Commons Sitting of 6 April 1905

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

  SUBSTITUTED BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 62 has been complied with, viz:—Caledonian Railway Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Great Northern Railway Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  London Gas Bill. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Birmingham Corporation Bill (by Order); Bretwood Gas Bill (by Order); Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Cordoba and Rosario Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order); Entre Rios Railways Bill [Lords] (by Order); Malvern Water Bill (by Order). Read a second time, and committed.
  Dublin Corporation (Superannuation) Bill; Whitechapel and Bow Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Ealing Corporation Bill Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for the suppression of Betting in Streets and other public places." [Street Betting Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Nine Mile Point Railway Company; and for other purposes." [Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to revive and extend the period limited for the compulsory purchase of lands and to extend the period limited for the construction and completion of the harbour and works authorised by The Hastings Harbour Act, 1890, and The Hastings Harbour Act, 1897; and for other purposes." [Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for vesting the undertaking of the Harrow and Uxbridge Railway Company in the Metropolitan Railway Company; to provide for the consolidation of certain preference stocks of the company; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to Dissolve the Marriage of Sir Robert John McConnell, Baronet, of Windsor Avenue, in the county and city of Belfast, with Elsie George McConnell, his now wife, and to enable him to marry again; and for other purposes." [Mc Connell's Divorce Bill [Lords.]
  Nine Mile Point Railway Bill [Lords]; Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]; McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords]; Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Ayr; Dundee; and Glasgow (three); to lie upon the Table.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
Petition from South Manchester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL
Petitions against; from Beckenham (four); Brighton; Bromley; Chichester; Hove; Kensington; Lewes (seven); Little Bardfield; Liverpool; Penzance (two); Petersham; Rugby; West Bromwich; and Worthing; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND) (SALARIES).
  Return [presented March 23rd] to be printed. [No. 115.]
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (PAINT AND COLOUR WORKS).
  Copy presented, of Report by T. M. Legge, esquire, His Majesty's Medical Inspector of Factories, on the Manufacture of Paints and Colours containing Lead, as affecting the health of the operatives employed [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EMIGRATION STATISTICS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Emigration Statistics of Ireland for the year 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Bill and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158b]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.

  CASUALTIES TO SH PS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered August 9th, 1904; Air. Lough];

  625
  to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. ll6.]

  ARMY (MILITIA TRAINING ESTABLISHMENTS).
  Copy presented, of the Militia Training Return, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1885.
  Account presented, up to March 31st, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3335 and 3336 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of the Capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised

  £2½ per Cent. Consols.

  £2¾ per Cents. (1905).

  £2½ per Cents.

  £2¾ per Cent. War Loan.

  Other Securities.

  Annuities for terms of years

  Exchequer Bonds and Treasury Bills.

  —(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Visit of the French Fleet—Facilities for Members of Parliament taking part in the Reception.
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the event of the visit of the French Fleet to English waters, the Government will give facilities for Members of this House to take part in the reception.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) As the arrangements in regard to the visit of the
  and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers down to the 31st day of December, 1904, in respect of Companies, and the 31st day of March, 1905, in respect of Local Authorities; the gross Receipts, working Expenditure, net Receipts, and appropriation of net Receipts; the number of Passengers conveyed, quantity of Electrical Energy used, and the number of miles run by Cars during the year ended on the foregoing dates respectively; together with the number of Horses, Engines, and Cars at those dates (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 310, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Bonar Law.)

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SECURITIES.
  Return ordered, "of the amounts of British Government Securities held by the several Government Departments and other Public Offices on the 31st day of March, 1905, specifying whether held in England or Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 236, of Session 1904):
  French Fleet are yet undetermined it is not practicable at present to make any statement in reply to the hon. Member's Question.

  Closing of Irish Police Stations.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain what are the reasons for closing the Rathmolyon and Kildalkey police stations; to what barracks have the men been transferred; and if he can state the number of other stations closed, and in what counties, since 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) These stations were abolished because the necessity for them no longer existed. The

  627
  authorities are satisfied that the requirements of the respective localities can be adequately met by the police at the adjacent stations, of which there are four within a radius of six miles of each of the places named. The police from Kildalkey have been transferred to Ballivor, Athboy, and Crossakiel, the two former being adjacent to Kildalkey; and those from Rathmolyon have been sent to Trim, Enfield, and Dunshaughlin, of which Trim and Enfield adjoin Rathmolyon. The number and situation of the stations closed since 1903 are as follows—

  County.

  No.

  Carlow

  1

  Cavan

  4

  Clare

  3

  Cork, E.R

  6

  Cork, W.R

  6

  Donegal

  5

  Down

  1

  Dublin

  2

  Galway, E.R

  2

  Galway, W.R.

  2

  Kerry

  7

  Kildare

  5

  Kilkenny

  2

  King's

  6

  Leitrim

  3

  Limerick

  8

  Longford

  1

  Louth

  3

  Mayo

  4

  Meath

  11

  Monaghan

  2

  Queen's

  2

  Roscommon

  5

  Sligo

  5

  Tipperary, N.R.

  3

  Tipperary, S.R.

  2

  Westmeath

  2

  Wexford

  2

  Wicklow

  3

  Total

  108

  Fishery Board Cruiser "Freya."
  MR. WEIR (Ross and Cromarty): To ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state the amount paid for the Fishery Board cruiser "Freya," her speed and tonnage, and what part of the coast she patrols.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dicksoti.) The cost of the "Freya" has been £10,000,
  628
  her spend is twelve knets, and her tonnage 280. Her districts for patrol vary according to the varying necessities of the service.

  Publication of Report of Lord Mansfield's Commission.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can say when the Report of Lord Mansfield's Commission will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I cannot say exactly on what day the Report will be published.

  British and Foreign Sailors employed on British Ships.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he will state the number of British sailors employed on board British ships each year from 1897 to 1903 or 1904, inclusive, and also the number of foreign sailors employed on board British ships for the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The figures asked for by my hon. friend are given for each year from 1897 to 1903 at page 74 of "Tables showing the progress of British Merchant Shipping," Parliamentary Paper 294. The figures for 1904 are not yet available.

  Premiums for Carrying Boy Sailors.
  SIR CHARLES CAYZER: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, if it is not possible to give the average yearly payment per boy by a reduction in the light dues for apprentices carried under the scheme of the President of the Beard in 1898, he will state the number of apprentices carried under the scheme each year from 1898 to the end of the year 1903, with the payments for each of these years.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The scheme for boy sailors referred to in the Question did not come into force until April 1st, 1899. In the year 1899–1900 the number of boys enrolled was 302 and the payments made were £672 14s. 7d. In 1900–1 the number of boys enrolled was 454 and the payments made were £1,647 3s. 9d. In 1901–2 the number of boys enrolled was 691 and the payments made were £2,861 9s. l1d. In

  629
  1902–3 the number of boys enrolled was and the payments made ware £3,938 8s. 8d. In 1903–4 the number of boys enrolled was 1,065 and the payments made were £4,533 19s. 3d.

  Music Hall "Sketches."
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a number of persons engaged in those entertainments called sketches have recently been thrown out of employment consequent upon the action of the Theatrical Managers Association; and, if so, whether he will facilitate the introduction of legislation designed to remove the restrictions and conflicting enactments upon the subject.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have no official information on this subject. I regret to say that I cannot recommend that facilities should be given for legislation of the kind suggested.

  Coastguard Surgeons in Ireland.
  MR. O'KELLY: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of Coastguard surgeons in Ireland; how many hold appointments additional to the Admiralty one; and how many devote themselves exclusively to Admiralty work.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The number of Admiralty surgeons and agents in Ireland is 117. None of these gentlemen are required to devote themselves exclusively to Admiralty work.

  Sale of Obsolete Dockyard Chains.
  MR. ARTHUR HENDERSON: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the terms of the Order issued in 1894 as to the sale of obsolete close link and rigging chains; and whether he will undertake to have the Order fully enforced to prevent as far as possible the discarded chains being sold in the markets, thus competing unfairly with the manufacturers and workmen engaged in the chain-making industry.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the
  630
  Orders issued in 1894 as to the disposal of old chain, from which he will see that they were expressly designed to meet the contingency suggested in the second part of the Question. As stated in my reply of March 28tht, there is no reason for assuming that these instructions are not being properly carried out by the dockyard officers, but their attention is being called to the necessity of exercising special care in this matter.

  Pay of Ilford Postmen.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the postmen in Ilford receive a maximum wage which is 6s. a week less than that paid to the postmen in the adjoining parish of Manor Park, where living is cheaper; and whether he will place the Ilford postmen on the same rate of pay as the postmen in the same street in the parish of Manor Park, namely, at from 19s. to 30s. a week.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware that such is now the case. I will consider any representation the Ilford postmen may desire to make to me respecting their pay; but I can holdout; no hope that their present maximum of 24s. will be raised to 30s. a week.

  London Postal Porters.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General what steps he intends to take with a view to removing the three years bar at present imposed on the London posta1 porters; whether he intends to bring their starting pay to the same level as that of a postman entering the postal service at the age of twenty-five years or over, seeing that the porters are employed, with a few exceptions, only in town district offices where the minimum wage for postmen is 20s.; and whether he intends to allow established labourers in London to rise to the same maximum as the unestablished porters, viz., 30s. weekly.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I will consider any representations the classes to whom the hon. Member refers may
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii 1358.

  631
  desire to make to me respecting their pay, but I may at once say that I am of opinion that 24s. a week is adequate remuneration for the work performed by the labourers.

  Memorial of Assistant Clerks (Abstractor Class).
  MR. ERNEST GRAYTo ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state when a reply is likely to be given to the memorial which the assistant clerks (Abstractor Class) presented to the Treasury in December, 1903, and to which it was stated in May and also in August last that a reply would be shortly given.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) I hope that a reply will be given to the memorial referred to by the hon. Member before the end of the month.

  Salaries and Fees of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. WHITLEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the amounts paid to the Law Officers of the Crown in salaries and fees for the year ending on March 31st, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) As I am not yet in possession of the figures required, I would ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question till after the Easter Recess.

  Promotions of Second-Class Clerks and Examining Officers in the Customs Service.
  MR. LAWRENCE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury how many second-class clerks, lower section, and how many second-class examining officers there were in the Customs Department on March 31st, 1900; how many of these clerks and officers, respectively, have been promoted to the next higher grade since that date; what were the average salaries immediately prior to such promotions; what salaries and what average immediate increases in salary did the promotions carry with them in each case; and what was the average service in the clerical department of the clerks and the average service in the outdoor department of the officers when they obtained these promotions.
  632
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The number of second-class clerks, lower section, in the Customs Department on March 31st, 1900, was 117, and of these 106 have since been promoted to the next higher grade, the salary of which is £200–£300. The average salary of these clerks immediately prior to their promotion was £119 19s. 3d., and the average immediate increase in salary upon their promotion amounted to £80 Os. 9d. Their average service was seven years, three months. The number of examining officers, second class, in the Customs Department on March 31st, 1900, was 842. Of these, 159 have since been promoted to the next higher grade, the salary of which is £230—£340. The average salary immediately prior to promotion of these officers was £212 9s. 4d., and the average immediate increase in their salaries upon promotion amounted to £17 10s. 8d. Their average service in the outdoor department previous to their promotion was twenty-three years, six months.

  United States and England—Intrepretation of Most Favoured Nation Clause.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the United States and England interpret the most- favoured-nation clause in the same way; if not, what is the difference.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Answer to the first Question is in the negative. The United States hold that a treaty right to most-favoured-nation treatment does not entitle its possessor to participate in special privileges granted to others in return for reciprocal concessions. I would refer the hon. Member to "Commercial, No. 4 (1885); Correspondence respecting the negotiation of a treaty regulating trade between the British West Indies and the United States [C. 4340]," page 20, et seq.

  Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
  DR. MACNAMARA: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that by Section 6 of 24 and 25 Vic., c. 14, tin Act establishing the Post Office Savings Bank, the Commissioners for the Reduction of the

  633
  National Debt are represented as an independent body exercising supervision of the affairs of the Post Office Savings Bank; and that, in practice, the sole acting member of the body is the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being; and, if so, will he recommend the alteration, by repeal and re- enactment, of the wording of this section and of all Acts or sections of Acts in which the Commissioners are represented to be an independent body exercising supervision or control of matters connected with the national finances.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I do not find in the section to which the hon. Member calls my attention any words representing the National Debt Commissioners to be an independent body exercising supervision or control of matters connected with the national finances. I do not propose to introduce legislation to amend the powers of those Commissioners in connection with the management of the Post Office Savings Bank Fund.

  Civilian Surgeons attached to South African Army—Double Payment of Income Tax.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that civilian surgeons attached to His Majesty's forces in South Africa have to pay on their salary and allowances income-tax to the Imperial Exchequer, and at the same time contribute to the revenue of the Colony; and whether, seeing that civilian surgeons in South Africa are the only civilians attached to the Army who pay income-tax on their salaries, he will place these surgeons on an equal footing with other civilians attached to the Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I will make inquiry into the facts. The information at present in my possession does not enable me to answer the Question.

  Irish Head Land Commission—Appeal of Mr. Denis Corkeran.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay on the part of the Head Land
  634
  Commissioners in hearing the appeal of Mr. Denis Corkeran, of Ballinreastig, Douglas, county Cork; why did not the Commissioners call this case during their sitting in Cork last January; and, the case having been listed some three years ago, will he say when the case will be dealt with.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Mr. Corkeran's notice of appeal was received on October 12th, 1903. The appeals heard at the last sitting at Cork in February, 1905, were received prior to October, 1903. Mr. Corkeran's appeal will be included in the next list for the district, but the date of hearing has not yet been arranged.

  St. Patrick's Day Celebration at Coagh.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on March 15th, several cannon were fired from the Orange Hall, Coagh, during hours from 4 p.m. to 4 a.m., and that the firing was continued until the evening of St. Patrick's Day; did the police report the circumstance; what was the purpose of the cannonade; if it was intended to annoy and outrage the Catholic residents in the village; and will such a practice be permitted in future.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Occasional revolver or gun shots, not cannon shots, were fired on the nights of March 15th and 16th, and two or three during the day on March 17th. The police reported the circumstance. The purpose of the firing is not known, but it probably had some connection with the Party celebrations associated with that time of year. The practice of firing shots in a spirit of bravado, which is not confined to one Party, is an objectionable one, and the police do their utmost to prevent it. The offenders in this instance are not known.

  Inspection of Irish Firkin Butter.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state in what months between May 15th, 1902, the date on which the Sale of Butter (Ireland) Regulations, 1902, came into

  635
  operation, and December 31st, 1994, the 1,118 samples of firkin butter were taken for analysis by the local food inspectors in the counties of Clare, Galway, Kerry, Limerick, and Tipperary; what was the number of samples taken in each county; I and whether any of them was other than that of Irish salt firkin butter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Department are not in possession of the dates on which the samples were taken, but will make inquiry; and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member. The number of samples taken in each county is stated below, the samples being those of salt firkin butter exposed for sale in the counties mentioned:—

  County.

  No. of samples taken.

  Clare

  236

  Gal way

  176

  Kerry

  56

  Limerick.

  492

  Tipperary, N.R.

  121

  Tipperary, S.R.

  37

  Total

  1,118

  Suggested Appointment of a Commission on Irish Railways.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if an application has been made to him with regard to the appointment of any kind of Commission on the subject of Irish Railways; if so, does he contemplate acceding to the application; will it be a Vice-Regal Commission; how will it be constituted; and what will be the scope of its duties.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I beg to refer to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me on the 3rd†inst. by the hon. Member for West Limerick.

  Farm of Ringillane, Kilcolgan.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the farm of Ringillane, Kilcolgan, county Galway, has been offered for sale to the Estates Commissioners by Miss Matilda George, with a view of enlarging the small uneconomic
  † See page 97.
  636
  holdings in the immediate neighbourhood; and what steps, if any, have been taken to acquire the farm for that purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) Yes Sir, and the Commissioners have had a preliminary inspection made of the lands, and are in communication with the owner on the subject of purchase.

  Rules under the Irish Land Act, 1903.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that as yet only temporary rules have been made regulating transactions under the Land Act of 1903, and that these temporary rules involve references to three other sets of rules under previous Acts; and when a consolidated set of permanent rules may be expected to be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The rules are being codified and will be issued as soon as possible. I cannot, however, fix a date for their issue.

