all the more. Therefore Scotsmen found themselves complaining against this unnecessary laceration by the War Office of Scottish feeling. They noticed with alarm these periodical onslaughts of the War Office upon the Highland Light Infantry, and the public were beginning to imagine that the Highland Light Infantry was not a Highland regiment at all. The other day the Lord Provost of Edinburgh asked that a Highland regiment and not a Highland Light Infantry regiment should be Quartered at Edinburgh. That was an illustration of the public idea at the present time, owing mainly to the action of the War Office. And, having stated that he believed the Highland Light Infantry to be composed mainly of Lowlanders, the right hon. Gentleman did have the courage of his opinion, and he grouped the Highland Light Infantry with Lowland regiments, making it part of the permanent arrangement under the scheme of July 14th of last year. The other day the right hon. Gentleman told them that the regimental depôts were to go, so that the Highland Light Infantry would be under one roof
    392
    with Lowland regiments. It was firmly believed that, those two groups having been made in the North and South, the officer commanding each group would be responsible for, and have control of, the promotion of officers and men up to and including the rank of captain. It was also firmly believed that he would make the officers and men of each group interchangeable. That would only be adding insult to injury. The officers and men of the Highland Light Infantry had nothing but pride in serving with Lowland regiments, but they would very much object to being interchanged with the Lowland regiments. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would pay attention to the protest he now made on behalf of a great number of Highlanders, a great number of Celtic societies, and old members of the Highland Light Infantry. It was a protest which was widely supported. He earnestly hoped the Secretary of State would be able to give them the assurance they asked, that the Highland Light Infantry should remain part of the Highland Brigade, and also that he would find it possible to administer the regiment from Perth, and not from Hamilton in the Lowland group. He had been assured by officers in high position, who had lately been removed from the War Office, that no administrative difficulty would arise. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State both knew how nearly unanimous Scottish feeling was on this point. They knew what a wealth of material had been supplied to the Empire by Scotsmen ever since the Union. They were keen Imperialists, he was sure they would allow that only a lukewarm Scotsman could possibly submit to this grouping of the Highland Light Infantry, and they would agree that a bad Scotsman could never make a good Imperialist. He hoped the Secretary of State in his reply would not belittle this question and say it was a matter of mere sentiment. After all, sentiment ruled the world. Patriotism was sentiment, reverence was sentiment, and esprit de corps was sentiment. It was for sentiment that we celebrated Trafalgar, Balaclava, and Ladysmith. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman's answer would do something to assuage the feelings he had wounded. He begged to move.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,100,500, be granted for the said service."—(Mr. Malcolm.)
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERassured his hon. friend that he was as sensible as he of the importance attaching to all sentiment connected with the Army and more especially to that of Scotsmen. If there had been any fault in this matter it had not originated with himself. Ho did not suppose that his hon. friend seriously imputed to the War Office, since 1881, a desire to put a slight on the Highland Light Infantry, which was one of the most distinguished regiments in the Army, and had, he believed, more names on its colours than any other regiment. Such an idea would not enter the mind of any sane man, let alone anyone connected with the War Office, which contained many Scottish soldiers. Since he had been at the War Office he had succeeded, in many cases, in doing justice to regimental feeling. The hon. Member was really under a misapprehension. There had been no change at all; the Highland Light Infantry depôt was placed at Hamilton in 1881, but for war purposes they were not dissociated from any Highland regiment. They were, and must be, intrinsically a Highland regiment. The Report of the Esher Committee recommended that for administrative purposes certain districts should be assigned. Those districts, for the necessary buying of forage and stores, must be geographically adjacent or self-contained. It was necessary to divide Scotland into these administrative districts. As a matter of fact Hamilton was in the Lowlands and the Highland Light Infantry had been put into that district for administrative purposes. If he could, he would gladly suggest any other nomenclature that might be more agreeable to Scottish feeling, but they could not get over the fact that Hamilton was in the Lowlands.
    And, if 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 To-morrow.

  EVENING SITTING.

    INDIRECT TAXES ON FOOD.
    SIR JOSEPH LEESEsaid his first word in regard to the Resolution he now had the honour to move would be one of regret that in this year of grace 1905, there should be need for a Resolution of this character, but the political needs of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and not the political needs of the nation, were the real cause. They were the danger signal to cheap food in this country. The right hon. Gentleman had had the onus cast upon him of endevouring to show that his political needs and those of the nation were the same. In this he had failed, for no man with any sense of proportion could give equal value and importance to the respective needs. In making his fiscal proposals the Member for West Birmingham had set before himself a difficult task. He had to face great difficulties of fact and experience. To propose an increase in the price of food at the present time in the United Kingdom, after sixty years of comparative cheapness and plenty, was to revive the sad and dismal memories of what were called the "hungry forties." To propose such an increase at the present time was to set some, who still lived and recollected those evil days, others who lived in the traditions of their fathers and grandfathers, and others again who read history and thought intelligently, asking what could be the urgent need of this reactionary and retrogressive proposal. It was difficult to conceive any great national emergency, however acute, which could justify such a policy. This was the most important branch of the fiscal question. Neither retaliation, negotiation, conference, or preference, were it possible to separate any of those items from the tangled proposals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, would go so straight at the vital interest of the people as the proposal to tax their food. This was a working man's and working woman's question. A question for those whose labour was their only capital, who had to live from hand to mouth on weekly wages, and who were driven by the commonest prudence to reckon how

    395
    every penny was to be spent. It was deadly blow to those whose food was the raw material of their labour.
    His proposition alleged that taxation of food was especially burden some on the poor. Who were the poor whom he sought to protect from the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? According to the excellent book written by Mr Booth in 1889, nearly one-third of the population of London were living on a weekly income of 21s.—the average size of the family kept upon that sum being the man, his wife, and two children while Mr. Rowntree told them that there were in York 7,000 persons, out of a total population of 46,000, who lived on less than 21s. a week for a man, his wife, and three children. In England and Wales, according to the recently published Board of Trade Report, the average wage of the agricultural labourer was only 17s. 5d., out of which the amount spent for food alone was 13s. 6d., what room was there here for dearer food and where was the justification for the sacrifice such people were to face if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were accepted? He agreed with what Lord Goschen had said, that this was a "gamble" in the people's food and a risk which the House of Commons would not permit the people to take. But they were, nevertheless, face to face with this proposal, and his Resolution, which he hoped by midnight would be a registered record of this House, was a Resolution that under the hand and guidance of the Prime Minister ought to have been submitted to the House of Commons within forty-eight hours of the first declaration of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that he meant to tax the food of the people.
    The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had varied the text of his discourse from time to time. Great inducements had at first been held out to the workers to accept his policy in the promises he made to them of old-age pensions and increased wages. These have faded away under discussion. The inducement now was a ''united Empire," but though that might be a grand ideal, its grandeur would not be
    396
    enhanced or increased if it came to be contemplated by a hungry and underfed people, who, under such circumstances, might regard Imperial unity as a very doubtful asset. It appeared to him that if the right hon. Gentleman desired to rouse in the people of this country a spirit of patriotism he was going the wrong way about it, the working man was beginning to ask, "Is it quite certain that if my food is taxed this great Empire will be consolidated." If a united Empire is to be brought about by this home suffering of our very poor, it is quite certain that it will soon be regarded as a luxury only of the rich by those upon whose sacrifice it is built up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham made a great many proposals, but that which might be called the considered proposal was the one he made at Glasgow, when he proposed to put a 2s. duty on foreign corn, a corresponding duty on flour, a small tax of 5 per cent. on foreign meat and dairy produce, and to give a substantial preference to the Colonies in respect of wines and perhaps Colonial fruits. This was to cost the labourer 4d. a week more, and the artisan 5d. a week more, but he proposed to give back what he took from them in that way by a remission of duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and cocoa. Even if they accepted—which they did not—the figures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the labourer and the artisan would be no better off than before this so called "scientific readjustment" of taxation—which he preferred to call a jerry-mandering operation—began. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to remit taxation on tea, sugar, cocoa, and coffee, but those taxes were not the right hon. Gentleman's to play with. They were already mortgaged to the people—they belonged to the people, they were the property of the people long before the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was propounded. They were war taxes imposed for the purposes of the late war by two successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and when the war was over, the people had as much right to have those taxes returned to them as