  Strength of Royal Irish Constabulary in County Roscommon.
  MR. HAYDEN: 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 Roscommon from 1899 to 1901.
  (Answered, by Mr. Walter Long.) The average actual strength of the free force in the county for the years specified was as follows:—

  Year.

  Free Force.

  1899

  287

  1900

  299

  1901

  297

  1902

  313

  1903

  304

  1904

  291

  Case of Ex-Lieutenant Kingston.
  SIR GEORGE FARDELL: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of ex-Lieutenant Arthur Kingston, with eleven years and seven months service, who was ordered to resign his commission without trial although he has

  637
  repeatedly asked for it; and whether, having regard to the fact that Lieutenant Kingston was commended by the Officer Commanding the Ashanti Field Force in 1900 for very good work in capturing and surprising one of the chief rebel leaders, he can see his way to grant an inquiry or allow that officer to take action at law against his former colonel in order to clear his character and prove that he was the victim of mistaken identity.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Lieutenant Kingston, Middlesex Regiment, while attached to the West African Regiment, was reported for intemperate habits by two successive commanding officers of the regiment and by the officer commanding the troops, Sierra Leone, who stated that he did not consider the officer's retention in the service either desirable or likely to be advantageous to the Army. The Commander-in-Chief accordingly ordered him to resign his commission, and this he did without protest. No further official inquiry into this matter can be granted. As regards a civil action, as Mr. Kingston is not subject to military law, no permission from the War Office is necessary.

  Civilian Surgeons attached to South African Army —Customs Rebate.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that civilian surgeons attached to the Army in South Africa are not eligible for the Customs rebate in accordance with a circular Memorandum No. 30, dated 4th July, 1904, and issued by the Chief Staff Officer, South Africa; and whether, seeing that nursing sisters and school mistresses attached to the Army participate in the rebate, he will see that civilian surgeons are placed on an equal footing with other civilians attached to the Army.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am aware of the circular referred to. The whole question of the Customs rebate was settled by a conference of Customs officers of the several South African Colonies. It was decided that civil surgeons are ineligible to receive this rebate, and the Army Council is not, therefore, in a position to alter this decision.

  Colonial Conference—Emigration to the Colonies.
  MR. CROOKS: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will submit to the Colonial Conference any proposals for a joint scheme of emigration to the Colonies, to be arranged between the Home Government and the Governments of the several Colonies. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The period for making definite proposals with regard to the topics to be dealt with by the Colonial Conference has hardly yet arrived.
  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Volunteers in the South African War.
    SIR CARNE RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many efficient Volunteers went to the front during the South African War.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD- FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The number of Volunteers that went out to South Africa in Volunteer Service Companies and the City of London Imperial Volunteers was 19,856 of all ranks. Besides these there were struck off the strength of Volunteer Corps as having joined the Imperial Yeomanry 6,209 of all ranks. Volunteers included in the first category were required to have been "efficient Volunteers"; of the others it cannot be said how many had been "efficient Volunteers," and how many had not.

    Militia Encampments—Dining Tenes.
    MR. COURTBNAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if dining tents are no longer to be supplied to Militia battalions going into camp for training, or if it is only a few battalions that are not to be given them.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): Dining tents will be issued as far as they are available to all regiments of Militia asking for them. Owing to adverse

    639
    reports on the tents, and the fact that many Militia units prefer not to draw them, only a limited number of tents have been provided.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they have been already refused to some Militia battalions?
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I am not; perhaps the hon. Gentle-man will inform me.

    War Office Purchases of Civilian Clothing.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNER: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state how many suits of civilian clothes have been contracted for, made at the clothing factory, or otherwise obtained or ordered by the War Office authorities since January, 1904; and at what dates the orders were given.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: 4,050 suits have been obtained by contract since January, 1904. None have been made up at the factory or otherwise obtained. The dates the orders were given are as follows:—February 27th, 1901, 50 suits; July 6th, 1904,100 suits; September 27th, 1904, 200 suits; October 1st, l904, 150 suits; October 22nd, 1904, 50 suits; October 25th, 1904, 1,500 suits; March 7th, 1905, 1,900 suits; March llth, 1905, 100 suits. The suits ordered were of sizes of which there were none in stock or of which the stock was low.

    Conversion of Service Rifles.
    MR. CROOKS: 1 beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if definite instructions have been given, or are in contemplation, to the Master-General of Ordnance to proceed with the conversion of the service rifle to clip loading at a cost of 11s. per rifle.
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: Instructions have been given to the Master-General of Ordnance to this effect for a limited number of rifles.

    North Randfontein Mine—Coolie Strike.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information of a strike of 2,000 Chinese coolies
    640
    on Saturday last, at the North Rand-fontein Mine, near Krugersdorp, the alleged grounds of revolt being dissatisfaction with wages; that, on the police being called in, the casualties among the Chinese were considerable, and that fifty-three coolies were eventually arrested; and whether, if he has no information, he will at once obtain it from South Africa.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have not yet received a reply to the inquiry which I made by telegraph on Monday.
    MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many of the indentured labourers on the North Randfontein Mine who have served for six months are receiving wages of less than Is. 6d. per day; and whether the Labour Ordinance imposes the condition of a minimum of 36 inches drilled before the Is. 6d. is given.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks. The Labour Ordinance does not impose this condition. The contract is printed at page 9 of Cd. 2183.
    MR. WHITLEY: Are we correct in understanding that the Ordinance provides that after six months service the minimum pay shall be raised to Is. 6d. per day?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Certainly; provided that the average pay has not reached a certain height.

    Agreement with Afghanistan.
    MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Agreement entered into by the British Government and the Ameer of Afghanistan as the result of the recent British Mission to Cabul, together with other Papers connected with the Mission, will be laid before Parliament at an early date; whether he will give a general indication of the contents of the Agreement; and whether it differs in any material respect from the previous Agreement existing between the British Government and the late Ameer.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guild-ford): I propose shortly to lay on the Table a translation of the Agreement recently concluded with the Ameer of Afghanistan, together with such Papers as are necessary to elucidate it. The purport of the Agreement, as has already been stated in another place, is merely to continue and confirm Agreements which existed between the British Government and the late Ameer.

    The Anglo-French Convention and Germany.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention entered into by His Majesty's Government with the French Republic, dated 8th April, 1904, was officially communicated to the German Government, and when; whether, if so, any reply to the communication was received by His Majesty's Government, and, if so received, will he lay it upon the Table of the House; whether any subsequent communications have passed between this Government and Germany in regard to the said Convention; and, if so, will he lay them upon the Table of the House; whether Germany has any Treaty with Morocco securing to it any special commercial rights and privileges; and, if so, whether they are analogous to the rights and privileges secured to this country by the Convention of Commerce and Navigation concluded between this country and Morocco in 1856, and confirmed by the Convention between this country and France, dated 8th April, 1904; and whether the Sultan of Morocco still retains the right to enter into Treaties or Conventions granting commercial rights and privileges with countries which were not parties to the Convention of 8th April, 1904.
    *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl. PERCY, Kensington, S.): The Declaration of April 8th, 1904, between the United Kingdom and France was not officially communicated So the German Government, and there were no communications between His Majesty's Government and that of Germany in regard to it so far as it had reference to Morocco. The Sultan of
    642
    Morocco was not a party to the Declaration, which was an independent arrangement between the British and French Governments having reference to their respective interests in that country. The Treaty between Germany and Morocco of 1890 is analogous to that of 1856 between this country and Morocco.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman says there were no communications between Germany and this country with reference to Morocco. Were there any with reference to other parts of the Empire?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order!
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This Question has reference to the French Convention, and I think my Question is in order.
    *EARL PERCYsaid the Question had reference to Morocco. No communication had been made to the German Government except in reference to the Khedival Decree.

    The New Post Office Wages Scheme.
    MR. NANNETTI; I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state whether he proposes to get the sanction of the House of Commons before he introduces his new scheme on Post Office wages; and can he state what is the probable date of the debate on the Post Office Vote.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): The new scales of wages have been introduced from the 1st instant. I am unable at present to state the probable date of the debate on the Post Office Vote. I will consult with my right hon. friend the Leader of the House and try and arrange a date to meet the convenience of hon. Members.

    Post Office Wages—The Increase of the Minimum Salary.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if it is the intention not to make the proposed increase of the minimum salary by 1s. applicable to those who are at present in the service, in view of the discontent that exists at present

    643
    among the male and female officials under the age of twenty- five.
    LORD STANLEY: The increase of 1s. in the minimum salary of certain classes is not applicable to officers already in the service, unless they are at present receiving a salary lower than the new minimum. In that case their pay is at once raised to the new minimum.

    Learners and the New Wage Scheme.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General is he aware that learners who have hitherto received 18s. per week while performing substitute duty will under his new scheme be reduced to 10s. per week; and whether, seeing that such negative concessions are not calculated to lesson the discontent in the service, will he take any further steps in the matter.
    LORD STANLEY: I gave an Answer to a similar Question yesterday†. I am aware that there are cases of the kind to which the hon. Member refers, and on the 4th inst. I issued general instructions that learners already employed as substitutes may be given the option of retaining their present varying rates of pay as learners and as substitutes, in lieu of the constant rates for learners with two years service and upwards, indicated in my announcement of the 28th ultimo.

    Post Office Savings Bank Return No. 88.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Postmaster - General whether the Return just issued, No. 88, "Statement showing the aggregate amount of the Liabilities of the Government to Depositors in Post Office Savings Banks on 31st December, 1903, etc.," is the form adopted for Returns to be made annually; if so, whether a Return in this form will be supplementary to a statement of the nature and amount of the securities standing in the names of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, such as that contained in the Fiftieth Report of the Postmaster-General, or whether it will be substituted for such a Return.
    LORD STANLEY: Return 88 of this year shows the form proposed for the
    † See page 442.
    644
    Return required by Section 9 (1) of the Savings Bank Act, 1904. It will probably be convenient that the statement usually attached to the Postmaster-General's Report should follow the same form.

    Sea Encroachment near Brighton.
    SIR H. AUBREY-FLETCHER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the erosion by the action of the sea of the cliffs adjoining the high road leading from Brighton to Rottingdean, and thence to Newhaven, and which threatens to destroy the road in certain places; and whether, in view of the expense that would be incurred in procuring land up the Downs, and making a new road, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): I have received some representations with regard to this road. The matter is not one with respect to which I am empowered to take any compulsory action, but I am informed that the road is a main road vested in the East Sussex County Council, and I am communicating with the council on the subject.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Does the right hon. Gentleman apprchend danger of any further land slide in that district?

    Exchequer Issues.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, can he explain how it is that the Exchequer issues in respect of the National Debt for 1904–5, as shown in the published accounts, amount to £26,986,668 insted of £27,000,000, the permanent or fixed annual charge, and why the balance of £13,332 was not issued.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURE (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The hon. Member's Question is based on a misapprehension of the figures in the published accounts. The Exchequer issues in respect of the National Debt for 1904–5 were £27,000,000 as provided by law.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I have added up the figures. I want the hon. Gentleman to explain the misapprehension.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I can do it, but not in answer to a Question across the floor of the House.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I want a public explanation—not a private one.

    Chinese War Indemnity.
    *MR. MCCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount of the annual in talments now payable in respect of the British share of the Chinese war indemnity; and whether these instalments will be applied to the reduction of debt.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Negotiations are now in progress between the Chinese Government and the representatives of the Powers as to the basis of payment of the indemnity. Until these are concluded the amount of the annual instalments receivable by this country cannot be stated. Proposals will in due course be submitted to Parliament as to the application of the British share.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then are we to understand that the British instalments are not fixed?
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: Yes, that is so.

    Underfed School Children—Teachers' Duties.
    SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether it is the duty of a teacher in an elementary school, if he finds a child destitute of necessary food, to apply to the relieving officer of the district; if not, what course is it the teacher's duty to take.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): The duty of a teacher in an elementary school is defined by the terms of his
    646
    agreement with his managers or local education authority. I am not prepared to say what duties such an agreement may impose, except that they must not involve an infringement of Article 15 of the Code.

    Pauper Children in Public Elementary Schools.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY; I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether a local education authority can refuse to admit to schools maintained by such authority children who are boarded in the union workhouse when such workhouse is situated within the area of that authority; and whether, if the workhouse in question be not the property of the council in whose area it is situated, the local authority may require the council maintaining the workhouse of make contribution on behalf of the expenses involved in educating these children.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: It is the duty of the guardians to provide for the education of the children under their charge. By Section 2 of the Elementary Education Act, 1900, the guardians may arrange to perform their duty by contributing to the cost of their education at a public elementary school. The Board would, as a general rule, hold that the local authority would be justified in refusing to admit a child, even though there was room in the school, unless the guardians were prepared to make a contribution towards the cost of educating the child.

    Church Attendance of School Children on Saints' Days.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, having regard to the terms of Circular 512, the teachers in voluntary schools can be required by the managers of such schools to take children to church on Saints' Days, notwithstanding the attendance by-laws and regulations of the local education authority to the contrary.
    SIR WILLIAM ANSON: The teachers in voluntary schools are bound to carry out the instructions of the managers as to the religious teaching given in those

    647
    schools except in so far as such instructions may conflict with by-laws as to school attendance or direction as to secular instruction properly made or given by the local education authority.
    MR. ERNEST GRAY: Yes, but the Answer applies to teaching in the schools. This is a case of taking the children to church. Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about that?
    Sir WILLIAM ANSON: I have nothing to add to my Answer.

    Provision in Parliament against Sudden Illness of Members.
    CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that, in cases of sudden illness of Members of this House, there is no private room to which such Members can be brought, and that no provision of any kind is available in any part of the building for such emergencies; and whether steps will be taken to remedy this state of affairs.
    LORD BALCARRES: The First Commissioner is not prepared with any proposal to meet this suggestion; but he thinks that the appropriation of a room for such a purpose is not a matter within his jurisdiction, but in that of the authorities of the House.
    MR. C. R. SPENCER: Will the First Commissioner of Works consider the advisability of providing, something like a medicine chest somewhere?
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And in view of the fact that sometimes there are nearly a thousand persons in the building, and the sitting lasts nearly twenty-four hours, would it not be well to have a medical man always in attendance?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Sir Antony MacDonnell.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
    648
    of Ireland if the conditions under which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover appointed Sir Antony MacDonnell as Permanent Under-Secretary still exist, or has he now any special powers other than those of an ordinary civil servant.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): Sir Antony MacDonnell holds office as Under-Secretary in the same way as other permanent heads of Departments hold their offices, with this exception, that before he accepted office he received an explicit assurance that he would be treated with complete confidence, be consulted on matters of policy and administration, and be allowed administrative freedom of action, subject, of course, to the approval and control of the Chief Secretary. This, so far as my experience goes, has always been the case between my chief permanent officials and myself, and I hope always will be so.
    MR. SLOAN: I desire an Answer to this definite Question—Whether the special conditions under which Sir Antony MacDonnell received his appointment have been withdrawn or do they still exist?
    MR.WALTER LONG: I have done my best to give a perfectly frank, and, I believe, explicit Answer to the Question. It is extremely difficult to answer a question of this kind across the floor of the House, when so much depends on the interpretation of the conditions between a permanent official and his chief. I have endeavoured to give what I believe to be an explicit and accurate description of the relations between Sir Antony MacDonnell and myself, and I have added that the relations are similar, in my opinion, to those that always exist between me and my permanent officials.
    MR. SLOAN: Have the conditions under which Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed by the late Chief Secretary been withdrawn or do they still exist under the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman? That is the Question to which I want an Answer.
    MR. WALTKR LONG: There have been a good many attempts to describe

    649
    the exact relations between the Undersecretary and his chief, and I think it has been in those descriptions, and in consequence of them, that misunderstandings have arisen. I believe the Answer I have given is an exact description of the relations between Sir Antony MacDonnell and myself, and I fail to see that there is anything further for me to examine into, or that there is any other Answer that could by any possibility be given to the House.
    Mr. SLOAN, Mr. WILLIAM MOORE, (Antrim, N.) and Mr. GRETTON (Derbyshire, S.)Mr. SLOAN, Mr. WILLIAM MOORE, (Antrim, N.) and Mr. GRETTON (Derbyshire, S.) rose to put further Questions.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that he has given the only Answer he can possibly give, and if hon. Members think there is any matter which has not already been answered, they can put down a further Question. The present time is not appropriated for argument, but for Questions and Answers. The Answer to the Question on the Paper has been given. It may or may not be satisfactory, but that is not the point, and it cannot be converted into an argument.
    MR. WILLIAM MOORE: May I ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman says it is a matter of personal interpretation, his interpretations of the late Chief Secretary's letters are binding on himself?

    Galway Untenanted Lands—Case of Mr. Rothwell.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Rothwell, petty sessions clerk of Ballinasloe, is to get any portion of the untenanted land on the estate purchased by the Estates Commissioners from Mr. Mahon, Ballydonlon, county Galway, in view of the fact that he does not live within several miles of the estate, and that he has more than one farm elsewhere.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners have no information beyond that which I have already given to the hon. Member. Mr. Rothwell may possibly be negotiating with the owner for the purchase
    650
    of part of the demesne lands, but of this the Commissioners have no knowledge.

    Potato Growing Trials in Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Irish Agricultural Department, when refusing to accept from Mr. Williamson one ton of the "Duchess of Cornwall" potato, free of cost, offered to purchase from that gentleman one ton at the rate of £10, being one-tenth of the market price at which selected seed could be bought; and whether the Department now intend to carry out trials of this variety of potato in nineteen counties and on their own farms as originally decided upon; and if he will state the source from which the supply has been obtained, the price paid, and the quantity required for these trials this year.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Seed of the variety mentioned was originally purchased from a Scotch grower. It has been tested for the past three years on the Department's experimental farms, and the supply to be utilised this year is the produce of the original supply. The Department did offer to purchase a ton at the cost stated. The trials which it was intended to carry out in nineteen counties will not now be made.

    Irish Local Government Stocktakers.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount expended during the I past financial year by Irish boards of guardians and district lunatic asylum committees on salaries of Stocktakers appointed to take stock of the provisions of these institutions; and whether, seeing that these officers were created by the Local Government Board under the Act of 1898, the amount expended on account of their salaries will be recouped to the local authorities by the Treasury or from some Government source.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Local Government Board are not in possession

    651
    of the information asked for. It is not intended to recoup the local authorities.

    Gore Booth Estate, County Sligo.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the question of the reinstatement of John Quinn, an evicted tenant on the Core Booth Estate, situate in Lavagh, Tubbercurry, county Sligo, and now about to be sold to the tenants under the Act of 1903, has been left for settlement to the Estates Commissioners and the agent of the estate by the present occupier and the evicted tenant with the concurrence of the landlord; and, if so, whether, under the circumstances, and in the interests of the peace of the locality, the Estates Commissioners will be instructed to bring about an immediate settlement of this case.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir, it is not the case that the settlement of this matter has been left to the Commissioners by all the persons concerned.

    Evicted Tenants on the White Estate, Bantry.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the inspector appointed by the Estates Commissioners to inquire into the cases of evicted tenants on the White Estate, near Bantry, made personal inquiry or through a member of the firm of solicitors who had the carriage of the sale of the estate.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners have no information on the point but will make inquiry.
    MR. GILHOOLY: Who appointed this inspector and who is he?
    MR. WALTER LONG: Obviously if the Commissioners have no information I cannot have any.

    Mr. H. T. Wright's County Cork Estate—The Bonus Difficulty.
    MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that Mr. Henry T. Wright, Crown Solicitor for the county of Cork, after agreeing to sell to his tenants under the Land Act of 1903, refused to do so through the
    652
    Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board on the grounds that he would not be entitled to the bonus, he will say whether, in the event of sales direct to the Congested Districts Board or the Estates Commissioners, Mr. Wright would be entitled to the bonus.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No proceedings for the sale of this estate have come before the Commissioners. If the estate were sold through the Commissioners a bonus would be payable, but until the facts are before them the Commissioners cannot say whether the bonus would be added to the purchase money or paid to the vendor.

    King-Harman Estate, County Roscommon.
    MR. JAMES O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners are aware that the tenants' interests in the holdings of Mr. Marshall (160 acres), Dr. Rhodden (142 acres), Mr. Jameson (120 acres), and Major Smith (80 acres), all non-residential grazing farms on the King-Harman Estate, county Roscommon, can be secured by them for the purpose of enlargement of holdings; whether these lands have been actually offered to the Commissioners for the purpose stated; and if not, or in any event, whether the Commissioners will now take any steps to purchase the tenants' interests in the lands mentioned.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are negotiating for the purchase of Mr. Jameson's farm, the only one of those mentioned which has been offered to them. They will consider the question of purchasing any grazing farms which may be offered to them.

    Drumconrath Medical Relief Dispensary.
    MR. NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Local Government Board in proceeding by sealed order to suppress the Drumconrath Medical Relief Dispensary; whether he is aware that under the new arrangement some of the sick poor will be at least ten or twelve miles from the nearest medical relief centre; and, if so,

    653
    whether, in view of the opposition of the ratepayers to the change and the protest of the Ardee Board of Guardians, within whose district the division affected is situated, against the proposal, he will invite the Local Government Board to reconsider its decision.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Drumconrath dispensary district was merged in the adjoining districts of Dunleer and Collon No. 2. In each of these districts the residence of the medical officer is now centrally situated and within a reasonable distance of all parts of the district, and the Board are satisfied that no revision of their decision is necessary.
    MR. NOLAN: Has not this change been made in direct opposition to the wishes of the whole of the people, as well as of the local authorities. What does the right hon. Gentleman consider "a reasonable distance?" Is it eleven or twelve miles?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Rathmolyn and Kildalkey Police Stations.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain what are the reasons for closing the Rathmolyn and Kildalkey police stations; to what barracks have the men been transferred; and if he can state the number of other stations closed, and in what counties, since 1903.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The information asked for cannot well be compressed within the limits of an oral Answer, and, with my hon, friend's permission, I will circulate my reply with to-night's Votes.

    New Education Rule 127 (b).
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Commissioners of Education in Ireland made any effort to ascertain the opinions of managers and others previous to making the new Rule 127 (b): how such effort was made by them; at how many meetings was the rule discussed; how many Commissioners were present at the discussion; on the motion of which
    654
    Commissioner was the rule adopted; and whether it was adopted unanimously.
    MR. WALTER LONG; For the reasons stated by me yesterday†, I would ask the hon. Member to defer this Question until after the Easter recess.

    Grant for Agricultural Schemes in Kerry.
    MR. MURPHY:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in consequence of the procedure followed by the Congested Districts Board, no contribution is made by them, or by the Agricultural Department, to technical and agricultural schemes for the benefit of congested districts in the county of Kerry, or elsewhere; and whether, in view of the injury resulting to the residents of such congested districts by the withholding of a contribution, he will take any steps to enable the Congested Districts Board to contribute to the carrying out of these schemes through the county committees.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have already stated that the Department have assumed charge of agricultural schemes in the congested districts of Kerry. A sum of £1,772 was expended on such schemes in 1904, and of this the Department contributed £1,148, the balance being provided locally. The Congested Districts Board have no funds to contribute to the technical instruction schemes in congested districts.

    Agricultural Experiments in Cavan.
    MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state, what number of experiments under the Agricultural and Technical Instruction (Ireland) Act have been carried out in county Cavan up to March 31st, 1905, specifying the valuation of the holdings on which same were tried; and further, if he will state the number of said experiments made upon the holdings of agricultural labourers in county Cavan.
    MR. WALTER LONG: In 1902, ten; in 1903, thirty; in 1904, twenty. The Department have not yet received a
    ‡ See page 465.

    655
    report as to the number of experiments which the county committee's instructor has arranged for the present season; and they have no information as to the valuation of the holdings concerned, or whether any of these holdings belong to agricultural labourers.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What is the nature of the experiments?
    MR. WALTER LONG: That I cannot say without notice.

    Irish Land Purchase—Instructions to Inspectors.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the instructions for the guidance of inspectors, dated February, 1904, which have been cancelled by those dated February 9th, 1905, will also be presented to Parliament in accordance with the promise of the right hon. Member for Dover; and whether, seeing that the instructions dated February, 1905, only relate to sales to persons other than the Land Commission, any instructions have been issued to inspectors in cases of sales to the Land Commission direct; and, if so, when these instructions will be laid upon the Table.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir, I do not propose to lay the instructions of February, 1904, which were informal, on the Table of the House. The instructions of February, 1905, have regard to all sales, and are not limited to sales to persons other than the Land Commissioners. They include, in Part II., instructions under Sections 3, 6, and 8 of the Act of 1903.

    Longfield Estate, County Roscommon.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether untenanted land on the Longfield Estate, at Callow, near Frenchpark, in the county of Roscommon, has been offered for sale to the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, what is the date of the offer; whether, and, if so, when the estate has been inspected on behalf of the Board; whether, in reply to the offer of the owner, any offer has been made by the owner;
    656
    and whether steps will be taken to expedite the purchase of this land by the Board in view of the possibility of its being let for grazing for the coming summer.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The reply to the first inquiry is in the negative.

    Goold Estate, County Limerick.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say whether the Estates Commissioners have entered into any negotiations for the purchase of the untenated land on the Goold Estate, Athea, county Limerick, containing upwards of 200 acres, and which is let to graziers every year, in view of the sale of the tenanted portion of the estate to tenants; whether he is aware that there are about 100 tenants on the estate whose holdings are under £5 annual value; whether the Commissioners received the list of names of these tenants; and whether they will sanction the sale of the tenanted portion of the estate without seeing that the uneconomic holdings be enlarged.
    MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; and no proceedings for the sale of the estate have come before the Commissioners. The question of untenanted land will be considered if the estate comes before them.

    Commissioners of Irish Lights.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how is the Board of Commissioners of Irish Lights constituted; what is the qualification for membership; also, seeing the general dissatisfaction expressed by the various harbour authorities in Ireland, whether he will take some steps to have harbour boards get some representation on this body.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR, LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): May I beg allowed to answer this Question? I beg to refer the hon. Member to the Return (No. 35) as to general Lighthouse Authorities which

    657
    was presented to this House at the beginning of the session, and which sets out the constitution of the Board of Commissioners of Irish Lights. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to introduce a Bill to provide for the representation of harbour authorities on the Board.
    MR. JOYCE: Have the Board of Trade any control over the Irish Lights Commissioners?
    MR. BONAR LAW: I think they have some little control, but perhaps the hon. Member will put down the Question.

    School Building Grants for East Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he say whether any managers of national schools in East Limerick, within the past five 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 be expects that the Commissioners will be in a position to issue their new code of rules as regards building.
    MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: I am informed that certain applications for building grants have been made, but that there are being held over pending the settlement of the general question of revised plans for national schools, which, as I have already stated,I am endeavouring to expedite. I understand, however, that in the case of one application special plans are under consideration which may enable the work to be proceeded with under the regulations now in force.

    Ballina Post Office Revision.
    MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he can say what action will be taken, and when, as a result of the revision at Ballina Post Office, county Mayo, held in February, 1904, in respect of the staff there.
    LORD STANLEY: A revision of the indoor staff at the Ballina Office has now been sanctioned, and will be carried out
    658
    in due course. Provision is made for increasing the number of male sorting clerks and telegraphists from four to six.

    Irish Telegraph Messengers—Cap and Boot Contracts.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the contract for the supplying of the 2,000 caps to the telegraph messengers in Ireland has been transferred to England; and whether, seeing that the contract for caps and boots for these messengers, which are now manufactured in this country, was previously executed in Ireland, and that this is purely Irish work for use in Ireland, he will have it executed in that country in future.
    LORD STANLEY: I invited separate tenders for the shakos and caps required in Ireland in the hope that I might be able to place the contract in that country. Unfortunately the only tender I received was at so high a rate that I could not accept it. For telegraph messengers' boots also I received only one tender from Ireland, and there again the rates quoted were too high for acceptance.

    Underfed School Children.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Bill to provide, under proper safeguards, for the feeding of hungry children, brought in by the hon. Member for Hoxton, and supported, amongst others, by the hon. Members for Sheffield Brightside, South Islington, West Bradford, Stoke-upon-Trent, and South-West Bethnal Green; and whether, having regard to the fact that these hon. Members are all supporters of the Government, he will give facilities for the Second Reading of this Bill and for the reference of it to a Grand Committee if the same can be arranged by consent.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): I think the hon. Gentleman is under some misapprehension when he supposes that the objection that I am sure every Leader of the House feels to giving facilities for private Members' Bills is at all modified by consideration of the quarter from

    659
    which the support of the Bill comes. The objection is of quite a general character, and I do not think I can waive it in this instance, especially as there is a Committee appointed to inquire into this question.
    DR. MACNAMARA: May I ask whether, having regard to the nature of this Bill, the Prime Minister will inform his supporters behind him that it is not his desire that they should block it.
    MR. CROOKS: Is not the First Lord of the Treasury of opinion that part of the business of the Prime Minister of the country is to study the condition of the underfed children of the country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is with a I view of studying the condition of the underfed children of the country that we have appointed a Committee to give us the necessary knowledge of the facts. For my part I think we ought not to legislate on this subject without that knowledge.

    Pension Regulations.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is I aware of the fact that under existing legislation a soldier or sailor on joining the Civil Service is not allowed to count his military or naval service, as the case may be, towards the pension, if any, he receives at the close of his period of engagement in the Civil Service; and whether, having regard to the desirableness of providing suitable employment for time-expired soldiers and sailors, he will consider the question as to whether such men on the close of their Civil Service appointments should not have counted to their credit for pension their service with the Army or Navy.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, will he say if he is aware that candidates on the roll of the Royal Irish Constabulary are permitted to join the Irish Guards on a three years enlistment?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have had no time to get at the facts, and could not therefore answer that now. As
    660
    to the Question on the Paper, I would remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the subject of pensions is regulated by statute, which cannot be changed either at the will of the Treasury or at my will. The House of Commons itself would have to initiate legislation on the subject, and without legislation nothing can be done. Whether the soldiers would desire to see the system the right hon. Gentleman recommends carried out I do not know. Of course, they would be prevented from receiving their pensions as soldiers while they were serving, say, as postmen. But, in any case, whether they wish it or not, the change cannot be carried out without legislation.

    Scottish Church Dispute.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Royal Commission on questions of property arising between the United Free Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland has now reported; and, if so, when the Report will be in the hands of Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot say when the Report will be in the hands of Members. Every expedition is being made in regard to it.

    Civil Service Estimates.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on Civil Service Estimates.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope next Thursday.

    The Home-Service Army.
    MAJOR SEELY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, as President of the Council of Defence, whether it is proposed to proceed with the formation of a home-service Army on a short-service basis, within the next few months, a commencement being made as soon as sufficient long-service enlistments for India have been secured, whether the Militia is to form part of this home-service Army; and, if so, whether

    661
    all or what portions of the Militia are to be so transformed.
    MR. A.J. BALFOUR: This Question has nothing to do with the Committee of Defence, and I have therefore asked my right hon. friend to answer it.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It will not be possible to commence short-service recruiting for several months. But when an adequate number of men enlisted for long service has been obtained, the enlistment of men for a shorter period of service must be commenced. No short-service battalions will be formed before October. No Militia units will be included in the short-service Army except with their consent.

    The Position of Junior Lord of the Treasury.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether it is in accordance with precedent for the office of Junior Lord of the Treasury to be held by any other than a Member of this House, and, if not, what 'steps the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take with regard to this office in view of the fact that Mr. Gerald Loder has I not been elected to a seat in this House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It certainly is usual that the Junior Lord of the Treasury should be a Member of this House, though I suppose there is no constitutional reason why it should be so. I do not remember in my own personal experience, but I have read that Mr. Gladstone was Secretary to the Colonies for six or seven months though he was out of the House and unable to obtain a seat in this House—having, in fact, been turned out of the House on accepting office.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Junior Lord of the Treasury has any duties whatever except those connected with the business of this House?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The duties of the Junior Lord of the Treasury under
    662
    the Constitution are as well known to the right hon. Gentleman as to myself, and I do not think any detailed exposition of the character of those duties would add to the knowledge of either side.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is not the second member of his Administration who has been rejected at the polls quite recently, and whether he is still of opinion that his Ministry retains the confidence of the country?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman asks me a Question of fact and a Question of opinion. On the Question of fact, it is the case that the Solicitor-General for Scotland failed to obtain a seat in this House after he had taken office, and it is true that the Junior Lord of the Treasury has just failed to keep his seat. But when the hon. Gentleman asks me what I think the opinion of the country is, I imagine that that can only be judged by a general election.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: I have to ask the First Lord of the Treasury as to the order of business for next week.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Budget will be taken on Monday, and Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday will probably be occupied by the Budget Resolutions. I trust these will be concluded on Wednesday, and if that is so, we shall get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates on Thursday. The week following we propose to deal with stages of Government legislation.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: What measures will be proceeded with?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are going to introduce the Aliens Bill and the Unemployed Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule. I am anxious to proceed with the Second Reading of the Scotch Education Bill and the Agricultural Rates Bill; but I cannot at present give any date for those measures.