    397
    the income-tax payer had to have that tax reduced. The key to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was the power to remit these taxes, and so compensate the workers for the taxes he proposed to put upon their corn, meat, and dairy produce. If the people of this country had a right to have that tax returned, it was not by the condescension of the right hon. Gentleman, but by their own right. If the power to remit this taxation was taken away, then the scheme of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham collapsed like a house of cards. The people were not only entitled to have their cheap tea, sugar, cocoa, and coffee, but cheap corn, meat butter and cheese as well. That was their right, and it was the business of this House to protect it.
    The Prime Minister when speaking upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Argyleshire offered an excuse for having moved the previous Question on the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham. He said—
    "I set the Government Whips in motion: I thought, and still think, this House ought not to set the example of passing a Resolution which would prevent the Colonial Conference from being free."
    But if the Motion of the previous Question were justified, then it was more so now by the refusal of the House to-day to accept the taxation of food which the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham agreed lay at the root of colonial preference. Where was the Prime Minister now to defend the freedom of this Colonial Conference, for this Resolution thus deliberately made against that freedom, so far as the taxation of food was conerned? The whole of the Unionist Party seemed to have taken as a new motto that "one pair of heels is worth two pairs of hands." If anything was to be done for colonial preference in conference, it must be based upon concessions by both parties to the agreement. The mother country was to be called upon to negotiate with the Colonies in an attempt to arrive at an agreement in regard to Colonial preference, but she was to go into that conference with the condition precedent that she was to concede something which she could neither tolerate nor bear, and
    398
    that was the taxation of food. On the other hand, the Colonies were asked to go into the negotiations, well knowing that they had also a condition precedent which could not be conceded. They had their young and growing industries, and they must keep out the competition of foreign countries by import duties unless they wished these industries to be swept out of existence. Therefore, they had two parties to negotiate under conditions which were impossible. Then what was the good of this conference? Both parties were called upon to enter into it with their hands tied. What was the good of entering into a fruitless conference which could bring only irritation, jealousy and disappointment. Now where were the independent members of the Unionist Party to-day? This is a question of the taxation of the food of the people. Surely there ought to be sufficient independence among the supporters of the Government to induce them to vote against the taxation of the food of the people. The people in this country regarded this question as of vital interest, and they would certainly say that "he who is not with us is against us" in this vote.
    Where was the policy of the Member for West Birmingham to lead to? The moment they allowed protective duties to begin, there was no telling where they would end. The working man of this country had found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham out. The working man thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been trying to fill his mouth with empty spoons—he was tired of the right hon. Gentleman trying to tickle his throat with a feather, and making a fool of his stomach—he saw that the right hon. Gentleman's windmill had dwindled down to a nutcracker, that his speeches were those of a man who was desperate, his actions—the actions of one who was seeking to avoid the evil spirit of protection which he himself had raised. The opponents of free trade talked with disparagement of the antiquated shibboleths of free trade, which brought in their train peace, happiness, and contentment. But they forgot that there was a policy even older than free trade, and that was protection.

    399
    Protection too had its antiquated shibboleths and in their train came misery, discontent, and starvation. These, alas, our people had known but too well. Might heaven preserve them from the revival and resurrection of the accursed thing—protection. He begged to move.
    MR. SEELYsaid he wished that some one more competent than himself had been selected to second the Resolution of which the overwhelming majority of the House and of the country was in favour at the present time. He believed that after the next general election such a Resolution would be supported by a still larger majority in the House than it would be that night, and that on any future occasion when the subject came to be discussed they would not see any empty benches either on one side or the other of the House. He regretted—they all regretted—that these "missionaries of Empire," whose fervent eloquence had resounded in their ears and filled the newspapers during the last few years, had not deigned to include this House within the range of their efforts. He did not know their reason—whether it was that they thought freetraders were past redemption, or whether the somewhat coldly critical atmosphere of the Chamber was not altogether propitious to the per-fervid eloquence suitable to a mission—eloquence apt to be a little lurid as to language and a little careless as to facts.
    As the hon. and learned Member who had so ably moved the Resolution had stated, they might have anticipated that a Resolution relating to the Colonial Conference would have been moved either in the session of 1903 as a preliminary to the commencement of the mission in the country, or last session at the conclusion of it, and that they would have had a straight-forward issue presented in a Resolution advocating preferential duties for the Colonies and involving the taxation of food. But nothing of the kind had occurred. It was true enough that whenever the Gentlemen who advocated this policy were able to cajole or compel the Government to represent that their interests were involved in the matter, then they favoured the House with their
    400
    presence; but when the ægis of the Government was withdrawn from them they had, with one or two brilliant exceptions, taken but little part in these debates. Well, though they might regret it, they were not misled by it. Neither was the country misled by it, nor would our brethren in the Colonies be misled by it. Did anyone doubt, if those who had advocated this policy had had the smallest chance of carrying a Resolution in the House in its favour, or even of making such a fair show of strength as would have given them a reasonable prospect of success in the future, that they would have come forward and advocated it openly? They knew well, and every man in this country and in the Colonies knew, that the reason why these Gentlemen were absent that night was not the reason set forth in the Amendment which had been placed on the Paper that afternoon, although the hon. Member in whose name it was was not present to move it. The reason given in the Amendment for their absence was that they disapproved of abstract Resolutions. That was not the real reason. The real reason was not that they disapproved of the passing of abstract Resolutions, but the fact that they were unable to prevent them being passed, as the Resolution which he was seconding would be passed that night.
    The Resolution embodied a self-evident proposition on the face of it. Who was there in this country who would really wish to put a tax on corn, meat, and daily produce? Corn was the food of all the people, more particularly of the poorest. Meat was the food on which our workmen relied for giving them that strength which had made them the best workmen in the civilised world. And as regarded dairy produce, no one who took an interest in the social condition of the people would wish to do anything to increase the cost or diminish the consumption of milk. One great fault in our social arrangements was the fact that over large parts of the country the consumption of milk by children was not sufficiently large. Social economists had always known it, but it had been proved in an inquiry, the results of which were published a short time ago. A larger quantity of milk was taken by children in the

    401
    northern than in the southern parts of England, and anything which would tend to increase the price of this most valuable food would be an injury to the future of the country altogether. It was desirable, therefore, that they should place on record what their opinions were with respect to those proposals, which had been placed before the country, and might be brought forward at the future Colonial Conference. Such a conference was held some years ago, but as to what happened at it there was no accurate information. He was not clear whether any demands had been made upon this country by those present at the conference, but, to borrow a phrase from electrical science, he gathered that there was some sort of magnetic field which surrounded the Colonial Premiers and which induced some currents in the mind of the late Colonial Secretary which caused that right hon. Gentleman to contemplate at the time, and to advocate afterwards, a policy of taxation of food and preferential duties to the Colonies which years ago he would have regarded with objection, he might almost say with dismay.
    The argument had been used that this country would gain so largely by giving preferential duties to the Colonies that it would be worth our while to suffer some loss in order to obtain preferences from the Colonies in return. It was difficult to ascertain with real accuracy what the chances were of any gain being obtained from colonial preferences. There were two kinds of Colonies—one in which we had equal advantages with all our rivals, and the other in which we had some advantages which our rivals had not. No colonial preference could alter the disadvantage of geographical position, as in the case of Canada; but take the case of Australia and the Cape, where we had a fair and equal chance with all our trade rivals and neighbours. What were the real facts? The largest of the Australian Colonies was New South Wales; it was a free-trade Colony, and therefore there were no disturbing elements of taxation of trade there. Our share of its trade was 65 per cent. of the whole, and that was a little less than the average for the whole of Australia. Eliminating all articles such as petroleum,
    402
    rice, tea, etc., which this country could not itself produce, and leaving in all the numerous articles in the manufacture of which other countries had advantages over this, although we produced them also, then our share of the trade with New South Wales was 74 per cent., or three-fourths of the total trade. In Natal we had, in 1901, 79 per cent. on the total trade; in Cape Colony we had 84 per cent. Now, take the great staple trades of this country—cotton, woollen goods, iron. In New South Wales we had 95 per cent. of the cotton trade in 1901; 89 per cent. of the trade in clothes; 77 per cent. of the trade in iron goods; and 78 per cent. in 1902; and of woollen goods, 94 per cent. in 1901, and 91 per cent. in 1902. In Cape Colony we had 97 per cent. in 1901 of the trade in woollen goods; 93 per cent. of the trade in linen goods; 94 per cent. of the trade in cotton goods; and 82 per cent. in the trade in iron and steel. In Natal our trade was 96 per cent. of the total trade in woollen goods; 94 per cent, in linen goods; 84 per cent. in cotton goods; and 80 per cent. in iron and steel goods. Well, what was the proportion of the trade of our competitors? Germany had 3 per cent. of the woollen trade, and 2 per cent. of the cotton trade in New South Wales. In Victoria, Germany had 5 per cent. of the woollen trade and 4 per cent. of the cotton trade. What prospect was there of gain on these staple trades by giving preferential duties to the Colonies in comparison with the injury which would be caused by taxes on our food?
    In Canada the position was different, and he had a suspicion that it was in Canada that a great portion of the basis for this theory of preferences was to be found. He was sorry to say that there was rather a tendency on the part of the "missionaries" to be a little careless as to their facts in regard to Canada. There had not been that accuracy in regard to facts that he would have liked to have seen in a matter of this importance. Our trade with Canada since the preference had increased very largely, and numbers of people had been going round the country saying that the increase was due to the preference. Well, Canada had increased enormously in the last five years in wealth and population,