    NEW MEMBER SWORN.
    Ernest Amherst Villiers, Esquire, for the Borough of Brighton.
    The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    NEW BILLS.
      TRADES UNIONS BILL.
      "To amend the Law relating to Trades Unions," presented by Sir Alfred Hick man; supported by Sir James Heath, Sir William Tomlinson, Mr. Arthur Heath, and Mr. Galloway; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
      TUBERCULOSIS (ANIMALS) PREVENTION AND COMPENSATION BILL.
      "To provide for the Payment of Compensation to the owners of carcases of animals condemned after slaughter, and destroyed by order of a magistrate, on account of Tuberculosis, and to assist in the Prevention of Tuberculosis," presented by Mr. Ernest Gray; supported by Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck, Sir Joseph Dimsdale, Mr. Field, Mr. Charles McArthur, Mr. David Maclver, Mr. Samuel Roberts, Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. William Rutherford, Mr. Schwann, and Mr. Tomkinson; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
      SUPPLY OF ELECTRICITY BILL.
      "To amend the Acts relating to Electric Lighting," presented by Mr. BonarLaw; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]
      SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
      "To amend the Law relating to Fisheries in Ireland, and for the better protection thereof," presented by Sir Henry Seton - Karr; supported by Sir Herbert Maxwell, Sir Robert Penrose-FitzGerald, Mr. Grenfell, Captain Bagot, and Colonel Nolan; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 10th May, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]
      SUPPLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY] [5TH APRIL].,
      Resolution reported.

      ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
      "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."
      Resolution read a second time.
      *MR. McCRAE*MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.) moved a reduction of the Vote by £ 100 in order, he said, to get from the Secretary for War a more explicit statement of whit his proposals were in regard to the home service Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers. They ha d that morning a leading article in the Standard calling upon the Prime Minister to give an explicit and stirring address to his followers in the House, and he proposed now to call upon the Secretary for War to give an explicit statement of his policy. In the Memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Army Estimates he told them there would be a saving on this item of £700,000, but he was bound to confess he could not see how it was to be brought about if the right hon. Gentleman was not going to put his scheme into operation. After the statement which they had had from the Prime Minister on the preceding night, they must draw the conclusion that the Government were departing from their proposals to reduce the expenditure upon the Volunteers by £300,000, and he now wished to press for information as to whether the proposed reduction of £700,000 in regard to the Regular Army was also to be abandoned. The House really did not know where it stood in regard to the scheme which the right hon. Gentleman put before it on July 14th last. They were told in that scheme that they were to have a home-service Army and a long- service Army. Was the right hon. Gentleman enlisting at the present time for that long service Army at an earlier age than nineteen and a-half years, which was the age suggested recruits were to be enlisted at? Surely the right hon. Gentleman could tell them

      665
      what his scheme really was. Could he not do so in a few words? He was afraid, however, that they might as soon expect the Secretary for War to be explicit as they did the Prime Minister. Ambiguity was the design of the one and the misfortune of the other, but he did think the right hon. Gentleman should try and lay before the House his proposals in regard to the Volunteers, and to state what reductions, if any, he intended to carry out. Both sides of the House were utterly befogged as to where the scheme stood, especially after the interposition of the Prime Minister in the preceding night's debate. He wished to know whether the Secretary for War was now prepared to corroborate what fell from the Prime Minister? Whether he was departing from the scheme laid before the House on July 14th last, and in what respect he was making such a departure? Did he intend to reduce the establishment of the Volunteers this year by 114,000 men? If so, how did he propose to do it? Was it to be done by abolishing battalions, or did he propose to reduce the number of companies in the battalions? Those were questions which they were fully entitled to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He would again ask him to give them an intelligible exposition of the policy—not his policy, but the policy which the Cabinet had now approved.
      Amendment proposed—
      "To leave out '£10,101,000,' and insert '£10,100,900.'"—(Mr. McCrae.)
      Question proposed, "That '£10,101,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
      *MR, GRIFFITH BOSCAWENdesired to apologise for again intruding on the House on this question. The hon. Gentleman opposite had put to the Government certain definite Questions, particularly in reference to the Volunteers, and he did think it was most important that the present uncertainty and doubt which existed in regard to the proposals of the Government should be removed.
      *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is under a misapprehension if he thinks he can discuss the Volunteers or the Militia on the Report of this Vote. The Vote is for the pay of the Regular Army, and the debate must be confined to the question of the payment of wages for the Regular Army.
      *MR. McCRAEpointed out that in the Vote there were certain sums set aside for schools of instruction for Mounted Infantry, for Militia and for Volunteers. Would not that fact entitle them to discuss questions affecting the Militia and Volunteers?
      *MR. SPEAKER: Anything regarding the pay of the instructors may be discussed, but there is a Vote for the Militia and another for the Volunteers, and any general discussion in regard to those forces must take place on those particular Votes.
      *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he wished to say something about the proposal for the home-service Army which the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward, and that indirectly involved the position of the Militia. Was he not entitled under the circumstances to raise that question?
      SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask if it was not an understanding that we should have four days general discussion on the Army question. It may seem a departure from the usual practice to have a general discussion on the Report of this Vote, but I believe that on this occasion there was a general understanding that the Government should give us four days—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday —to discuss Array matters.
      *MR. SPEAKER: I do not know whether there was any understanding between the right hon. Gentlemen, but certainly I was not a party to it, and it is my duty to carry out the rubs of the House.
      MR. CHURCHILL: Where the Prime Minister?
      SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANI hope I shall be in order in appealing to the Government whether it is not the case that we were promised four days for a full discussion on general Army questions. If that is so, will the Government fulfil their promise?
      *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD- FORSTEE, Belfast, W.): I do not desire to avoid any discussion, but I imagine that the ordinary procedure has been followed. On Vote 1 general Army questions can be discussed, and it has always been the practice to do that on the Committee stage, but the discussion on the Report stage has always been confined to the discussion of matters contained in the Vote itself. Vote I was set down for this week in order that there might be a general discussion. I would point out that the general discussion on Army matters has now lasted eight days.
      MAJOR SEELY: We do not know where we are.
      *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that the ordinary practice had been adopted in this case, and added that already three days had been given to the debate on this Vote.
      SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: I notice that the Leader of the House has just entered, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain the point I have attempted to make. You, Mr. Speaker, have laid down from the Chair what I admit is in accordance with the rules and with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, that the regular practice is on the Report stage of Vote 1 to confine the discussion to matters contained in the Vote; but I submit that this is not a usual occasion. There was an undertaking given, when the general arrangements for this discussion were being made, that the whole of the Government time in this week should be devoted to a general debate on Army questions. If the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to bring the debate on Vote 1 in the Committee stage to a conclusion, instead of continuing it over till to-day, I submit that the House ought not to suffer, and, inasmuch as it was promised
      668
      that there should be four full days, that the general discussion should be allowed to continue on this stage.
      MR. LOUGHsaid he would like to point out to the Prime Minister that the Vote was agreed to on the preceding night on the understanding that the general discussion could be resumed the next day.
      MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that when the Chairman of Committees put the Vote it was actually past the hour for the interruption of debate, and had there been the slightest opposition it could not have been put. He was in his place at the time, and he offered no opposition because he understood that the Government were anxious to get the Report stage, but at the same time he also understood that they would not be prevented from continuing the discussion.
      THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said there was some misconception, but he was anxious to carry the House with him. He would indeed be grieved if he did not, for so much depended on the carrying out of arrangements between the two sides of the House. No doubt a strong appeal was made to him to afford full opportunity of discussing Vote 1, and he promised that should be done. But there were financial considerations, which were brought to the notice of Parliament, which made it necessary that they should get both the Committee and the Report stages of Vote 1 in the course of the present week. He certainly gave no pledge that the Report stage should be taken under any rules but those which governed the procedure of the House, nor would it have been possible for him to do so. But if it were consistent with the rules of order he should welcome such liberty being given to the House as would enable the discussion on the Report stage to travel over the same ample region as it had travelled over for the last few days in Committee.
      *MR. SPEAKERsaid that he, of course, had no object except to see that the rules of the House were carried out. The established rule was that the general debate on the Question, that he do

      669
      leave the chair, might be continued on Vote A in Committee, but that then the discussion on Vote 1 in Committee must be confined strictly to Vote 1, and the discussion on the Report of Votes A and 1, Army Votes, must be confined to what was in Votes A and 1. But as in the present instance there was evidently an arrangement come to between both sides under a misunderstanding, either as to the rule or as to what was said by one side or the other, he should not deem it necessary to interfere with the general discussion proceeding on the same lines as in Committee.
      *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid that he wished to take that opportunity of stating that, whatever criticisms he might indulge in, they were not directed against the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War personally, but had reference to his policy. They were indebted to the Prime Minister for having allowed the understanding to be carried out in regard to a general debate, and he wished to make it perfectly clear to hon. Members around him, at any rate, that he was not attacking the Government as a whole, he was only attacking a particular departure and a particular policy which he thought was to the detriment of the country and of the Army. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh had asked his right hon. friend certain definite Questions, and had requested him to state once and for all what was his policy in regard to the Volunteer force. He entirely endorsed that request, because he felt that a great deal of harm was being done to the Volunteer force and therefore to the country by the state of uncertainty in which the right hon. Gentleman was leaving that force. He had served in the Volunteer force, and at the present time he was in the Militia force, and he thought he was entitled to join with the hon. Member opposite in begging the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to a state of uncertainty which was doing much harm to both forces. He said emphatically that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in not definitely stating what he proposed to do was an attitude which was not justified, and they had a right to demand that he should tell the House and the country what his proposals were.
      670
      What was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman? Last year he came to the House with certain very definite proposals which partook of the character of abolishing the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, said he did not propose to abolish the Militia, but he did propose to abolish half the battalions and to so alter the remaining half that they would no longer be Militia. They might retain some continuity of service, but they would be a sort of bastard part of the Line. Since then he had told them that he had dropped these proposals, that they were not before the House, and that they were not before the country. Yet, when they asked him what was before the House and before the country, he never spoke about his real policy, but he invariably talked about his scheme of last year. Only the other day his hon. friend the Member for Portsmouth put a certain Question to the right hon. Gentleman, and he answered it by vindicating at great length what would be the condition of the Militia unit to which his hon. friend belonged, not under his present proposals, but under his abandoned proposals. On every single occasion he still spoke as if those proposals were before the House and the country, and he (the speaker) wanted now to ask him, once and for all, to give them in black and white a statement as to whether he was going to abolish the Militia or not. It was time they knew that. If he were not going to do it directly—and they were told that there was an Imperial sentiment in the country which would not permit of its being done—there was a danger that he would do it indirectly. There were other ways of doing it besides the direct way, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was accomplishing that end pretty well as it was. He could not get officers, and he could not get men to join the force, and he would not be able to do so so long as the Sword of Damocles was hanging over its head. When he told them that the force was under-officered, and that they could not get the right men to join, the proper reply to that was that the right hon. Gentleman himself was largely the cause of that state of affairs. He was going indirectly the right way to work to abolish the Militia force.

      671
      The right hon. Gentleman told them that in five or six months, or perhaps, in eight or nine months, he was going to start the home territorial battalions for a short-service Army. Now, was he going to start those home battalions in regimental districts in direct competition with existing Militia units? If so, he ventured to say that indirectly again the right hon. Gentleman was using a very strong weapon against the Militia force, a weapon which must eventually destroy it. Those who were in that force believed that they did some useful service to the country by taking some part in the defence of these shores, and he did think that they had Borne claim to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman something more than mere equivocation as to what his real intentions were. The Militia officers would like to know whether he was going to treat them as he and his predecessors successfully treated the Imperial Yeomanry, namely, improving them so as to make them a really valuable force.
      He was sure his right hon. friend would believe him when he said he was making no personal attack upon him, but he objected to his whole scheme of Army reform so far as it related to the Auxiliary Forces, and he objected also to the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman constantly adopted towards those forces. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely on the wrong tack with regard to the Auxiliary Forces He seemed to think that these forces should be made as like the Line as possible. As the country had not got conscription, and he was disposed to think would never get it [OPPOSITION cheers], the course which ought to be adopted was to avail to the fullest extent of the national spirit and desire to serve in the Auxiliary Forces. Every man physically fit who presented himself for the Volunteers, the Yeomanry, or the Militia should be taken and the best made of him, and those forces should be used as schools for training the potential soldier for service abroad. The whole lesson taught them by the South African War was that the Auxiliary only partly trained, but who had learned the elements of soldiering, had acquired
      672
      some discipline, and knew how to use the rifle, very soon developed into a trained soldier. When, therefore, in times of peace the men came forward in order to acquire training, they ought to avail themselves of their services, and it would be all the better for the country when it was in a condition of warfare, and when it was necessary to send large forces abroad. He thought that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman took up towards the Auxiliary Forces was a most unfortunate one. He was constantly telling the House that the Militia was not as good as the Line. Of course, they all knew that. He told them, too, that they could not put troops into the field against a Regular Army with such training only as Militiamen obtained.
      *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTER: I did not say so. I quoted the authority of military experts.
      *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Did not the right hon. Gentleman father the statement?
      *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTER: I adopted it.
      MR. CHURCHILL: What is the difference?
      *MR.GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid if the right hon. Gentleman did not father it he had adopted it, and adoption had generally been considered as very much the same thing as fathering. However, they might take it that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with the statement, and he did not suppose that any of his military advisers or anybody else thought they should send Militia into the firing line, directly war broke out. Surely, what they would do would be to call them out, give them several months training, and then they would be in a proper condition to do credit to themselves and to their country. He was told that it took the Japanese two or three months to make a soldier. Might it not be thought that a thoroughly trained Volunteer, Militiaman, or Yeoman, in two or three months would make a soldier? Of course he would. He would make a soldier much more quickly, because he had had a partial training in the

      673
      Auxiliary Forces, than if he were a raw lad from the plough who had never done any sort of military work. The right hon. Gentleman had instituted what was a most extraordinary comparison between the Militia and the Line. He said that in the case of the Line, if they left behind the immature lads, those lads would grow up to be old enough and strong enough to be sent abroad. Did not Militiamen grow up? Were they the only people who never got any older?
      *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say that lads joined the Militia a year younger.
      MR. CHURCHILL: You are breaking your own rules.
      *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid he fancied the War Office were breaking their own rules, but, after all, granting that they were taken a year younger, young men of sixteen or seventeen grew up by degrees, and as they were not to be in the front line, and not even in the first Reserve, if the war was to be a long one, and if they were going to fill up the wastage year after year, the growing Militiaman would become in time as useful a soldier as the Linesman. The Secretary of State had stated that they had to leave behind the 30 or 40 per cent, of Volunteers who were medically unfit or, from other reasons, inefficient. It was strange that if the percentage was so high 51,000 Militiamen served in South Africa. He believed they served with considerable credit. At any rate, they did not discredit themselves more than any other branch of the service. Did they prove themselves any more unfit than the other forces in the field, or was any complaint made that they were unfit to go through the toils of the campaign? The hon. Member for King's Lynn said they surrendered.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg pardon, I said nothing of the sort. I suggested that in addition to the Questions the hon. Gentleman was putting, he should ask whether they surrendered.
      *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid they would not go into that. He did not think the percentage of the Militia who
      674
      surrendered was higher than that of other branches. The right hon. Gentleman had said that they were not old enough to go to India. He did not know that it was proposed under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme that they should be sent to India. What he said was that for the purpose of the war in South Africa and other wars in which we might be engaged, the Militiamen would prove themselves to be as fit for the hardships of a campaign as the men of any other branch of the service. He did not wish to say anything disparaging of any branch of the service, but he did not believe that the Auxiliary Forces were worse in those respects to which reference had been made than the Line regiments. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman applied as much to the Regular Army as to the Militia and the Volunteers.
      The House wanted to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do. Was he still going to try to destroy the Militia force, and, if not, what were his proposals? The right hon. Gentleman had a truly wonderful scheme considering the views he held in regard to the Militia. It was proposed that they should be enlisted for compulsory foreign service. If they were so unfit as the right hon. Gentleman would have the House to believe, why were they now asked to serve compulsorily abroad? The right hon. Gentleman's plan was first to prove that they were unfit to serve abroad and then to say that they must. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman what were the views of most Militia officers of the proposal. They had proved their willingness to serve abroad. As to making foreign service compulsory, they should not object if at the same time reasonable proposals were made for improving the force and making it really efficient. But so long as they were to be treated as mere impediments in the way of rational Army reform, he did not see why they should undertake the additional obligation while nothing was to be done to pat them in a state of efficiency.
      There was a great deal that could be done. The Secretary of State had complained that the critics of his

      675
      proposals made no suggestions of a constructive character which, he might use for the purpose of improving the force. He would, therefore, make one or two proposals. In the first place he would say reduce the establishment where the establishment was too large—reduce the number of battalions and make the number more or less commensurate with the number of recruits they got. Instead of having 120 battalions as now, he would be content with sixty strong and efficient battalions divided over various parts of the Kingdom. In the second place, he would lengthen the training, though he did not think that could be done very much, considering the voluntary character of the service. He thought the recruit service could be largely lengthened. It would be an immense improvement to lengthen the ordinary training to six weeks and the men's training to six months. One training out of every three should be devoted entirely to musketry. Under the present arrangements there was not time to attend properly to musketry and also to field training. In the third place they wanted more permanent staff. They were supposed to have two staff sergeants to a company. There might be companies which had them but they did not as a rule have them in his battalion. That was not the fault of the Militia but of the War Office, who did not give the staff they were supposed to give. He thought something ought to be done in regard to non-commissioned officers, who were a weak spot in the force. Inducements should be given to enable them to go to schools of instruction to learn their work. The great complaint the right hon. Gentleman made was that they were merely getting recruits for the Line, and that very few recruits remained with the Militia. That was a strange complaint, even from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view. What was to become of the recruiting of the Line but for the Militia? He could tell the right hon. Gentleman the reason why the recruits went on to the Line. It was because they were trained at the Line depots The adjutant of the Militia was also the adjutant of the Line, and it was his object to induce those whom he trained to go into the Line. The adjutants
      676
      were one month with the Militia and eleven months with the Line, and while, as he knew, some were absolutely loyal to the Militia, the fact remained that the greater part of their duty was to look after the Line.
      Lastly, he said, without wishing to hurt the right hon. Gentleman, that he should adopt a slightly more courteous attitude. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman intended to be discourteous, but it would be well if he did not invariably give the opinion that he wished the Militia were at the bottom of the deep blue sea. He felt deeply in regard to the way the Militia had been treated. If they destroyed that force—and they ran the risk of doing it—they would destroy an instrument which had been of great value in the past and might be of even greater service in the future.
      COLONEL BLUNDELLsaid that people who criticised the proposals of the Secretary of State did not always keep in view the difference between the Regular Army and the Auxiliary Forces in relation to their liability for foreign service. He had read the Report of the Commission on the South African War and the evidence on which the Report was founded, and he felt, as an old soldier, that the Army had, to a certain extent, been made the scapegoat of faults that belonged to the Civil Service system of government in this country, and the relationship of the Army to that system. He found from the Report that the preparations for the war were delayed for political reasons. The effect of that was that the Boers invaded Natal six days before the Reservists for the infantry battalions had to meet at home—6,000 miles away. The Army had to be sent out to South Africa in fragments, the ships for the infantry were ready first, and no complete body was formed abroad as should have been done had time permitted. The late Lord Salisbury accurately described the situation when he said that our system of government was not adapted for the making of war. That might be said of any system of government which was well adapted for domestic legislation. They could

      677
      not entirely alter that system, but they could modify it.
      He thought very great credit was due to the Government for forming the Defence Committee. In that way he believed our civil system could be modified with regard to questions relating to war. After war was declared in South Africa the mobilisation worked admirably. The rapidity with which the divisions were sent one after another to the Cape prevented insurrection and saved the situation until, eventually, Lord Roberts was enabled to roll back the tide of war, and, by the aid of the patriotism of this country and the Colonies, it was possible to bring the campaign to a successful conclusion. The Army was organised to send out 70,000 or 80,000 men at that time, there was no reason for thinking that it could not have sent out this force properly staffed and equal in efficiency to a similar force of one of the great Powers. But there were sent out more than three times that number. There was a breaking point to iron, and he thought it did not at all follow that our Army was so bad as the country as a whole seemed to think.
      What were the lessons of the war? The first was the necessity of having a force which could be sent out at once, as a force was sent to Canada in 1860. That force we had not in the South African War. The next was the necessity for strong Reserves. Those we had during the South African War, and owing to the rapidity with which division followed division to the Cape we succeeded in preventing insurrection there. Those strong Reserves were due to the Cardwell system as amended, the last amendment having been made when Mr. Smith was at the War Office. That system had been thoroughly tried, and, with improvements which could be made he thought it suited exactly the needs of this country. If a force of infantry was maintained at home equal to the force abroad, the battalions at home formed a "setting" for training the Auxiliary Forces, and the quality of the Army would be maintained. A considerable force must be maintained in this country if non-commissioned officers were to be found for the Auxiliary Forces.
      678
      The idea in many minds seemed to be to dispense with a large proportion of that equal force of Regular infantry abroad and at home, and to rely upon the blue-water theory. It had always been considered that a force could not be landed if opposed, but it was difficult to be sure that the naval opposing force would be there. Even in regard to such a matter as the defence of the Thames Lord Nelson gave the following order—
      "Stationary floating batteries are not from any apparent advantage to be moved, for the tide may prevent their resuming the very important stations assigned to them."
      Captain Mahan's comment on that order was that—
      "Nelson was evidently alive to that advantage in permanent works which puts it out of the power of panic to stampede them."
      In the present day, with torpedo boats and destroyers, submarines and so on, there was greater opportunity for defending the coast, but marine defence might be sent or decoyed away. The danger was not so much the landing of a great force with the idea of taking London, as an attack upon one of our great naval ports from the land side. Wellington stated the case very clearly when he wrote to Sir Robert Peel—
      "I put the hypothetical case of the enemy landing 25,000 men near one of our great naval arsenals, attacking, succeeding in taking, and destroying the arsenal. This hypothesis is not the representation of an impossibility, or even extravagant, considering what I have seen done myself, having at the time superior armies in the field opposed to me. In this case you would not have a man.… If a body of troops were landed in the neighbourhood of one of our places of a sufficient force to invest the place, say 25,000, then I defy all the Fleets of England to save it without the assistance of an Army in the field. I entreat you to weigh all this well.
      He would like to know what were the views on that danger of Admiral Richards, who was the First Naval Lord at a critical time, and of whom Lord Goschen had the highest opinion.
      Then, what improvements were necessary in the Army? The first was that by improved pay which had been given the Secretary of State should be enabled to get recruits of eighteen years of age, or its equivalent, of fair standard. Five feet three inches was too low to

      679
      get the men in time of peace. The second improvement was that every drilled soldier whom his commanding officer wished to take, and his medical officer permitted to proceed, should go on service, and the third was that Reservists away from their regiments for more than two years should be called up for a very short time. With regard to the statement of the Secretary of State he gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for having turned a deaf ear to the idea of separating the Auxiliary Forces from the Army. In time of stress the Militiamen, the Volunteers, and the infantry soldiers were simply soldiers of their King and country. The Army must be one and indivisible. But he differed very strongly from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the infantry. The Secretary of State evidently saw the necessity of a striking force and of strong Reserves, but the proposed method would, in his opinion, sap the quality of the British infantry. The home service of the foreign Army would not be enough. If the Army was left abroad too much officers and men would deteriorate. The proposed home battalions would, he thought, be very feebly organised. Unless the recruits were taken at eighteen they would probably be lost altogether. He was glad, therefore, that the necessity of finding the Indian drafts had obliged the right hon. Gentleman to postpone these proposals. It had always struck him that if a certain number of Volunteer officers and men engaged to join a provisional Volunteer battalion of a brigade or district for war service it would give the Volunteers a much better chance of working to advantage and of being useful to the country, and he strongly recommended Volunteers to consider that suggestion.
      With regard to the Militia, a small force of territorial Militia must be kept, as a large number of men enlisted in the Militia and then went into the Line who would not enlist in the Line straight away. He was inclined to think that the recent rules laid down with regard to localising records was a mistake, and that it would lead to considerably more correspondence than the present system. With regard to economy, he thought a large portion of the cost of the Army
      680
      ought to be shared by the Navy, and as the Secretary of State had served at the Admiralty he might very well consider whether the Army was really so expensive as was generally supposed. He was strongly of opinion that the improved Cardwell system should be maintained, and that there should be grafted on to it the proposal for two years service at home and Reserve service which would, he thought, succeed.
      MR. TOMKINSONsaid the greater part of the discussion on Votes A and 1 had been devoted to the Militia arid Volunteers, but he desired to speak on the question of the Yeomanry, in which he had served for about forty years. The Secretary of State claimed to have effected a considerable improvement in that force by a reduction of its numbers——
      *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: By a reduction in its establishment, not in its numbers. The numbers of the Yeomanry have been increased.
      MR. TOMKINSON (continuing)said the right hon. Gentleman had failed to point out that the reduction followed very closely upon the considerable increase of establishment made in the first flush of the enthusiasm for mounted forces in connection with the Boer War, which, with the judicious increase of pay, chiefly in the form of a £5 grant to every man who brought a good horse, led to such a sudden and gratifying increase in the numbers of the force. What were the chief lessons of the Boer War? The first was the extreme usefulness—in fact, the necessity—of having a large proportion of mounted men. He believed there had never been a war before in which one army had to meet another consisting entirely of mounted men, and the experience of that campaign showed how extremely difficult it was to defeat such a force. The second lesson was that intelligence, coupled with bravery, knowledge of local conditions, celerity of movement, and ability to seize upon important positions, were worth more than all the Red-books and red-tape of the War Office put together. There ought to be a large increase in mounted troops in order to supply a proportion for the Regular

      681
      Forces of cavalry on foreign service. That was the great desideratum to be aimed at.
      His own experience was that the increase of the establishment up to 501 rank and file was an absolute success. In his county they recruited easily and speedily up to the full quota. If it was urged that there was only comparatively a small proportion of Yeomanry to the Volunteers in South Africa he would reply that that was only natural, because the Yeomanry up to that time was a territorial, if not a feudal, force, composed largely of farmers, and in many cases of middle-aged men who were the last men to volunteer for foreign service. But now that was all changed, and they got a much better, younger, and active class of man, and they were the very class who came forward in such gratifying numbers and formed a splendid force, which was one of the best that ever left the shores of this country. He thought it was a great pity that they had been cut down from 501 to 401. The last Return showed a very slight increase upon the whole number, namely, 27,000, but in his own regiment they were still ninety-nine over strength. The question was, were they a cheap and valuable force and worth keeping up? Their total cost was about £16 per head, and a mere increase in the rank and tile would not increase the total in proportion, because the same staff and head office expenses would prevail. He felt sure that the country would never turn itself into a blue-water school, and the people would never consent to see this country denuded of its troops and would never trust itself entirely to the Navy. He could not accept the view that in the event of any disaster to the Navy, and our hores being left undefended, England's liberty and fortunes would be gone. That assumption was unworthy of the great heritage to which they had succeeded, and a most unworthy sentiment to come from the lips of any Englishman.
      *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid he wished to make a few remarks in reply to the speech made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge. In his somewhat unnecessarily acrimonious attack upon the
      682
      Secretary of State for War, he made one statement in which he said that the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the present unsatisfactory state of the Militia.
      MAJOR SEELY: Hear, hear!
      *MAJOR EVANS GORDONsaid that whatever view hon. Gentlemen opposite might hold about the proposals before the Committee he did not think a statement of that kind could possibly be justified. The present Secretary of State for War came into office not very long ago, and he found the Militia in the condition described by the Royal Commission. Absolute unanimity of evidence upon that Commission showed the Militia to be in a disgraceful state, and it was reported that they had been steadily dwindling away. It was also stated that this was due to the want of officers and to the constant drain upon the Militia by its best men passing into the Line. All those things had existed long before the present Secretary of State for War had anything to do with the Militia. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the true facts, and to hold him responsible for the condition of things which, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, had existed for over twenty years, seemed to be most unfair and most unjust.
      MAJOR SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman has made it worse.
      MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid what he had stated was that the Secretary of State had not made things any better.
      *MAJOR EVANS GORDONrepeated that what the hon. Member for Tunbridge stated was that the evils of the Militia were largely due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] That statement was utterly unjustifiable. Lord Wolseley had said that for the last twenty years the Militia had been used as a sort of nursery for the Line and had taken away its best men. How could the right hon. Gentleman be responsible for that? It was really most unfair to fasten these things upon

      683
      the right hon. Gentleman. After the hon. Member for Tunbridge had completed his attacks, much to his joy and certainly to his astonishment, he suggested certain definite reforms. One of them was that the Militia should be turned into a substantive self-contained force, and should not be a mere nursery for the Line. But that was one of the proposals which the Secretary of State for War had constantly been making. Then his hon. friend went on to say that there were too many battalions of Militia and that they were badly distributed. Again this was the very thing that his right hon. friend had pointed out over and over again, for he had stated that in order to improve the Militia they must reduce the redundant battalions, concentrate them, and with the money so saved improve the force and make it a really efficient fighting unit of the British Army. The Secretary of State had used the same arguments and the same scheme with regard to the Volunteers.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House had said that they were unable to understand what the Secretary of State proposed to do with regard to the Volunteers. He was rather surprised that they should make such an admission with regard to the weakness of their own powers of comprehension. In his opinion it was not so much incapacity but unwillingness to understand anything that the right hon. Gentleman said which had led them to make that statement. Nothing could be more absolutely clear than the statement which the Secretary of State for War made yesterday with regard to the Volunteers. He could not conceive why hon. Members were so unwilling to face the facts borne witness to by almost every witness who came before the different Commissions, namely, that there were in the Volunteers and in the Militia numbers of men whom no amount of training would turn into efficient soldiers. What in the name of fortune was the use of maintaining and paying for such men as that? [Cries of "Agreed."] He rejoiced to think that they were agreed. Let them reduce those redundant numbers and pay only for the men who were likely to become fit to bear arms in time of war. If that was done they would
      684
      have a really efficient Militia force on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Tunbridge and an efficient Volunteer force as well, and they would be able to supply both those forces with all those requirements which were absolutely essential, and which would enable them to become efficient fighting units of the Army. He had been amazed to hear the bias introduced into the criticisms which had been levelled against the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman, whose scheme seemed to him common sense, and was perfectly clear to anyone who really wished to understand it. For his part he was glad to have the opportunity of standing up and giving the right hon. Gentleman in his most difficult task all the support he could possibly give.
      *SIR A. HAYTERsaid he wished to say a few words upon the financial aspect of this question. In the course of this long, interesting, and instructive debate they had hardly had a word said about the great increase in the Estimates. The increase in Vote 1 alone amounted to £500,000, and there was upon the whole Estimates an increase of £983,000. But even that did not exhaust the subject, because this year they had for the last time large windfalls to the War Office at the conclusion of the war. The result of the right hon. Gentlemen's arrangements were that this increase of £983,000 brought the Army expenditure up to £29,813,000. If they added to that total the £33,389,000 for the Navy the sum total expenditure for the fighting forces of this country came to £63,202,000. If there was one thing more than another upon which the country had made up its mind it was in relation to this great growth in the expenditure upon the Army. Both in the House of Commons and in the constituencies they had enlarged upon that theme, and they would be doing a great injustice to their opinions if they did not now enter their protest against increasing Army expenditure by voting for this reduction. They had some very important allies in this matter, for Lord Lansdowne had stated in the other House that our naval and military expenditure had become a serious menace to the financial stability of this country, and that the Government had to consider how to