    403
    and so her trade had increased, and, of course, preference or no preference, our trade with her would increase also; but the whole question of the value of the preference lay in the relative amount of the trade. Now, before the preference was given our trade with Canada was 27 per cent. of the whole Canadian trade; but since preference it had varied between 23 and 25 per cent., and on the preference we had no increase in our relative share of her trade. He did not mean to say that there was not an advantage in Canada giving us a preference; but the gain had not been of that large character which would justify anyone in saying that any real substantial advantage had resulted from it. He was sorry that the Secretary of the Board of Trade was not present, as he did not like to speak of him in his absence; but that right hon. Gentleman, speaking at Warrington a week or two ago, cited the fact that our trade percentage with Canada had not increased, and the reason of that was a large increase in the American trade. The American trade, however, said the right hon. Gentleman, should not be taken into account, because the trade between Canada and America was mainly in raw materials, with which we did not compete. Well, he thought it worth while to look and see; and he found that the value of the imports into Canada from the United Kingdom of manufactured articles was 41,000,000 dollars, and the value of the imports of manufactured articles from the United States was 52,000,000 dollars. He did not think that the explanation as to the American imports being entirely raw materials, was one which altered much the percentage of our trade with Canada; but it showed that there was no real advantage to be gained from preference. He did not wish to be held to minimise the kindly intentions of Canada in giving us preference, but he did say that it had not resulted in any such increase in our trade as would justify our running serious risks in order to tax our food.
    It was clear that while we could not hope to gain very much by preference to the Colonies, much injury might be done to our general trade. When preference was first put before the country
    404
    in 1903 they were told that the compensation to working men for taxing their food was that there would be a large increase in trade with the Colonies, and that that would be followed by an increase in wages; but in October last it was put forth to the country that the working men were no longer to rely on an increase of wages but on the taking off of the taxes on tea, coffee, and sugar as a compensation for a tax being put on their food. The fallacy which underlay that proposal had already been exposed by his hon. and learned friend; but there was an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, although the hon. Gentleman had not had the courage to come and support it. In that Amendment the hon. Gentleman said—
    "In the opinion of this House, the burden of local and other taxation presses unduly upon the food-producing and manufacturing industries of this country, and should, as far as practicable, be transferred to foreign importations."
    That was rather a come-down from the great policy that was to unite the mother country with the Colonies. It now appeared that the only thing that was to unite the mother country and the Colonies was to reduce the expense of the parish pump. Still, though this policy afforded no prospect of advantaging the trade of the country, it had to be met and fought. He gave every credit to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that he did not bring it forward and advocate it from any selfish motive, but with the object of uniting more closely the Colonies and the mother country. But there was nothing new about that policy. The right hon. Gentleman often said "Why is it that we treat our Colonies differently from the way that other nations treat their colonies, with whom they have preferential arrangements?" The reason was clear; we had had experience in the past of arrangements of that kind, and we had profited by the experience that we had gained. He would like to read to the House an extract from the King's Speech 140 years ago, which, he thought, showed that there were men before the right hon. Gentleman who held his opinion as to the desirability of uniting the

    405
    Colonies with us by means of duties. In 1766 in the King's Speech there appeared the following passage—
    "The many regulations you have made for extending and promoting the trade and manufactures of Great Britain and for settling the mutual intercourse of My kingdom and plantations in such a manner as to provide for the improvement of Our Colonies on the plan of due subordination to the commercial interests of the mother country, are the strongest proofs of your comprehensive regard to the welfare of all My dominions—an object truly worthy of the British Parliament. It shall be My endeavour that such care be taken as may tend to secure the improvements and advantages which may be expected from such wise and salutory provisions."
    The Parliament which heard that King's Speech of 1766 was equally anxious to do justice to the Colonies as was the present Parliament. They were prorogued after that Speech and met in the following November, and proceeded to pass a tea duty on the United States of America. They passed it without debate, but it was a preferential tea duty, and although they passed it without debate it was not without consideration. When it was objected to shortly afterwards they complained bitterly of the objection, because they said that although it was nominally a duty of 3d. in the £, to the consumers in America, really, owing to the arrangement with India, it was a bonus of 9d. in the £. And that was true, because those in America who objected to the duty threw the tea into the Boston Harbour, not because it was dear, but because it was cheap, and if landed it would bribe the people in the Colonies to consent to duties being placed upon them by the Parliament in London. Those who lost us the Empire of the world 140 years ago were actuated by similar principles and similar ideas of commercial policy, and of the influence and result of taxation, as those who were at the back of these principles now. Those men had undertaken a long war for the colony, and were anxious to place a share of the burden on the Colonies across the seas. There were men taking part in agitation now who wished to put forward as a portion of it the necessity for the Colonies assisting in reducing the burdens of this country and of placing some of these burdens on the Colonies, and of bribing by preferential duties some sections and classes of people in the
    406
    Colonies to assist them in that policy. Our fathers and grandfathers had profited by experience, and by establishing entire fiscal independence as between the Colonies and ourselves they had created this great Empire. He asked the House to pass this Resolution because it was true in itself, and because it was a declaration to the Colonies of our opinion on the matter. It was only by a clear and plain statement on the part of all concerned as to their wishes, desires, and hopes that in this or any other matter the Colonial Conference in 1906, or any other conference, could possibly succeed in strengthening and increasing those bonds of unity between the Colonies and the mother country, which it was the object of that House and the Empire to increase, strengthen, and improve.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House disapproves on principle of the taxation of corn, meat, and dairy produce, as being especially burdensome to the poor and injurious to the welfare of the nation; and believes that no proportionate remission from existing duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and cocoa would afford compensation for the imposition of such taxes; and declares its opinion that any Colonial Conference that is entered upon, except on the understanding that this country will not agree to the taxation of corn, meat, and dairy produce, will result in failure.—(Sir Joseph Leese.)
    MR. CROOKS MR. CROOKS (Woolwich) rose to support the Resolution and to ask a few Questions. It had been very difficult indeed to meet face to face the people who had been promoting this great fiscal policy throughout the country. Their own speeches had been misinterpreted, and they were told that they did not understand this question. He quite admitted that it needed a cultivated intellect to understand all the proposals which had been put forward in its favour, and as he laid no claim to cultivated intellect he desired to ask a few plain Questions, thinking that was the best place in which to ask them. They were told that they were wanting in Imperial instinct and in the desire to draw closer together the kinship which existed between the Colonies

    407
    and the mother country; also that they should be prepared to make some sacrifices. It occurred to him that when sons and daughters went abroad they did so exceedingly well for themselves that they did not expect post office orders from the poor old folks at home. The kinship of Empire could not be cemented on a pounds, shillings, and pence basis. He did not feel assured of the honesty of this fiscal agitation. One could understand an honest opponent who said "My friend, you are wrong," but during the last two years they had been waiting to have other questions answered, and instead of paying attention to home matters that ought to be studied, their minds had been occupied with this fiscal bogey. In the early stages of the agitation they were told that if the proposals were to be made the law of the land the workmen would benefit by receiving increased wages. At his end of the town when the workmen were told that they were going to have an addition of 2s. 6d. a week to their wages they were so sceptical that they asked, "Do you think Mr. Chamberlain would lend us a bit on account?" There were plenty of South African millionaires in this country who might help in the unemployed question, but whose efforts were directed to raising the price of the food of the people.
    Another proposal was to tax manufactured articles coming into this country and thus make no less a sum than £9,000,000 which might be devoted to old-age pensions. They were also told that by taxation those goods would be kept out of the country. His intellect failed to grasp how they would make £9,000,000 out of goods which were to be kept out of the country, and he was of opinion that the myth of old-age pensions had gone with the rest of the myths which had been put before their notice. The hon Member for Sheffield (Sir Howard Vincent) who was the first and last of the tariff reformers—had called the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that £100,000,000 worth of manufactured goods were brought into this country, and, deploring the amount of unemployment, had suggested that if those £100,000,000 worth of goods were made at home there would be plenty of work for the unemployed.
    408
    We, however, exported £200,000,000 worth of manufactured goods, and it had to be considered that if we hit out at the £100,000,000 of imports we were liable to be hit through the £200,000,000 of exports. No doubt if we kept out the £100,000,000 worth of manufactured goods we should have something to do, but we should also have plenty of time in which to do it, because we should lose £200,000,000 whilst making £100,000,000.
    Then they were told that the foreigners would be made to pay for the home markets. On one occasion Mr. Chamberlain had said that every halfpenny placed on the necessaries of life in the shape of market charges made it the more difficult for the humble people of the nation to live. But they were now told that if the foreigner had to pay the charges there was no need for them to trouble in the matter. What would happen when the foreigner made everything and sent it to this country for nothing? They would join the ranks of those who toiled not, neither did they spin. They would have nothing to complain about, but would live in the lap of luxury for ever.
    But why should they not be practical? Was the House always to be used in order to make the rich richer, and to insist that the poor should always want to have their needs redressed. If they were to give a preference to the Colonies by the taxation of meat, it would follow that colonial meat would be dearer, and the poorest of the poor would have to do with a smaller quantity, and thus make a sacrifice for the benefit of the Colonies. Another question he had to ask was with reference to Colonial wheat. He understood that whilst our Colonies sent 19,000,000 cwts. of wheat to us every year, the United States sent 73,000,000 cwts., and yet, in the interests of the Colonies who only sent 19,000,000 cwts., we were to tax 73,000,000 cwts. and to pay more for our bread. Then he would ask those responsible for the fiscal proposals how did they propose to discriminate between the United States and Canadian wheat. We used the United States ports for shipment in the winter, and the Canadian ports in the summer, the result being that a very large carrying trade was done between those ports

    409
    in the summer time. How would it then be possible to stop the United States growers from smuggling part of their 73,000,000 cwts. into the Canadian ports? Then, again, how would the Canadian authorities like us to interfere with their trade? They were told not to trouble about little pettifogging details which they did not understand, but he could assert that so far as wealth was concerned we were now better off than ever we were before. In 1849 there were 202,265 able-bodied outdoor paupers in England or 11·7 per 1,000 of the population; in 1872 there were 128,000 or 5·6 per 1,000, and in 1904, when they were told that they were absolutely ruined, there were only 62,509, or 1·9 per 1,000. There was no justification for this agitation. He hoped the Resolution would be carried unanimously, and that the House would say to the nation that no matter what might happen in the future if they were going to build up an Imperial race it should not be done by taxing their food.
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid that as the hon. Member for Woolwich announced that he wished to ask a few Questions of the advocates of tariff reform, he in turn would interrogate the hon. Member on one or two points. Was not the hon. Member a trade unionist?
    MR. CROOKS: I am exactly in the same position as a lawyer protecting his own interests.
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid that surely protection was the essence of trade unionism. ["Oh, oh!"] Would the hon. Member object to the introduction of foreign miners, for example, into the country? [Several HON. MEMBERS: Chinese?] He was talking of England at the present time. Would the hon. Member object to the introduction of cheap foreign workmen—yes or no? The hon. Member could not answer.
    MR. CROOKS: I do not think this is the time or place, but I can answer.
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERhoped the hon. Member, then, would answer at some other time, and he would wait his
    410
    reply with interest. Hon. Members opposite opposed preferential tariffs from a sincere determination to combat any policy which they believed would increase the cost of living to the working classes. He gave them credit for that intention; might he ask in return to be believed when he said that if he thought a preferential policy would have that effect he would not champion it? He was as much opposed as anyone to increasing the price of living of the working classes, but one fact had convinced him that if our present system of fiscal isolation was maintained the price of the people's food must rise in the future, and that very considerably. At present we relied, to a great extent for cheap wheat upon the excess production of the United States. But the United States was gradually filling up; the virgin soil was decreasing. There was a rapidly increasing population in that country to feed, and it followed as a natural corollary that the price of wheat from the United States must rise in the near future. Therefore, it was the bounden duty of all who had the welfare of the people at heart to stimulate by every means the production of wheat elsewhere, and not only in the Colonies, as the only sure protection against expensive food at home. The House should bear in mind the fierce competition of the last two decades for the markets of the world. One by one the neutral markets had been absorbed by protectionist countries, and at this very moment, when the Colonies offered us a splendid outlet for industrial and commercial enterprise, and when the countries of the world were all trending towards consolidation, should we alone of all nations stand back from the supreme movement of the age because the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had levelled his telescope at the Imperial sun and discovered a speck or two upon its face? Although the meridian of Greenwich regulated our time, his noble friend would find it difficult to put back and keep back the hands of the clock.
    It would be almost suicidal to refuse the offer of the Colonies ["What offer?"] The offer of a free conference, for one thing. Already they were our best customers—["No."]—

    411
    and when the infant communities of to-day became the giant communities of the future it would be difficult to measure the prosperity of that country—he hoped it might be Great Britain—which was able to keep pace with their growing demands. Many of the Opposision leaders now believed that a conference would be helpful, but possibly that was because they had discovered that they dare not oppose it in the country although it might lead to the ultimate success of the principles which would give the coup de grace to their policies and prophecies. It was unfair to attempt to cripple the conference before it was formed. Such a conference, constituted as it would be of the leaders of thought from the corners of the world, ought to be free to discuss any and every matter of interest between the mother country and the Colonies, but the Opposition apparently desired that the question of paramount importance, that of freer trade, should be barred. Apart from the absurdity of the position, it was nothing short of insolence to turn to the Colonies, when commercialism was the touchstone of the world's politics, and say, "You have come perhaps 20,000 miles. Make yourselves quite at home. Talk about the weather, discuss the constitution of the next Radical Cabinet, compare the manners of Lord Chesterfield and of the junior Member for Oldham; you may talk about anything you like except the one policy you have come to discuss, viz., the question of freer trade between us and the Colonies." He protested against the terms of this Resolution.
    MAJOR SEELY: Will you vote against it?
    MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Certainly. He protested against the terms of the Resolution because he thought it prejudiced the issue and pre-judged the question.
    SIR HENRY FOWLER: The hon. Member who has just spoken did not hear the powerful speech made by the hon. Member for Lincoln in seconding the Resolution, or I think he would have struck out of his notes a
    412
    great portion of the speech which he has just delivered. The Resolution, so ably moved by the hon. Member for Accrington, sums up tersely and comprehensively what is the main principle underlying the whole of this fiscal controversy, and also underlying the attitude which we should take up as a nation with respect to the Colonial Conference. I am not going over the ground which has already been so ably covered with reference to the taxation of food, the injury that that taxation would do to the people of this country, or the relationships between ourselves and our Colonies; but I would say that the injustice and unfairness towards our Colonies of which the hon. Member for Cumberland has spoken would have been shown by this country if we had allowed their representatives to come here in ignorance of the real determination of the people of Great Britain. If it be the case—and I have heard no dispute even from the other side of the House as to what the result of the next election will be—that the people of this country are determined that they will not, for reasons which appear satisfactory to themselves, submit to the imposition of a tax on wheat, flour, meat, and dairy produce, for any purpose whatever, I think it is straightforward and honest to tell the Colonies the truth. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham did not shrink from telling the last Colonial Conference that. He told them in the plainest English that the people of this country would not stand the proposals then made with reference to imposing taxation on the food of the people. But to-night we find ourselves in this difficulty, that there is one body alone in this country which there is an attempt to prevent from giving its decision as to what the feeling of the country really is and that body is the House of Commons. Whether the decision of the House of Commons is right or wrong, those who believe that they have the majority in the House dare not face the test of the division lobby on the question. That indicates, at all events, that the time has come when the tribunal which will have to settle the question should be consulted, and that if the House of Commons is incapable of expressing an opinion on the subject