      685
      arrest the progress of that colossal expenditure. His Lordship further stated that the Government should if possible avoid any increase in the Army Estimates. Now the Secretary of State for War was proposing an increase in the Army Estimates of £983,000. Not very long ago the Secretary for War himself stated that they must have a reduction of expenditure on the Army and they must have greater efficiency, and that there was no way of arriving at this except by cutting down the number of men. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
      "My ambition is to lay the foundation of a scheme which will enable my successors to effect progressive economies in Army expenditure."
      No doubt that was the right hon. Gentleman's ambition, but that ambition could not be gratified, because next year a large sum would have to be expended on the rearmament of the Horse and Field Artillery. This year only fifty-four batteries had to be provided, but next year seventy-six would have to be provided for. Then there was a large expenditure to be provided for the cadets at Sandhurst, and the Committee must remember there would not then be these windfalls that might have been utilised to meet the expenditure this year. The Committee would remember that the charge on the Estimates for the rearmament of the horse and field batteries was £1,133,000, and he thought he could show without adding these windfalls other sums that would very nearly provide for that armament. In the first place there was the excess of the Clothing Vote left over from the war, £344,000, then the completion of the Mowatt programme for reserves of guns, £400,000, and the surplus from small arms, the armaments unexpended in South Africa, £217,000. Those amounts totalled to £961,000. The usual plan of manœuvres appeared to have been abandoned, and the saving attributable to that was represented by £21,000 for hired transport and £36,000 in respect of "Railway and and damage to property." There had also been a decrease of £60,000 on sea transport and £65,000 on remounts. If these amounts were added to the £961,000 the total came to £1,143,000. Therefore the rearmament of the horse
      686
      and field batteries could have been provided for without additional expense, and there would still be £10,000 to the good. These exceptional windfalls, he maintained, should be set against exceptional expenditure, but they had all been used up to meet the steady growth of normal Votes which would recur next year when, there being no windfalls, the Estimates must go up.
      Another thing which he much regretted was that after all the promises of economy they had from the Esher Committee and the adoption of the proposals of that Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, there was to be an increase of £47,000 in the expenditure of the War Office itself. That ought to be taken a note of, because in Part III the Esher Committee said—
      "We are convinced that efficiency and economy are unattainable until the War Office has been completely reconstituted in accordance with the principles we have laid down."
      There were doubts as to whether the War Office had been made efficient, but there could be no doubt as to the economy. We were paying £50,000 more in salaries at the War Office than before. The Report continued—
      "We are convinced that, in spite of a necessary and most desirable increase in the cost of the branch under the Chief of the General Staff, our proposals will lead to a reduction of expenditure in the administration of the Army."
      The right hon. Gentleman had said we ought to get rid of everything redundant. Would he consider the reduction of the Guards, the numbers of which were a few years ago raised from 5,800 to 8,200 in order that they might take part in the duty at the Mediterranean garrisons. That was not found, however, to be popular with the Guards and the duty was abandoned. When the duty was abandoned, the numbers should have been reduced, because they had no duties to perform other than those they had before, and they were precisely the kind of force upon which, without lessening in any respect the efficiency of the army, the Secretary of State could exercise a wise economy; they had a three years service and a very powerful Reserve and could go out to war 1,000 strong without difficulty. Indeed they did so when called upon at the time of the

      687
      Crimea, whilst from their perfect drill they required less stiffening. They found no drafts for India and no colonial garrisons. Recruiting had gone on better for the simple reason that they were the only short-service men in the Army, but the Inspector-General's Report said—
      "The recruiting for the Foot Guards, while showing a slight increase, has been unsatisfactory, as the recruits obtained have not been sufficient to bring the several regiments up to their proper establishments."
      By such a reduction the expenditure would be reduced by £150,000.
      SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: At the expense of the most efficient branch of the service.
      *SIR A. HAYTERsaid that would not be so. He proposed to reduce the men in the ranks and increase the Reserve. It appeared to him that it was a gross injustice that India should be called upon to pay every shilling of the expense of the enormous garrison in that country when Egypt was not called upon to do the same. The garrison in Egypt cost £500,000, of which Egypt paid £87,000. According to the Estimates that amount had now been increased to £100,000, which left on the Estimates an expenditure of £300,000 after the late reduction of garrison. Why should Egypt pay only one-third. It was a flourishing country with a surplus of revenue last year of £750,000 which had increased this year to £1,000,000, and it was a great injustice to the native subjects of India to make them pay the whole cost whilst Egypt was let off with £100,000. If she paid for her garrison we should save £200,000. Then there was a saving of £30,000 on the Yeomanry, and the contribution from Local Governments for the garrisons at Halifax and Esquimalt by which the Estimates benefited to the amount of £170,000. Those amounts were together £500,000 which, added to the £1,143,000, made £1,643,000 of exceptional windfalls.
      One word about organisation. The Secretary of State boasted that the long- service system had produced 11,000 recruits in the last few months, but very exceptional causes contributed to that result. The whole result was attributable to the fact that the
      688
      recruits had no option but to join the infantry, other arms, owing to their surplus, being closed, and to the fact that industrial difficulty was military opportunity. No one who had seen the crowds of men who were out of work with nothing between them and starvation would be surprised that many of those men should have enlisted. But it was difficult to believe that men would continue to give their services to the country from the age of nineteen to the age of twenty-eight, and then come back with only three years in the Reserve. He regretted that with the cavalry the right hon. Gentleman should have reverted to the old depot system instead of sending recruits at once to their regiments.
      MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwas understood to say it was not the old system, but one of a totally different character.
      *SIR A. HAYTERsaid, of course, he could not know what the future arrangements as to the depots were to be-but he could not see the use of setting up these depots if the men were to be sent away at the end of three months. The home Army was to be provided by men of two years service. Out of the 500 men who were to form the battalion they would have to deduct barrack guard picket, sick and failure men, servants and cooks, and he thought any one who had commanded a battalion would think himself very fortunate if he got 400 men on parade. He said that two years service was too short a time to make a man perfect in his drill, and he did not think the Government ought to allow such a short term. In conclusion, he wished to urge that the House should not settle the strength of the Army of this country upon the basis of any apprehension they might have in regard to Russia and Afghanistan. Russia had been put back twenty years by this war, and any country which had lost £250,000,000 and lives which were counted by the thousand and thousand would be crippled for many years to come. They should, therefore, settle the strength of the Army on the basis of the needs of the country and not embark upon an enormous expenditure through any apprehensions of a Russian chimera.
      *GENERAL LAURIEsaid he had been one of the keenest supporters of the Secretary for War in his advocacy of the reorganisation of the Army. He had worn the King's uniform for fifty-five years and had always had a great interest in the Army, which he still retained and, like many others, he hoped the Secretary of State for War had been misunderstood when he was said to have denounced the old officers of the Army as being the men who were his greatest enemies in regard to Army organisation. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have meant it. because officers looked upon him as their truest and warmest friend and had given him every a Distance in the past in their desire to improve the Army, and they could not believe that he would now denounce them. [Laughter and cries of "He did."] Well, he hoped and tried to believe that he was misunderstood. There had been very little said in this debate about the Regular Army. He had always understood that there were three classes which could be drawn upon to furnish our military forces—those who could become professional soldiers; those who could give a portion of their time consecutively—the Militia; and those who could give an afternoon each week—the Volunteers. What they were trying to do now, however, was to make the Volunteer into a poor Militiaman and the Militiaman into a poor Regular soldier.
      What was the position of the Regular Army at this moment? Were they dealing with linked battalions or not, and how were drafts to be furnished? The Secretary for War had told them that battalions from which drafts were taken year after year were nothing but "squeezed lemons." Now 200 men were to be taken off their strength and they would be more squeezed than ever. The same number of drafts would have to be furnished, but there would be very few men left to form the nucleus of the battalion itself. It had been contended that we should be able to get back to the short-service system in a very few months. He failed to see it. From an Answer to a Question put the other day it appeared that the wastage of the Army from sickness,
      690
      discharges, etc., was 10,000 a year,, and the Indian drafts were 15,000—a total of 25,000 long-service men wanted every year. That did not leave much margin for the short-service men going into the Reserve. His impression, therefore, was that it would be not three or four months but as many years before they were likely to pass back to the short-service system. He thought it was exceedingly undesirable to have such a number of terms of service prevailing in the same battalion. His experience of such a system at the time of the Crimean War with four different terms of enlistment was that an officer never knew when the terms of service of his men were coming to an end. If there was to be a change could we not return to the condemned system of seven and five years. The two-years men joining the service at seventeen and leaving at nineteen would be hardly broken in to discipline, and if they had nine years in the Reserve he would be very sorry to take a battalion made up largely of such men into the field towards the end of that period after spending eight or nine years in civil life. Such men would not recognise the authority of the non-commissioned officers. As to the recruits, he had ascertained that out of 1,000 boys enlisted for the Navy, 800 became effective "A. B's "and the total sum spent on making them efficient was £240 per man. He was very curious to know what the corresponding figures for the Army were. He believed not nearly so many recruits for the Army became effectives, and the cost he thought would be as great. He suggested that it would be better to take boys for the Army as we now took them for the Navy, and in the end we should save by it.
      Coming to the question of the shortage of officers, there was one difficulty that Army officers had to which the officers in the Navy were not subject. The naval officer when he went on board ship had an effective sailor given over to him who had passed through the training ship, but the Army officer got raw recruits and had to make effective soldiers out of them himself. That being so the Army officer ought to have

      691
      a greater opportunity of being with his men than he possessed. There was a rumour that a great number of resignations of officers were in the hands of the War Office. There were many reasons to account for it, for officers did not pet a fair chance. Formerly there was an appeal from the commanding officer to the Military Secretary, but now the officer was not allowed to go near the War Office at all, and consequently the commanding officer commanded the future of every man serving under him. There was no appeal whatever, and officers, therefore, complained that there was no encouragement to remain in the service. Again, officers were called on to pass examination up to middle life, and if they failed were removed from the service too old to commence a new career and too young to drop active life and that discouraged men who might otherwise choose the Army as a profession.
      MR. GUESTsaid that the other day the Secretary for War complained that there was no reality in the debate, but he was not concerned to pay too much attention to that phrase coming from a member of a Government which depreciated and deprecated public discussion. If there had been any unreality it was due to the solitary position which the Secretary for War had occupied rather than to any lack of point in the criticism directed against his scheme. What hon. Members had been trying to discover was not so much the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman himself as the policy of the Government in regard to Army matters. So long as the whole thing was in a sort of mist or shadow-land—so long as they did not know how much had been sanctioned and how much had been rejected by the Government—it had been impossible to make this debate as useful as it would otherwise have been. The value of Parliamentary debates was not always sufficiently apparent at the time; it took some time for what was said to nitrate into the country, to be digested there, and to be returned in the form of public opinion. Strong attacks were made two years ago on the scheme of the present Secretary for India when he was at the War Office, and he daresay that it might have been felt then that
      692
      the debates were very inconclusive and that there was a certain amount of unreality about them. The Prime Minister, with his matchless dialectics, stood up and from his point of view destroyed all the observations which had been put before the Committee, but if they looked to-day at the position we now occupied in military matters as compared with the position we occupied then he did not think that they would find that we were in any better position. They had eliminated for all practical purposes the system of linked battalions; short service had been abandoned for the purposes of the foreign Army and they had reached also some points of agreement in matters of general policy. All were agreed that we now enjoyed practical immunity from foreign invasion. Inasmuch as that was admitted it was also generally admitted that we could do with a smaller foreign-service Army; that was to say, a smaller force on which the general every day duty fell. They also agreed that over and above the Regular Army for ordinary purposes we required something in the nature of an emergency Army upon which we could rely when face to face with some great emergency, such as being called upon to defend our Indian frontier, though it was admitted that the danger of an invasion of our Indian Empire had much diminished by events in the Far East. It was of great importance that agreement should be reached upon these points, because it was only by agreement on the principle underlying this policy that they would be able to make progress. Nothing would be accomplished so long as one Secretary of State proceeded to undermine the policy of his predecessor, because there would be a want of that aspiration and loyalty in the Department itself without which the fine phrases used in this House would never be converted into real reforms.
      It was admitted that economies could and should be made, but the House was presented with Estimates larger by nearly a million than had ever been presented before. In spite of exceptional windfalls and advantages the Estimates had advanced year after year, and it was because of the contradiction of the promises by the performance, of the theory by the practice, that

      693
      there had been a general condemnation from all sides of the House of the scheme put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. It took two years to destroy the scheme of the Secretary of State for India, but the scheme of his successor had been in existence for less than six months and it had been hissed off the stage, laughed out of Court. Its condemnation was not surprising. The Secretary of State proposed to continue two schemes which were mutually destructive each of the other, one of which he admitted was good, the other bad. He proposed to continue the Militia in its present state, but told the House that his proposal of a short-service Army was inconsistent with the retention of the Militia in its present shape. How could the right hon. Gentleman hope to carry out his scheme when there were such fundamental differences. As to the Auxiliary Forces upon which we had to rely on occasions of great emergency, the House knew perfectly well the right hon. Gentleman considered the Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers were incapable of performing their functions in defence of this country. The right hon. Gentleman preferred a professional force to the Auxiliary Forces, but they thought it was possible to improve the Auxiliary Forces and give to them the strength they desired them to have. The right hon. Gentleman desired to sweep them away and replace them by short-service men. The right hon. Gentleman did not think they were even good enough to maintain lines of communication. But so far as India was concerned it was not so much maintaining lines of communication as keeping order and freeing the Regular Army for service in the field. The right hon. Gentleman did not think they were very desirable, and appeared to hold the opinion that one pressed man was worth ten volunteers; he desired to extend the Militia and turn it into a sort of second-class Regular Army, if he might so describe it. The right hon. Gentleman wished to create a short-service territorial Army, which would not occupy, in its own opinion or that of anyone else, the position of the long-service foreign Army. And that was the service he preferred to that which the Auxiliary Forces could furnish. That was the view of the War Minister in this House, and he did not think it was disrespectful of him to say
      694
      that that was a view the House ought to accept with reserve. The War Minister was the advocate of the military view, and the very qualities which qualified him for the post he filled debarred him from taking a patriotic view of this question. He not only desired to have the best Army he could out of the materials at his disposal but also the biggest Army. But the House had to decide as to the main policy of the Minister, and he submitted that the Auxiliary Forces were the proper material for the emergency Army and that they would be able to perform the duties required of them.
      When the right hon. Gentleman introduced his scheme in the previous year he quoted from the Report of the Royal Commission certain portions destined to show how worthless the Auxiliary Forces were. He observed that the first quotation the right hon. Gentleman used was that the average Militia battalion was not fit to take part in a field expedition force until some months after they had joined their battalion. It could be seen that the Secretary of State was not a warm friend of the Auxiliary Forces, out of which we could get a larger Army in times of emergency and which were composed of better material than the short-service men he desired to put in their place. He submitted that the Auxiliary Forces formed just the sort of Army which it was desirable to have for that purpose, and which should be encouraged in this country. The right hon. Gentleman was doubtful as to the extent to which they could be relied upon in an emergency. The patriotism of the people of this country was proportionate to the popularity of the war, and the emergency to which it gave rise. If it was understood that no considerable military expedition would be undertaken without the warm support and patriotic enthusiasm of the people two very desirable results would accrue. Aggressive policies, such as those involving expeditions to Somaliland and Tibet, would be discouraged, greatly to the advantage of the public service; and a sense of responsibility would be engendered in those people who were prone to go about giving vent to that music-hall Jingoism which had pushed

      695
      the country into many dangerous positions, and which in itself was one of the greatest menaces to the peace of the Empire. One of the reasons most Continental countries were more peaceable than they used to be was that every man knew that in case of war he might have to shoulder the musket and take his place in the fighting line, and if the Auxiliary Forces were given to feel a similar responsibility it would act as a deterrent on military enterprise. He believed it was on these lines the House would ultimately find themselves in agreement. These debates had shown a considerable amount of agreement as to military policy to exist, and if the Secretary of State would attempt to extend that agreement instead of pushing the mysterious and more unsympathetic part of his military policy, there would be reason for hoping that the result of the South African War which had broken up our old military system, would in the end create a new and a better policy for the future.
      MR. J. F. HOPE, speaking as a civilian, thought the Secretary of State had been somewhat hardly used with regard to the size of the Estimates, seeing that last year the right hon. Gentleman stated that the economies he hoped would ensue could not take effect to any great extent this year. Moreover, the Estimates of a year ago showed a considerable reduction on those of the year before. He could not understand why the cost of the new guns should be borne on the Estimates. They represented a large capital expenditure which, in his opinion, should be spread over a period approximating to the life of a gun, whatever that might be, or, say, a term of ten years. He hoped that next week, although the charges were in the Estimates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would announce his intention of defraying the cost of the rearmament from some other source than revenue—such, for instance, as the unclaimed dividends. One of the greatest statisticians of the age, Sir Robert Giffen, a few years ago calculated that the cost of the Army, even if it amounted to £40,000,000, would not be out of proportion to our commitments, or greater in proportion to the wealth of the nation
      696
      than were the Army Estimates of 1860. He did not say that the Estimates should amount to anything like that sum, but it was worth bearing in mind what very different views prevailed a few years ago as to the cost of the Army. Any promiscuous cutting down of expenditure was a sure way to extravagance, as it invariably led to reaction. The reference of the hon. Member for Oldham to 1857, when Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, and others put pressure on Lord Palmerston to reduce the Army Estimates, was hardly a happy analogy, as it was in May of that year that the Mutiny broke out. That was an example showing how precipitate attempts at economy produced reaction and diminished the military security of the country.
      The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was complete and logical—perhaps too logical. There was no answer to it if the underlying assumption of the security of the country against invasion were accepted, but he wished the Secretary of State could disclose a little more the reasons which, had led the Committee of Defence to accept the conclusions of the blue-water school. Such a disclosure, if it could be made without injury to the public service, would give a great deal of confidence to many people who could not now share the views of that school. He thought the Memorandum, of the Secretary of State put the matter rather too absolutely. It did not at all follow that if we lost the command of the sea we should be instantly starved into submission. He remembered the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who certainly was an authority on these matters, saying that an absolute blockade of these islands was an impossibility. But what of the case of a temporary loss of the command of the seas? It was not impossible to suppose that our Channel Squadron might meet with a disaster while the other squadrons remained intact and, given the necessary time, could restore to us the command of the seas. In the event of such a temporary disaster he submitted that, it was quite possible that a foreign army might get in to strike that "blow at the heart" of which the late Lord Salisbury spoke some years ago, and reduce this country to terms. Time was of the vital essence

      697
      of the question. It was not a matter of the Army at home being able to meet and overcome a large foreign army, but of being able to keep a foreign army at bay until the command of the seas was restored. That was a way out of the dilemma represented by the alternatives of the blue-water school or conscription, and he thought they should ask whether the Navy was so absolutely paramount that this country could stake the whole of its future upon it.
      MR. EMMOTTsubmitted that the uncompromising unreality of these Army debates, of which the right hon. Gentleman had complained, was due to the Government and the Government alone. The War Office had accepted the theory of the blue-water school, but they believed that we had become more vulnerable on the Indian; frontier, and that we must maintain a comparatively large Army, prepared to go out at any moment to resist an attempt at the gradual absorption of Afghanistan. Assuming for the sake, of argument that no impediment existed in the way of getting the troops out, he desired to ask, and the House could not form a rational opinion on the matter until the Question was answered, what were the troops to do when they got to India? The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who was an authority in these matters, had told them it was the general military opinion that they could not move through the deserts of Afghanistan an Army of 50,000 men with all their furniture and the materials they required to carry with them. He was told that in a much smaller war, in moving 10,000 men, we practically killed all the camels that could be found in Asia except a small number used for breeding. So that the only means of absorbing Afghanistan was by the gradual penetration of the railways. This question was represented to them as being the measure of our needs in regard to our Reserve Army. It was the pivot of the military problem, as he understood it, which they had to consider to-day, and until the House was told how many troops were wanted for this purpose, how they were to get there, what they were to do when they got there, by what means they were to replace them when
      698
      they left this country, and how they were to provide further troops if the war developed into a life and death struggle; until these matters were explained to them in their wider aspect, he maintained that the Members of the House could not really and rationally decide the questions put before them.
      Yesterday afternoon the Prime Minister got up. He gave the closest attention to the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. He hoped that at last, they were going to hear something of this matter, which the right hon. Gentleman said was the crux of the whole military problem of the country. They were told by the highest military authority that the Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister since Wellington who could fittingly preside over the deliberations of the Imperial Defence Committee. They were told that the right hon. Gentleman had made a special study of the question of the frontier of India, that he knew the place and that he was thoroughly versed in the problem. Yesterday afternoon the right hon. Gentleman did not show himself a Wellington. He showed himself to be a student of a contemporary of Wellington who said that speech was granted to us in order that we might hide our thoughts. He confessed he listened to that speech with very blank dismay. It was true that the Prime Minister was speaking only on the question of the Volunteers, but it was also true that the Prime Minister told them; that they must consider the question of the Volunteers not in isolation from the military problem, which was the crux of the whole question, and this problem affected every branch of the Army.
      He took as an instance the question of the Volunteers. The Volunteers were, in the old days, considered to be principally for home defence. Now, as he understood it, the Volunteers were much more likely to be wanted in the future as a force that would be willing to volunteer in time of emergency for service abroad. They were also wanted as a nursery of patriotism. The last purpose they were likely to be wanted for was to repel a force which had crossed the seas and landed on our shores. In regard to the Volunteers they had never been told anything satisfactorily. Last August a Memorandum was

      699
      placed before them showing how the proposed scheme would affect the Estimates of future years, and that when the scheme was working there would be a saving of £300,000, or 25 per cent., on the Volunteers. They had never had it explained whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to go on in the changes he proposed in the Volunteers. That was one of the fundamental things they wished to know. He had taken the Volunteers as an example, but he might have taken any other part of the Army and pointed out that this question of the Indian frontier affected the whole question of Army organisation.
      On the recruiting question—speaking with a knowledge of the labour market—he asserted that the labour market was an essential part of the question of recruiting. In eight or nine months we were to have short- service recruiting opened to men concurrently with long-service recruiting. What would be the result? Long-service recruiting would almost immediately stop, or only a small proportion of men would go in for the long service. They must very soon, then, confine recruiting to long service only. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to go on altering the system of recruiting from long service to short service and then back again to long service? That seemed to be the course which lay before them under the present conditions. It might succeed as a solution of the question, but it was much more likely to fail.
      The right hon. Gentleman had asked them to make suggestions. He had tried to put before the House reasons why it was impossible for them to make suggestions at all. They had never had explained to them what the fundamental military problem was they had to consider. How, then, could they give an answer to these questions? Experts differed on the frontier question. It was for the Government to explain it, and on it depended every problem they were now considering. The House ought never to have been asked to sanction this Vote until the fundamental question lying at the bottom of the problem had been more fully explained to the House.
      *MR. ABEL SMITHsaid he desired for a few minutes to draw attention to a question which vitally affected the constituency he represented, namely, the discharge of a large number of workmen at the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. He thought the attitude of the men in this very critical state of affairs had been altogether a correct one, and he did not think any exaggerated statements had been made on the part of those who were so vitally interested in this matter. They had been told that this hurried action on the part of the War Office had been taken in the interests of economy. Of course they were all in favour of economy in the abstract, until it affected them in some particular matter in which they were interested. There were one or two matters which he desired to press upon the attention of the War Office. In view of the large expenditure which had been incurred at Enfield, and the large establishment which it was necessary to keep up there, and the large sums of money which had been spent and were being spent on buildings in connection with the Small Arms Factory, he thought they had some claim, to ask the War Office to consider whether it would not be better to keep the staff employed there at any rate at the normal standard. He thought he was correct in saying that the discharges which had already taken place would reduce the staff below the normal standard which had been maintained for a considerable number of years in the past. Then there was the difficult question of the proportion of orders which ought to be given to Government and private factories. Having regard to the cost of the establishments which the Government kept up he thought this question was worthy of the most careful consideration.
      He regretted that the discharges had not been carried out in a more gradual manner. No doubt hon. Members had noticed the letter written by the First Lord of the Admiralty in regard to some discharges which took place at the Admiralty dockyards. He said that there was no intention on the part of the Admiralty of discharging any large body of men at one time, and so many were receiving notice week by week in.

      701
      order to cause the men as little inconvenience as possible. He ventured to think that the War Office might have adopted some such system as that rather than discharging 500 or 600 men in the sudden and unexpected way that they did the other day. There were special circumstances connected with the employment of these men at Enfield, which differed very considerably from the circumstances under which the men were employed in the Birmingham factories. At Birmingham if a man was discharged, he probably would be able to get a job on the following day, but the men discharged from the Government factory at Enfield could not find work of the same class anywhere in the neighbourhood. Therefore, in establishing this factory the Government had incurred very grave responsibility. They brought those men into that district, and by suddenly discharging them they not only caused very grave inconvenience and distress, but they also caused great loss to others who were indirectly dependent upon those employed in the factory. Although he was aware that the number employed during the war was in excess of the normal number, still he thought he had a right to ask that the normal number should be maintained. He could assure his right hon. friend and the House that these discharges were causing something like consternation and producing great distress amongst the men concerned, and the wholesale discharge of these men would cause a very serious loss of the capital invested by traders and others who had gone into business in that district. He therefore wished to press this matter very earnestly upon the attention of the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
      MR. BRYCEsaid he very seldom intervened in Army debates, but he would confine himself to one or two points. The Secretary of State for War the other day said there was a great unreality about this debate. That was quite true, and it arose from the fact that they did not know whether the views which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed were his own views or a compromise between his own views and the views of the Government. Therefore they did not know whether what he was
      702
      telling them was going to be the last word of the Government or not. Another reason was that they were now discussing questions which, although of great importance, were, after all, dependent for their solution upon other questions which the House had not yet been allowed to discus. They were told by the Prime Minister that these considerations would fall to be discussed when the Vote was taken for the Council of Defence, but was it not putting the cart before the horse that they should discuss these questions now instead of first discussing the general principles about what Imperial defence meant and how it should be provided for? The House ought to have been allowed an opportunity for discussing that question before being asked to deal with the questions they were now considering.
      He would illustrate this consideration by stating two points. The first was with regard to the North-West frontier of India. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War had stated that, after all, this was the main danger and difficulty for which we needed to maintain a large striking force. Both of the right hon. Gentlemen had talked as if we should need a force of 200,000 or 300,000 British soldiers who could be despatched to the North- West frontier of India. That seemed to be an extraordinarily large demand. Such a force could only be required in the case of some enormous force from the North-West approaching—an army of 300,000 or 400,000 men at least. Was there the slightest chance of an army of that kind coming to the North-West frontier of India? Those who had been there knew something about it. It was a land of mountain and desert and drought, with nothing like the railway facilities which the Russian Army had in Manchuria. He could not imagine a more difficult country for a foreign army to traverse. Unless some extraordinary want of judgment in policy on our part alienated the Afghans and drove them into the hands of another Power, we might depend upon the people there, who were jealous of their independence. That would be almost sufficient to put the greatest possible difficulty in the way of an approaching force. Surely,

      703
      if the House were to be asked to prepare for sending a force of 200,000 or 300,000 to defend the North-West frontier of India, they ought to be told what were the circumstances under which such a force might be required. They ought to have a reasoned statement of the views of the Council of Defence which had led them to believe that an enormous force of that kind was required, and they ought also to have the opinion of the Government of India, in whose archives there had been accumulated a great mass of knowledge on the subject. He should like to know whether the Secretary of State for War was prepared to say that the Government of India and their military advisers thought that any contingency could arise in which a force of 200,000 or 300,000 need be sent to India to aid in the defence of that country. The House knew what an enormous sum had been spent on railways and fortifications in that region and what a burden had been laid on the Indian taxpayer in consequence, and really to say that, in addition, this large force was to be prepared was to ask something which they could not take on the ipse dixit of the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State. The House must have evidence and an opportunity for discussing it before they could assent to such an extraordinary demand. There never was a moment when the danger of the invasion of India was less imminent than now. They had seen what had happened to the Russian Army in Manchuria and the difficulties which had been imposed on them. Was it likely that another enterprise, even more difficult, would be undertaken by Russia? If it was a distant contingency surely it was the part of wisdom not to prepare now at enormous cost. He did not profess to deliver a positive opinion on this question.
      The other illustration he desired to give arose out of the case of the Volunteers. The case for the diminution of the Volunteers was found in the last resort to depend on the proposition which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister had both advanced, that there was practically no probability whatever of any invasion of this country. All admitted that was a highly improbable contingency. Was
      704
      it an absolutely impossible contingency in these days when new methods of warfare were being discovered? He would go so far as to say that it was highly improbable—so improbable that he thought it was well to abandon the idea of the necessity for fortifying London. But was it so absolutely impossible that we should not have the additional security and comfort given by knowing that we had another force at home, which was a basis for recruiting and out of which an efficient Army could be rapidly created if the necessity arose to call upon them? Surely if we could provide an additional force of that kind at a small cost it was the part of prudence to do it. The House wanted, therefore, from the Council of Defence a much more complete statement of their case for declaring invasion to be practically impossible. He was far from being an advocate of militarism in any sense, but he believed there was considerable benefit in having a large force of Volunteers. He was one of the original Volunteers in 1859-60, and he remembered very well the spirit of the country at that time. It was a spirit which said that the citizens of this country ought to be prepared to bear their share of the duties and burdens of citizenship, and that was the spirit which the Volunteers had cherished ever since. He believed every man should be ready to fight for his country if the need arose.
      *COLONEL BOWLESsaid he wished to refer to a subject which was of great interest to his constituents, namely, the reduction of expenditure on the manufacture of rifles. Government factories had been built, and rightly so, for the manufacture of rifles, and of course, it had been done at the expense of private firms. At the end of the Crimean War it was found that it was not quite satisfactory to have rifles manufactured by private firms, and the works now at Enfield had been gradually built. There was another small arms factory at Sparkbrook, and it had been common for many years to divide the orders between the two factories and the private trade. Last year India started a rifle factory of her own. He doubted whether in normal times there would now be a sufficient amount of

      705
      work to keep the Government factories going at Enfield and Sparkbrook and the private factories as well. The House would realise the seriousness of the case at Enfield when he stated that during this financial year something like 75 per cent. of the machinery was lying idle. The district was one which had been entirely built up on account of the requirements of the Royal Small Arms Factory. During the last few years about 3,000 workmen had been employed in the factory. A few months ago there were 2,300 employed, but now the number had been reduced to 1,700. There had not only been this large reduction in the number employed, but those engaged at Enfield and at the sister factory at Spark-brook had been placed on short time. That meant a loss of something like £50,000 to £70,000 a year in money which otherwise would have been distributed in wages in the neighbourhood of Enfield Lock. The House could easily imagine how hard these places had been hit. If the Government at present desired that only the mounted forces of the country should be armed with the new rifle it was not for these districts to say that rifles which were not needed should be manufactured. The case he wanted to submit to the House was that before new contracts were made with private firms for the manufacture of rifles the War Office should consider the advisability of having the work done in their own factories. The two private firms which manufactured rifles were the Birmingham Small Arms Factory and the London Rifle Company. With the new factory, the large factory at Enfield, and the large accommodation at Sparkbrook we had sufficient scope even in time of war to provide for any emergency which might arise, and when they considered the very large price the Government paid to firms for the manufacture of rifles in private factories, he thought there was a very good reason in a House in which they were all pressing for economy, and when there were only small orders to be given for rifles, that those orders should be divided amongst the Government's own workmen, who ought to have the first benefit in this respect.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield)said the point raised was rather a small one as compared with the larger issue with which the House had been concerned in the last few days, but he was not surprised that the matter had been referred to. It was not a small matter to hon. Members or those whom they represented, with whom he heartily sympathised. There was no more distasteful duty which could be thrown upon any man than that of dismissing a large number of willing workers from their employment, and no such action would be taken if it were possible to avoid it. The hon. Member had dealt with the Enfield factory alone, but he wanted to deal with the two factories, Enfield and Sparkbrook, because, although there was a difference between the case of Enfield and that of Sparkbrook, a man discharged was discharged wherever he happened to reside, and it was hard upon him in any case. Before the war there were some 2,600 men employed in the Government factory, though he did not admit that was the normal strength; then during the war the numbers went up to 3,000 and he believed higher. After the war they dropped to 2,800 at the beginning of the year; and since then it had been necessary to discharge some 500 more men. This had been very serious, not only to these men and their families, but also to the tradesmen whose business it was to supply them. He was afraid sympathy was not very substantial comfort in this case, but he hoped he might be allowed to express sympathy nevertheless, for he felt this sympathy all the more because these men had behaved so well. He had received deputations from them and from the tradesmen in the district. He had read what had been said at public meetings. No hard words had been used, no improper expressions made use of. They had exercised great self-restraint under great provocation, and had displayed a courage which was altogether commendable. Anything which he could do consistently with his duties, he would do to assist them, but he was not at present in a position to say very definitely what he could do,