    413
    the time has arrived when the constituencies should be asked, and asked before the conference is held, what their opinion is and their intentions are.
    I do not shrink from the importance and gravity of the great issues which the Resolution raises; but I venture to say to the House that there is an even greater issue at stake at the present moment with reference to the Motion now before the House and the procedure which has been adopted by the Government both before and up to this night. This issue has not been raised by the Colonial Governments or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; it has been raised by the Government alone and by the Prime Minister of this country. What we are face to face with is an unprecedented attack upon the rights, the privileges, the prerogatives, and the freedom of the House of Commons. Who has endowed the present Government, or any Government in this country, with the right to prescribe limits to the discussions of the House of Commons? Who has given them the authority to say that if they absent themselves from the House, if they decline to take any part in the matter on which the House is proceeding, that discussion is of no value, and ceases to be a discussion in, and a decision of, the House of Commons? I am under the impression that with Mr. Speaker in the Chair, with the mace on the Table, and with a quorum of Members, here is the House of Commons. The constitution of the House is complete when those conditions are complied with. The presence or the absence of the Prime Minister, or of any one of his followers, or of all his followers put together, in no way affects the powers and privileges of a duly constituted House of Commons, and the test of the opinions of the House is to be found in one place, and one place alone, the division lobby. Of course there have been snap divisions—nobody denies it—taken at certain moments and under certain conditions which did not, perhaps, accurately represent the opinion and the judgment of the House; but there is a constitutional way of rescinding or reversing those decisions.
    The Prime Minister told us, on the last occasion on which he conde-
    414
    scended to take any part in these discussions, of the precedent set, he said, by Mr. Gladstone, and he instanced a division which took place when Mr. Gladstone was Prime Minister on a question affecting the government of India. He said that that division was set aside by Mr. Gladstone, that no notice was taken of it, and that it was practically reversed on the fiat of the Minister in charge of the Department. Well, there is just a smattering of accuracy in the allegation; but it does not tell the whole truth. An important Resolution was introduced on a Friday evening; the Government resisted the proposal, which reversed to a great extent the principle of our past government of India, but were defeated in a House of 160 Members by a majority of eight votes. The charge was that Mr. Gladstone did not take any notice of that. That is not the case. It was a decision of the House of Commons, even under those abnormal circumstances, and the Government sent it out to India, submitted it to the Government of India and to trustworthy authorities, and months elapsed before the question was finally brought before the Cabinet, and when it was brought before them the Cabinet decided that it was impossible in the interests of the State to allow the Resolution to be carried out. The supporters of the Resolution were given an opportunity of reaffirming that Resolution, but they did not avail themselves of it. Will anybody say that that Resolution was disregarded or treated with contempt? And now the House is told that the justification for the action of the Government is that this is an academic question.
    There is a singular phrase in the notice given of an Amendment by an hon. Member who has not had the courage to come and move it; it says—
    "The occupation of the time of the House by the discussion of abstract Resolutions of a prophetic nature and upon hypothetical bases, the majority of the House testifying their disapproval by being absent."
    Well, the only way to testify disapproval is to vote against the Resolution, but that is the one way the Government dare not face. They say that it is an academic question. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, when he raised the question, and those who follow him

    415
    did not so consider it; the right hon. Gentleman, I think conscientiously, considered it a vital question, upon the proper solution of which depended the unity of the Empire, the existence of our trade, and our national prosperity. On the other side those who differed from him with equal conscientiousness and determination, believed that the policy suggested would be fatal to the prosperity of the Empire, the existence of its trade, and the maintenance of the proud position it had hitherto occupied. Is that an academic question for a great nation like this. The Government has been broken up by it, the Cabinet has been reconstructed; its ablest and most experienced statesmen went out on the question; and from the hour when the matter was raised to the present time there has not been a single by-election in the country in which this academic question has not been the principal—I might almost say the sole—issue upon which electors have voted. This is perhaps the keenest political fight which has taken place in this country since the Reform Bill; and the decisions of the House on a question of such magnitude are not a game, are not a joke, are not a performance depending entirely on the skill of the players. We have been told to "think Imperially." I suggest that we should think Imperially of the House of Commons, the oldest and noblest of representative Assemblies, at once the foundation and the bulwark of constitutional Government and free institutions.
    What is the position of the House at this moment? Where is the Leader of the House? Next to you, Sir, the Leader is the guardian of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons; he has as clear and distinct a duty to the whole House as to his own Party. The great men who have held that position in the past have been able to maintain their position as Leader of the House as well as leader of a Party without the two duties clashing. But the present Leader has abdicated, gone away, and on a great constitutional question such as this, for the last two years, and especially during the present session, we have been met by what I may call the tactics of the nursery. The Prime Minister has been answered by
    416
    a distinct Resolution of the House condemning his attitude on one of the principal questions of the day. Conceive such a Motion, condemning the Government, condemning the Prime Minister, and dealing with one of the greatest questions of the day, dealing with a great Imperial policy being brought forward in the days of Peel, of Russell, of Beaconsfield, of Gladstone. Would they have run away? No; they never treated the House with contempt. They were, each one in his turn, defeated during the course of their Premiership, and they took their defeat like men, like Englishmen. The present Government dare not face this House. And why? For the very reason that they dare not face the country. They are perfectly well aware what the decision of the country would be and they are not sure what the decision of the House would be. The evasions, the tactics of the last two years have been for the purpose of preventing the House giving or getting a plain answer to a plain question, and at this moment the House and the country are as ignorant of the policy of the Prime Minister in reference to fiscal question as they are of the policy of the Government in regard to the Army. Those are two great puzzles with which we are very much perplexed. I believe that outside the House of Commons and outside the Metropolis the people of this country feel very strongly not only upon this question of fiscal reform, but also upon the mode in which the House of Commons is being treated. It is said that there is a feeling in the country that the House of Commons is not maintaining its influence. That may be so, but that is what has always been said in one generation as contrasted with the generation that lived before it. But I am perfectly certain that the people of this country are proud of the House of Commons, and will neither forget nor forgive any treason to Parliamentary Government.
    LORD HUGH CECILsaid he was not dissatisfied with the effect that these debates in the House of Commons were having on the country on the question of tariff reform. He thought these debates were having a most powerful effect upon the country.

    417
    He did not believe that there was any corner of the country in which it was not perfectly well understood that if, tariff reform was not defended upon the floor of the House, it was because of the incapacity of tariff reformers for discussion and because their weakness would be revealed if they went into the division lobby. He was certain that when it became more thoroughly understood that tariff reform could not be defended in Parliament, the country generally would listen without conviction to the elaborate speeches and the numerous leaflets that were issued by the Tariff Reform League, and they would return to the old position, when tariff reform would be an academic question—if, indeed, there was any academy so illiterate as to defend it. It was hard that free-traders should be blamed for what was called abstract discussion. They did not begin it and in fact they had been dragged into the discussion. And yet tariff reformers were not prepared to maintain their case within those walls, because there they could not speak without being answered.
    He wished to deal with what appeared to him to be of real and material importance in the discussion on the question of colonial preference. He had always felt that colonial preference was the nobler part of the propaganda of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. A good many people shared with him a feeling of approval when they first read the original speech—which in his opinion was the most attractive speech the right hon. Gentleman ever made—on this subject on the 15th of May, 1903. He regretted that it had not been possible to discuss that question, apart from the general protectionist controversy, for a longer period, because it had been put forward with real sincerity and presented some interesting features. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had very ungraciously stolen from the Manchester school one of the least sound of their beliefs. They believed with great fervour in the unifying effect of trade. He thought a study of history would go to show that trade ranked very low down among the unifying influences which created bodies of opinion and great
    418
    nationalities. The history of modern German nationality might be said to begin in the struggle against Napoleon. There was a great uprising of national feeling, which displayed itself in a great national struggle. Then there came a desire to exhibit it in a Customs union, and so to show that there was a bond of union in existence. The Zollverein was not the cause of German unity; it was one of the expressions of it. The same thing might be said of Hungary. When the dual Monarchy was organised there was a Customs union made as an expression of the common unity of the two kingdoms; and now Hungary, insisting on its own national spirit, was anxious to break that Customs union, not in order to make a nationality, because that was too visibly in existence already, but in order to express the nationality that was already in existence. So that in every case they saw that even a Zollverein did not bind a country together, but merely expressed that which already existed. It was a symptom and not a cause.
    Here in the present case they had not to deal with anything so complete as free trade within the Empire. If there were a proposal really before them to create free trade within the Empire it would certainly be a proposal which would deserve very respectful consideration. But a very different proposal was before them. It was a proposal to have reciprocal preferences. Reciprocal preferences had this in common with all protective proposals, that they were capricious and partial, that they selected certain classes for benefit and certain other classes for injury. They were a sort of national favouritism by which tips were doled out in certain directions and were withheld in others. But that was not the worst of the case. The worst of the present proposals was that preference was put forward on a protective basis as part of a general protectionist argument, and the absurdity in which that landed them was not, he thought, sufficiently appreciated. They were to say to Canada, "You are to give us better terms for our manufacturing imports. In exchange for that we will give you an advantage on your corn exports." And, at the very time they were saying this, they were to explain to

    419
    all the world that German and foreign imports were an injury to them, pressed down the wages of the working men, drove people out of employment, and were, indeed, a great mischief to the people of the country. It was as though the mother of a family, presiding at the board, said to her children, "This dish is dangerous; it is even poisonous, I propose to give you, therefore, a double dose of it in the hope that the consequent dyspepsia and other ailments that it may cause will arouse in you a sincere feeling of filial regard."
    It was to be observed that in these negotiations with Canada we were proposing to gain from her more advantageous terms for our manufactures in a manner which would reverse the policy which Canada had pursued. Her idea, no doubt pursued, as they who were free-traders thought, in an unsound manner, was that she was no longer to be a country with a single industry, the great agricultural industry, but, on the contrary, a country with a great many industries. What we were asking her was to give an immense advantage, from our point of view, to her agricultural industry, and at the same time to expose to a special degree of competition her manufacturing industries. Therefore, the proposal was a reversal of Canadian policy for their own industrial good to a greater extent than was sometimes appreciated. It was obvious that if she reduced her duties there would be an increased opportunity for English competition; but it was not always reflected that, if we were to succeed in diverting the corn trade which now went on with foreign countries, and concentrated it on Canada, we should also divert the corresponding export trade from this country with which we paid for the corn. He could not help suspecting that that aspect might have been overlooked by Canadian manufacturers. He should doubt whether they were always better able to understand and follow out the laws of international exchange than very distinguished persons were in this country. Supposing this were so, we should be exposed to this danger: English manufactures would compete in the Canadian market even to a greater
    420
    extent than had been anticipated, and then Canadian opinion would begin to assert itself, as it had already begun, to some extent, against that competition. The country would remain protectionist, but it would be intensified in its protectionist convictions by having made a convert of the mother country. Was it not certain, then, that the mother country, appearing to a protectionist country in the light of a competitor, would become not dearer, but less dear, not so much an object of loyalty as of jealousy, and that there would be a very real tendency to break the understanding already arrived at and to substitute, not closer union, but all the bitterness that came from having attempted to draw nearer and failed, and ending in mutual repulsion? He believed, therefore, that we should not gain Imperial unity in that direction. We should not gain Imperial unity by dressing up the Colonies in the character of Scarcity and dressing up the mother country in the character of Competition. We should not make them so dear to one another as they were in their natural shapes and without this masquerade. He hoped, therefore, we should not adopt a preferential policy.
    At the same time he was very anxious that they who were free-traders, and who would have to settle this controversy, should not forget, in their desire to maintain free trade, that Imperial unity, the desire to draw closer to the Colonies, which was no doubt largely at the bottom of the Member for Birmingham's first development of this policy, was in itself a good thing and one which ought to command their sympathy and co-operation. He had never felt, apart from the fiscal question, that the prospect of Imperial unity was other than a cheerful one. The Empire had already engaged in great enterprises, like the South African War, in co-operation with the Colonies. Why should we not follow the lines of that development by increasing the opportunities of consultation on foreign affairs by co-operating in the government of the dependencies belonging to the whole of the Empire? Why should we not realise better than the Member for Birmingham was able to do that idea which he most lucidly and admirably laid down, namely, the idea of making the

    421
    Colonies feel that the Empire was not only ours but theirs? That, after all, was the desire and the object, very well stated, but foolishly pursued, which they all set before them. He hoped that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who must necessarily play a great part in the future, would not allow to slide out of their minds the obligation that lay on patriots of all sorts of political belief to maintain the honour of the Empire, to draw it, if possible, into a closer union. Let them not allow the Member for Birmingham, with whatever good intentions on his part, to become the patentee of Imperialism. It ought to be the common heritage of the whole country. And if, as he believed was the case, the colonists drew the inference from these debates that the House had drawn and that tariff reform had failed, let them at the same time draw the inference that they had many and powerful friends among the free-traders who had triumphed, and that, whether by free trade or protection, the interests of every colony in the British Empire were not less dear to us than were the interests of the counties in our own kingdom.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDONsaid it was a great pleasure to find himself in agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich upon this question, because he knew that a few days hence they would be fighting each other tooth and nail upon another subject. He had no particular wish to speak on this subject at any length, because he had not heard any arguments which required contravening, and it was difficult to make a speech when they had no arguments to meet. He had never looked upon this movement as a serious one. When the late Colonial Secretary returned from South Africa and discovered that the Government had lost its popularity partly on account of the Education Act, and largely on account of the disastrous results of the war, he was anxious to change the subject, and he produced these fiscal proposals in order to give the country something else to talk about. He ventured to think that this new movement would share the same fate as other proposals which had arisen from the same source. The hon. Member for Cumberland had said that
    422
    he would never have supported this new movement if he thought it would increase the price of the food of the working man. Where did the British farmer come in under these new fiscal proposals? The farmers in the eastern counties had declared that they did not want a tax upon corn, and sixty years ago they asked to be delivered from that tax. He could not help thinking that farmers were right in their contention that no good would come to them from protection unless they were also protected from competition from the Colonies. He could not help drawing attention to the farce which was being played night after night in this House by the empty benches opposite. The dignity of the House was gradually passing away, and the privileges of its Members were steadily disappearing, and so were the privileges of the people who sent them to represent them in the House of Commons. They saw the old-fashioned independent influential Member who cared nothing for office or title or entrance to society gradually passing away. He did not believe that there would be a general election before the autumn of 1907, and he should not be surprised if, when the last year of their present term of office came round, the Government brought in a Bill to discontinue elections altogether in order to remain in office.
    MR. HUNTsaid the hon. Member who had seconded this Motion forgot to say that for the five years which preceded preference our exports to Canada went down, and from the moment they granted a preference to this country our exports to Canada went up. He was sorry that the Resolution had been moved, because if it were carried it would do away with all chance, so far as the Liberal Party were concerned, of this country ever entering into a preferential treaty of commerce with her Colonies. Mr. Cobden made a commercial treaty with France, and why should they not be allowed to make a similar treaty with the Colonies? It could not be denied that foreign nations did all they could to injure our trade. Their Colonies had helped them in war, and now they wanted them to help in commerce. The chairman of a big company in his constituency had pointed out to him

    423
    the enormous advantage which his company had derived from Canadian preference, and he said that had it not been for this preference the work his company had done for Canada would have gone to America. If they refused to join with their Colonies in commercial treates, of course the result would be that their Colonies would join with other countries, and this country would be shut out from colonial markets just as she was now shut out from the markets of foreign countries. As far as the food of the people was concerned the working classes would not be any worse off than they were now, and if he thought for one moment that they would have to pay more for their food under the new fiscal proposals he would have nothing to do with them. They had the authority of Mr. Charles Booth, who was recognised as a great authority upon the London poor, who wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham stating that, in his opinion, as far as he could see, the food of the people would not cost them any more under the scheme of the late Colonial Secretary than at the present time. There had been a great deal of fuss about the big loaf and the little loaf, but he would like to ask if hon. Members opposite had ever reckoned up how much a tax of 2s. a quarter upon foreign wheat would put upon the price of bread? If the whole of this tax was paid by the bakers it would only amount to two-thirds of a farthing upon a four pound loaf. The present system was driving capital out of this country, with the inevitable result that there was not near so much employment for the people. If they had more capital invested in industries in this country they would have more employment for their own people, and then they would have a state of things under which three employers would be running after one man instead of one man running after three employers. Hon. Members opposite tried to stop the Agricultural Rating Act from passing. The real fact of the matter was that hon. Members opposite were dreadfully afraid that the landlords would get the benefit of it. Their policy seemed to be purely negative. What he and his friends wanted was to get the people back to the land. That could not be done in any way except that which he
    424
    had indicated. Give the landlords a fair percentage on the outlay for new buildings and they would put up cottages instead of allowing that work to be done by the county council or the parish council.
    Resolved, "That this House disapproves on principle of the taxation of corn, meat, and dairy produce as being especially burdensome to the poor and injurious to the welfare of the nation; and believes that no proportionate remission from existing duties on tea, sugar, coffee, and cocoa would afford compensation for the imposition of such taxes; and declares its opinion that any Colonial Conference that is entered upon, except on the understanding that this country will not agree to the taxation of corn, meat, and dairy produce, will result in failure."—(Sir Joseph Leese.)

    STANDING COMMITTEE PROCEDURE (ACTION OF CHAIRMAN).
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYcalled attention to the conduct of the hon. Member for the Rashcliffe Division when acting as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade on March 21st. He said he had no intention to cast any aspersion on the hon. Member. He thought he would have the support of the hon. Gentleman himself in tho course he was taking, for he found that in November, 1902, he gave notice of a Motion to the effect that the terms of the Standing Order in regard to closure of debate in tho House itself should be altered. There vere certain rules which had been laid down for the guidance of Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, and they gave power to Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to apply the closare, but no such rule had ever been laid down for the guidance of the Chairmen of Standing Committees. On March 23rd, 1893, the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire complained of the action of the Chairman of a Committee in closuring a debate, and the Chairman justified his action on the ground that the question had already been sufficiently discussed. Of course

    425
    they all recognised that there must be a considerable amount of discretion left to the Chairmm of a Committee, but in this particular case what happened was that a Motion had only been under discussion for about twenty minutes. He did not think any question of fact would arise upon that. An Amendment was moved, and afterwards withdrawn at the request of the Committee.
    *MR. JOHN ELLIS: Leave to withdraw it was refused, and it was negatived.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid everybody thought it was advisable not to discuss it in Committee. The real object his hon. friend had in moving it was to get at the facts. That was a very different state of affairs from what took place in March, 1893. He did not think anybody would say that it was impossible to carry on the discussion in the Committee if the discussion had been allowed to continue. But the hon. Gentleman refused to put a Motion for the adjournment which he (the speaker) moved at that time. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire moved the Motion which was before the Committee on that occasion, and he stated that he would accept the Motion for the adjournment if the Government would do certain things. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture was not in his place, and it was for that reason that he moved the adjournment of the discussion in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have time to consider the proposal which had been made. It was about ten minutes to two, the Chairman refused to put the Motion for the adjournment of discussion, and when he (the speaker) rose to continue the debate he put the Question. There was a Standing Order of the House which said that Mr. Speaker and the Chairman of Committees should have power not to accept a dilatory Motion, but no similar power was given to the Chairmen of the Standing Committees. He wished to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the custom was now to send contentious Bills to the Standing Committees, and it was therefore in the interest of minorities that certain rules should be laid down for the
    426
    guidance of Chairmen. Everybody would agree that it would be well that both the Chairmen and the members of those Committees should know exactly what powers they had. Therefore, without casting any aspersion on the hon. Member for the Rushclifle Division he had thought it right to bring the question before the House in the hope that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan would be accepted and that a special Committee would be appointed to report whether any amendments in the procedure of the Standing Committees were desirable.
    MR. GALLOWAYin seconding the Motion, said he concurred with his hon. friend in stating that they had no desire to cast any aspersion on the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division, and he hoped the hon. Member would accept that assurance in the spirit in which it was given. Everybody who had attended the Grand Committees must have been struck with the fact that there was an entire absence of Standing Orders for regulating the debates in those Committees. When the Committees were set up they were intended to deal with Bills of a non-contentious character, and so long as that rule was observed there was perhaps no great necessity for Standing Orders. But that salutory rule laid down by Mr. Gladstone had been broken, not perhaps by one side more than another. [An HON. MEMBER: Oh!] That was his view. At all events, it was not denied that it had been broken, and indeed now it was impossible for a private Member to have a chance of getting a Bill through, however non-contentious it might be, unless it was referred to a Grand Committee. The practice which had grown up in regard to the closure was much more drastic than the one that was allowed in the House. He thought it was the Leader of the Opposition who gave the first precedent with respect to closure in a Standing Committee, and it had placed absolutely in the hands of the Chairman the right to closure a debate whenever he thought fit, and nobody had any right to say a word. He did not think that was a desirable state of affairs. He held that the Committee should have the right to say whether the debate should be terminated

    427
    and the Question put. The same remark applied to the question of adjournment. In this particular case he thought a very great public service would have been rendered if the Committee had adjourned. Although the Motion for the adjournment was refused they were able to make a compromise at a subsequent sitting of the Committee, but that compromise was rendered infinitely more difficult than it would have been if the Motion for the adjournment had been put. With regard to the question of voting, he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth refused to vote because he had not heard the question sufficiently debated to enable him to come to a conclusion. The procedure to be followed in such a case was laid down in Erskine May's well-known book, and he held that the action of the Chairman on the occasion referred to in refusing to make the right hon. Gentleman vote was entirely without precedent and contrary to the usages of Grand Committees. It was easy for the Chairman of a Committee to fall into an error of this kind when he had no Standing Orders upon which he could act. He hoped, therefore, that something would be done to have this matter settled in order that the work of the Grand Committees might be properly carried out.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, doubts having arisen as to certain rulings given by the hon. Member for the Rushclifie Division as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade on 21st March, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that rules should be laid down for the guidance of Chairmen of Standing Committees."— (Sir Frederick Banbury.)
    *MR. JOHN ELLIS: I am sure those who listened to the hon. Gentlemen will appreciate the statement that I rise under some difficulty. I have no intention of
    428
    complaining for a moment of anything that has fallen from the hon. Gentlemen. They have repeated to-night what they said in Committee, that their action is not personal. I wish they had allowed me a few more moments to reply. I shall endeavour to put the case as clearly as I can to the House. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion has taken up, quite unnecessarily, the defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Yarmouth, who is not here to state his case, and who explained to the satisfaction of those in the Committee why he did not vote. He then said he took that course under circumstances other than those which had been detailed by the hon. Gentleman, who has given a somewhat inaccurate account of the proceedings in question. The hon. Gentleman should have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to came to his place and raise the question himself. The Motion before the House raises two separate things. It deals with the personal conduct of a Chairman of the Committee and it goes on to deal with a matter with which I have great sympathy, namely, the working of the Grand Committees. On the first, with which I am personally concerned, I shall in the briefest possible manner lay the facts before those who do me the honour to listen to me.
    There were two Amendments before the Committee—what I may call a major and a minor Amendment. There was an Amendment which covered a large field and which was debated in the most excellent manner. It was argued in a business-like manner, and the discussion might be regarded as affording an illustration of how business before a Grand Committee should be conducted. It was debated for over an hour and when the Grand Committee came to a decision on that it was half-past one. Then the minor Amendment was started by an hon. Member. When he came to me and

    429

    asked the precise place at which it could be inserted, I saw there was doubt as to whether the Committee had not already decided the point which the minor Amendment raised. But I let it in. Immediately I put it from the Chair, the hon. Member who initiated our earlier proceedings this evening raised the point whether the Committee had not really already decided the matter, whether it was not covered by the decision come to. I was inclined to think in my inmost heart that it was, but I let it in. I said I had grave doubts, but, at all events, I thought it entitled me as Chairman to suggest that a decision might be come to on this very minor Amendment with some rapidity especially as it was understood that we were going to commence the consideration of another larger and quite different matter when we bogan our proceedings the next day. The hon. Member for Peckham rose and made what I ventured to say at the time was a spaech not dealing with the minor Amendment, but one roaming at large and raising the whole principle of the Bill. The hon. Member, roaming at large, made a Second Reading speech. I appealed to him, and he gave way and concluded his remarks. I was proceeding to put the Question when the hon. Member again rose and moved the adjournment of the Committee. I refused the Motion, acting strictly on precedent, and went further. Under the circumstances, basing myself on precedent, and accepting the full responsibility of my action, I proceeded to put the Question. I put the Question and the Committee came to a decision. That is the head and front of my offending. That was at ten minutes to two o'clock, and we were on
    430
    the eve of adjourning. I have sat for more than fifteen years on these Grand Committees—for the first five years as a member and during the last ten years as Chairman. I recollect in the earlier years I had the high honour of sitting under the present Leader of the Opposition who, as Chairman of a Grand Committee, was one of the most excellent I ever saw. I saw him bring the proceedings to an end in a more drastic manner than I ever did. I based myself on that and other precedents and I am bound to say that, if I were in the Chair to-morrow and the same circumstances were to arise at ten minutes to two o'clock, and I had the knowledge that next day we were to proceed to a much more important matter, and a Member rose in the way the hon. Member did, I should act in precisely the same way. I acknowledgs it is a strong proceeding to take. During the whole ten years I have acted as Chairman of Grand Committees I have never resorted to it before. But in the circumstances I am satisfied that, acting to the best of my ability and with a desire to maintain the efficiency of these Committees, I did what was right for the proceedings of the Committee. That is all I have to say on the personal matter.
    The hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion devoted a great deal of their remarks to the consideration of the working of the Grand Committees. I am one of those who have always defended the appointment of Grand Committees. I have always thought that they were a most valuable part of the machinery of this House. I think that we shall have to make great use of the Grand Committees, and I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has put down an Amendment

    431
    that it is desirable to take some opportunity of considering the whole working of these Committees with the view to improving their machinery and laying down something like Standing Orders in order to guide both members and Chairmen. In saying that I must carefully guard myself by saying that there can be no doubt whatever as to that firm ground on which as Chairman on that occasion I took action, using the classical language which we all know in this House. I humbly submit myself to the judgment of the House.
    *SIR FEANCIS POWELL*SIR FEANCIS POWELL (Wigan) moved as an Amendment to add at the end of the Resolution the words, "and that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the procedure of Standing Committees, and to report whether any and what amendments in such procedure are desirable."
    SIR CHARLES RENSHAWseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed —
    "At the end of the Question, to add the words 'and that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the procedure of Standing Committees, and to report whether any and what amendments in such procedure are desirable.'"—(Sir Francis Powell.)
    Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
    Main Question again proposed.
    And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

    THE PRIME MINISTER'S ABSENCE FROM DEBATES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, who, so far as he could see, was the only member of the Government who really discharged his duties faithfully, whether, inasmuch as the Prime Minister did not read the newspapers or read the proceedings of the House, which ho presumed to lead, he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that a Motion had been carried to-night which practically reversed the opinion in regard to the Colonial Conference expressed by the Prime Minister two or three weeks ago. In the course of the discussion then the Prime Minister stated that he thought the conference ought to be free and unfettered.
    MR. LOUGHasked how far this procedure was to be carried. Could the right hon. Gentleman announce on behalf of the Prime Minister whether it would go on to-morrow and to-morrow week, and every Tuesday and Wednesday when private Members' Motions were brought before the House? If no attention was to be paid by the Prime Minister to the decisions the House came to, he thought the matter was becoming serious.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the Prime Minister was not treating the House with the respect which was due to it. He did not think he would be acting properly himself if he were to refrain from saying in this House what he had

    433
    already said in the public prints. He accused the Prime Minister of gross personal disrespect and of malfeasance in his duty to the Sovereign. It was the old constitutional custom for the Prime Minister or his agent to write an autograph letter to the Sovereign every day, giving a full account of the proceedings in Parliament. This was the assertion of the Sovereign's right to be informed of all that went on in the House of Commons. The Ministry were the servants of the House as well as of the King. The old theory was that the King was present in Parliament, and that when he was not present himself he was represented by his accredited Ministers. The Ministers of the Crown were not present at the debate to-night, and they had absented themselves in the same way on other occasions lately. By that conduct they were not only insulting the House, but acting in an unfaithful and disrespectful manner to the Sovereign. They ought to know that the Sovereign in a supreme moment could dissolve this Parliament and trust to the people. Mr. Gladstone adhered to the practice of writing a daily letter to Queen Victoria, giving an account of the proceedings of the House; Mr. W. H. Smith when Leader of the House also pursued the practice. Mr. Gladstone observed this practice to the last, and when infirmity made him unable to attend the evening sittings of the House his letter to the Queen was finished by Sir William Harcourt. It was no secret that the great biography of Mr. Gladstone by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs was largely based on the letters which were written to Queen Victoria. It was a practice which had been followed since the time of Grenville. Why had the present Prime Minister neglected this
    434
    constitutional usage? This was not merely a House to register the decrees of the Government. A measure proposed by a private Member had an equal right to be considered, and the distinction drawn by the Prime Minister between Government Bills and private Members' Bills was a fallacious distinction. The Prime Minister had run away. He had heard of a runaway horse and a runaway wife; but never before had he met with a runaway Prime Minister. He had known something of many Cabinets, but he had never known one so like Noah's Ark as the present Cabinet. It was full of interesting relatives. Noah's Ark was floated on a waste of water, the present Cabinet was floated on a waste of blood.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEasked when it was proposed to take the Committee stage of the Army Annual Bill. If it was put down for Thursday would the Government be sure to proceed with it, so that hon. Members would not be brought down to the House to discus it and then find that it had been put off?
    *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said that this was the first time he had heard complaint made of the postponement of the Committee stage of a Government Bill. As to how long this sort of thing was to go on, that depended very much on hon. Members opposite. They had enjoyed great success in the ballot, and if they used their success to put down fiscal Motions the Government would continue to do in the future what they had done in the past. He had been asked to inform the Prime

    435
    Minister of the Resolution that had been passed. He always reported to the Prime Minister what passed in the House either next morning or even on the same night. [An HON. MEMBER: He said you did not report the other day.] He did not communicate the exact terms of the Resolution, but he told the Prime Minister that the House had spent a most interesting and instructive evening. As to what the effect of these Resolutions would be, the Resolutions in favour of Home Rule and Welsh disestablishment passed by a former Parliament were not noticed by its successor, and he did not see why the Parliament which was to meet some years hence should lake any notice of the Resolutions passed by this Parliament.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he wished to point out the grave charge which the right hon. Gentleman had made against the veracity of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the statement made in the House the other day by the Prime Minister that he was not aware of what had taken place in the House the previous evening was totally inaccurate.
    *SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The right hon. Gentleman was not told the terms of the Resolution.
    MR. DALZIELsaid he was sure the Patronage Secretary had no disposition to quibble over a detail. He accepted what the right hon. Gentleman said as to the Prime Minister not knowing the terms of the Resolution. Were they to understand that the right hon. Gentleman in reporting to the Prime Minister in the morning what had occurred on the previous night, did not state that an im-
    436
    portant Motion had been carried in regard to the fiscal question?
    *SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: The words I used were "an interesting and instructive evening."
    MR. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman conveyed the information that the debate dealt with fiscal matters. That was his point. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had now given them an insight into the way in which the business of the House was being conducted. He reported to the Prime Minister what had taken place, and the Prime Minister came down to the House and stated that he did not know what had taken place. He hoped the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury would in future go a little more into detail in reporting to the Prime Minister what had occurred in the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid that there was a strange discrepancy between the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the Prime Minister. Surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that he did not tell the Prime Minister the subject that was discussed when the House spent an interesting and instructive evening. The position was this. Having got information as to what occurred from the principal Government Whip, the Prime Minister, when asked a Question on the subject, professed to be entirely ignorant of what had taken place in the House. That was an unworthy position for the Prime Minister, it was a gross insult to the House, and it was a most unconstitutional proceeding.
    Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.