      707
      because the programme of manufacture was not yet complete. They knew how much money was provided for in the Estimates, but there were other sources from which orders might come, and, until he knew what those orders were, it was impossible to lay down what amount of work they would be able to find for these men. For the present they could only remain as they were, and continue to do what they were doing. At present they had all the men engaged on short time, and they proposed to continue that short time, closing the factories on Saturday and Monday, at any rate until the end of May. He hoped the future would then be clear, and that they would know what the programme of manufacture would be. He hoped by that time they would be able to take a definite number on full time. He hoped it would be a large proportion. He could not say that there would be no further reductions, but he could promise that there should be no further large numbers of men discharged at the same time. If it were necessary to make further reductions those reductions should be spread over the largest possible time, so that there should be the least possible hardship.
      MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid he was in very great sympathy with what had been said about the conduct of the War Office in this matter. He should like to use this discussion as an illustration of what was going on at the War Office and how completely the House was in the dark as to what they were going to do. He believed every military expert was in favour of rifles being made at the Government factories, but after a decision was taken on the subject by the Secretary of State and the military authorities it was reversed by some outside pressure not unconnected with the Prime Minister. The House was in exactly the same position in regard to the Reserve Forces. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had a scheme last year to destroy the Militia, and to damage the Volunteers to a large extent. That scheme remained with him. He still talked about it as his scheme and said as far as he was concerned such and such a thing would be done. In answer to a Question that day the right hon. Gentleman
      708
      said that the territorial battalions which were going to be made according to his scheme were not going to be taken in hand till October, because the number of long-service men would not be obtained till that time. That implied that in October he was going to set to work to carry out that scheme. That had never been told them in debate, and it had never been acknowledged when the Government intended to carry out that scheme. He also told them a little more, and said that, so far as the Militia regiments were concerned, no Militia battalion which joined under his new scheme would become a territorial battalion without their consent. It was very easy to get their consent if the Government pressed them. The Secretary for War said he was going to do away with thirty battalions of Militia, and if they did not consent they would be done away with altogether. That was no guarantee that the Militia would be kept in its present state, and they wanted a definite assurance that it would not be tampered with, and without that assurance by the Secretary of State, speaking as a representative of the Government, he was quite sure that Members on both sides of the House would remain unsatisfied.
      On his side they had always believed that the Government would give way on the question of the Volunteers, but the last statement was worse than the first, because at first they had some hope that the Prime Minister would overrule the Secretary of State for War as he did in the case of the Small Arms Factory. They expected that that part of the scheme which was likely to destroy the Reserve Forces would be set aside. The scheme, if only partially carried out, meant that they would destroy the Militia, although not perhaps in a day. The pres nt uncertainty was increasing the pressure and weakening the Militia day by day, although the scarcity of men and officers was not so great now as it was immediately after the war. When the Secretary of State said that the Militia was decreasing, and that was a reason for its being done away with, he said it was due to the right hon. Gentleman and the previous Secretaries of State that it had been decreasing. If they were going to do

      709
      away with the Reserve Forces he should not be afraid if they had something equally good to put in their place, for, after all, whether they were half trained or not, both the Militia and the Volunteers constituted a large force which had always helped us in time of war. If the Volunteers or Militia were taken away the military effectiveness of this Empire would be greatly weakened.
      What were the Government going to put in their place? There was a nebulous scheme which looked very pretty on paper. This territorial scheme had passed through the brain of the Secretary for War, and had passed on to the Papers presented to the House. Beyond that it had no real existence at all. Even an Army on paper might in time of a scare be of some use in allaying the panic of the country, but it was a poor thing to rely upon if ever we got into a tight corner. He remembered seeing a picture which represented the ghost of Napoleon reviewing the ghost of the grand army on the Champs de Mars, and he thought this territorial army was as much a ghost as a protector in this case and in fact was a phantom, and it was suggested that we should throw away the whole of our Reserve Forces for a phantom. He wanted a real assurance one way or the other, with no prevarication and no half measures. Was the Prime Minister in favour of this scheme? Was the Army Council in favour of it? Had the Secretary of State's scheme the sanction and support of either one or the other or of the Government? He believed it had not. But it was a thing the House ought to know so that it could form an opinion on the matter and record its vote either for or against the scheme.
      COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid the hon. Member who had just sat down had based his speech upon an entire misconception of the statements of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman had never desired to annihilate the Auxiliary Forces but to put them on a proper basis. The speech of the hon. Gentleman had accentuated a fact which had been before the House for many days, which was that while the House of Commons was splendidly equipped for dealing with almost every question which
      710
      they might be called upon to consider, it was particularly ill-manned for dealing with questions of either Army or Navy reforms. There were many Members of the House who would be accepted both in and out of the House as authorities upon almost every subject, but there was hardly one who would be accepted outside as an authority on military and naval affairs. That had not always been the case, but at the present time it was very doubtful whether there were four Members of this House whose speeches were ever read outside and regarded as valuable contributions to Army and Navy debates. The Secretary of State for War was one who had a very wide knowledge of Army matters and who was regarded as a great authority upon them, whilst the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, who it was well known was a student of military matters, was another Gentleman whose opinion was listened to with great respect. So far as the other Members of the House were concerned, he did not believe their speeches were ever read by the public outside, whilst within the House those who said the most and spoke oftenest were as a rule those who were least regarded.
      The Navy in this regard had a great advantage over the Army. It had no Reserve, no Militia, no Volunteers, and no Yeomanry. It would not be unfair, or stretching the point too far, to say that fifty out of every sixty minutes of this debate had been more or less concerned with matters affecting the Auxiliary Forces. He ventured to say that the ordinary taxpayer looked at this matter from quite a different point of view from that which many approached it in the House. One of the things upon which the man in the street laid great stress was that he had learned by experience that to have to improvise an Army greater than the one on the establishment caused a greater expenditure than to carry a larger Army on the establishment, and further, he doubted whether an Army improvised in that way, would be a trustworthy Army to meet the attacks of the forces of any civilised Power. The directions in which reductions could be made and in which expenditure must be maintained was not the problem which the ordinary Englishman outside the House was trying to

      711
      fathom. The man in the street had always been brought up in the belief that the Army must be maintained in sufficient strength to repel any invasion, and that as the Empire increased so the Army must be increased and kept upon a level with the increase of the Empire in order to be in a position to repel any attack which might be made upon us.
      Hon. Members opposite were entitled no doubt to ask for information, but when they demanded that the Government should disclose its whole plan, and make known, for instance, at what points on the Indian frontier it proposed to station troops, he thought that to make such information public would be to inflict a great injury on the nation. If a great authority in India suggested to the authorities at home that to ensure the safety of the Indian frontier they must be able to put 120,000 into India within six months in addition to the troops already there, that would practically mean the maintenance of 200,000 British troops in that country, entailing, with the wastage of war and climate, the provision of 50,000 men a year. History showed that great nations, when defeated at one point, were sometimes only too anxious to fight a war of revanche in order to regain prestige and reputation. He greatly feared, therefore, that those who held that because Russia had met, and was meeting, with disaster in Manchuria she was likely to abate the anxiety with which she watched our frontier in India, were living in a fool's paradise. If there existed in Russia such a school of thought as he had suggested, there was nothing to which they could have listened with greater delight than those speeches of hon. Members who declared that this country might loll in security, that the warning would come in ample time, and that the difficulties of Russia were such that no attempt need be made to prepare against attack. He could hardly imagine a line of argument so fata to the interests of this country. The taxpayers who demanded a reduct on in expenditure, accepting the view that the country could not be equally invulnerable against both attacks, had to consider which contingency was the more likely to occur—an invasion of this country or an attack
      712
      upon India—and make preparation accordingly.
      With regard to the possibility of invasion, it was too often forgotten that even if there were no Auxiliary Forces, there would still be in this country an enormous number of men who, at some time, had served in the Army, and who, if the Government had sufficient arms and ammunition, could be rapidly improvised into a very formidable force, and one was forced to the conclusion that if reduction had to be made, it should be in the force usable to repel invasion rather than in the force usable to guard against attack in India. He had heard nothing from the Secretary of State to lead him to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to go very far in the direction of the reduction of the Auxiliary Forces. The right hon. Gentleman's desire was to lop off that which was inefficient and, to some extent, redundant, and to make the remainder more efficient. That object could be carried out simultaneously with the policy of providing efficient safeguard for the frontier of India. There was nobody in the House but had a high regard and intense sympathy for the Auxiliary Forces, and would like to retain and improve them all, both for the direct purpose of fighting and for the indirect advantages which accrued to the population in general. But if the problem had to be faced, it being impossible to effect the reduction demanded and at the same time maintain both branches of the service, was it any wonder that the nation should choose the contraction—not the extinction—of the Auxiliary Forces and the expansion of the Regulars, rather than the contraction of the Regular Army and the expansion of the Auxiliary Forces. If that line of reasoning was at all sound, the House was forced in the direction of military policy outlined by the Secretary of State for War.
      Another matter in which he was deeply interested was the question of the shortage of officers both in the Army and in the Auxiliary Forces. That shortage ought not to exist. There was a shortage, so to speak, of the manufactured article, but almost a superabundance of the raw material which could be turned into the manufacturered

      713
      article at very short notice. How was that condition of affairs to be remedied? He fully agreed that the high standard of education, professional and otherwise, should be maintained for those officers who intended to make the Army their life career, but it did not at all follow that the War Office should refuse that other type of young fellow, of which there were so many ready to serve—men who were prepared to give eight or ten of the best years of their life to the Army. The services of such men were not to be secured by making the Army unattractive, and it undoubtedly was made unattractive if for the first years of the young officer's life he was hunted from one course of instruction to another and not given time for any legitimate amusement or recreation. Unless they could give extra inducements in the way of pay and make the early stages of the soldier's life more attractive they would find that this shortage would continue. They had in the present Secretary of State for War a man who thoroughly sympathised with the instincts of British officers, and he desired the officers to be really good trustworthy leaders of men. His suggestion was that while the right hon. Gentleman should take care to attract the higher type of men into the Army he should not close the door upon that other very valuable man who would give eight or ten years of the best part of his life to the service, and who could serve his country admirably. The right hon. Gentleman would get out of his difficulty in that way.
      *MR. LYELLsaid that after the warning given by the hon. Member for Newport he felt considerable diffidence in rising at all. He would remind the hon. Member that he omitted to mention the Secretary of State for India, who was a distinguished military authority. A short time ago the hon. Member appealed to them to treat this matter more or less in the same way as they treated naval questions with an absence of Party spirit. If he applied that remark to the speeches of hon. Members opposite they might certainly have taken his advice to heart, for they had treated the matter without any ties of Party discipline, and he hoped the Secretary of State for War was pleased with the result. If the hon. Member
      714
      alluded to voting, that appeal came very badly from the opposite side, for it was hon. Members on the Opposition side who ought to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had criticised the scheme of the Government but who would not support their opinions in the lobby with their votes. Whilst it might be true that an invasion was absolutely impossible supported from a base, he was not at all satisfied that something in the nature of a formidable raid was impossible. A formidable force might raid this country, and when they considered the extraordinarily complicated organisation of life in this country and how they depended upon railways and telegraphs, I was very difficult to foretell what damage a determined raid might not do before they were able to deal with it. He was certain that this sudden conversion to the blue-water school might be attended with a certain amount of danger. The hon. Member for Newport had alluded to the possible necessity of sending out 120,000 troops to reinforce the garrison of India in the event of trouble on the North-West Frontier. Upon this same point the Secretary of State for War spoke about the necessity that might arise of sending out the same number of men to India as we were obliged to send to South Africa during the last war.
      *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERdissented.
      *MR. LYELLsaid that was what the right hon. Gentleman said. If they looked at the map they would see what an immense frontier they had to defend on the North-West of India. Most of them knew that the geographical situation there presented an almost insurmountable barrier to any invasion except at one or two small points. The hon. Member might remember what happened in the Tirah campaign. The military authorities made preparations for a much bigger affair, and prepared for contingencies which were not realised by providing 40,000 men. They got this army into the Tirah Valley, and then they found that they had twice or three times the force which they could employ. That was what would take place under the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State for War of

      715
      sending out to India a force equal to that which was sent out to South Africa.
      The Secretary for War had told them that the cardinal point of his reform was a question of reduction, and a very considerable reduction, in money. What had happened? This reduction now remained in abeyance. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme was in abeyance, and what was more, the alternative scheme was also in abeyance, and that was the right hon. Gentleman's resignation. If they were to have any considerable reduction it must be in the number of men. If they were not going to sweep away cadres they must reduce the strength of their battalions very considerably indeed. Having reduced the battalions they should see how much they were capable of expansion in time of urgent necessity. They had the Reserves to fall back upon; and 500 men with 400 Reserves would strengthen a battalion and they might add about 300 picked Volunteers. They would then raise it to a very high war strength, and in a very short time they would have an extremely efficient fighting battalion. He did not maintain that it was possible to send Volunteer cadres to face foreign troops, but he thought it was possible to largely fill up Regular troops in moments of emergency from the Volunteers. The right hon. Gentleman was discouraging the Volunteers, but he said that he was reducing them because they were inefficient. It was impossible to carry out the reduction he had suggested without sweeping away not only the inefficient but some of the efficient men. If he wanted to improve their efficiency why did he not raise the physical standard. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that if he kept this decrease hanging over the heads of the Volunteers he would discourage that spirit of self-sacrifice which had been shown by thousands of men in the past, who showed their patriotism by joining the Volunteers. It was impossible to make a reduction in the number of the Volunteers without reducing their efficiency. The more men we were able to maintain the more efficient men there would be when the pinch came. He protested most strongly against the proposal to reduce the Volunteers.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire had declared there were not four Members of the House who knew anything adequate of military matters. There were, therefore, three. Two he had named—the Secretary of State for War, and the Member for the Forest of Dean. The third, with his usual modesty, he had refrained from naming, but he had plainly indicated him as a level-headed man—from Shropshire. The difficulty felt in the debate was to extract from the Secretary of State for War what he meant to do and what he was allowed to do. At present there were four conceptions of the Army—those of the Army Council, the Committee of Defence, the Cabinet, and the Secretary of State for War. No two of these conceptions agreed, and the House wanted to know, as practical men, which was the conception which would prevail, or whether there was to be a kind of salad made of all of them, and a compromise as the result. The House wanted to know from somebody what the British Army was going to be. There were two kinds of invasions which had been talked about. The hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire had dwelt lovingly on the Russian invasion of India. That had been the bogey of a hundred years; but India had never yet been invaded. From the days of Peter the Great every man who presumed to be a British statesman, a strategist, or a military critic, had always taught his countrymen to beware of the invasion of India. His own belief was that the danger had been over-rated, and the difficulties under-rated, and that the danger was less and the difficulties greater now than ever. It was true that there were Russian railways to the frontier of India. But there had also been Russian railways to the frontier of Manchuria, on the frontier, and across Manchuria itself. But railways were nothing compared to ships. As we held the sea for India, so the Japanese held the sea for Manchuria, and by that they had rolled back the invasion. The cause of Russian failure and of Japanese success in Manchuria was the sea power of Japan; and it seemed to him that, instead of the invasion of India becoming more easy for Russia, it had become infinitely more difficult. Surely the moment after a

      717
      most exhausting war was not the one Russia would choose for such another desperate enterprise as the invasion of India. His belief was that, in spite of the railways made towards the frontier of India, the natural difficulties of Afghanistan, if we used them as we should do, by alliance with the Afghans, and not by invasions of their country, added to our own natural advantages of access to India by sea, would be sufficient to protect India from serious invasion by Russia for many long years to come.
      It had also been suggested that there might be an invasion of these islands. Such an invasion had long been suggested and even seriously attempted, and in every instance the attempt had been defeated, not by soldiers, but always by sailors. During the whole continuance of the Napoleonic Wars we were constantly in danger of invasion, but it never occurred to any man that we should protect the country from invasion by the Regular Army. It was by our ships alone that it was done. He wished to say a word as to the places where the ships should be. There had been a conflict of opinion in early days between Lord St. Vincent and Lord Howe as to the best means of defending these shores. Lord Howe desired to have the Fleet always near our shores, while Lord St. Vincent contended that our warships should be off the enemy's ports, in order to keep in constant touch with the enemy's ships. When a ship left a port it was lost sight of, so that the only way to watch an enemy's vessels was to have our Fleet watching off the enemy's ports. They must watch the rat at the hole and deal with it when it came out. It was not the Channel Fleet, therefore, but the vessels off Brest and Toulon, during the Napoleonic Wars, that preserved this country from invasion, and the principle was still true, though in these modern days the point of observation might have been shifted to the Elbe or the entrance to the Baltic. During the Napoleonic Wars our Fleet had another sphere of action, to capture the enemy's trade under whatever flag it was found, and our abandonment of that power was regarded by the late Lord Salisbury as most unwise. But if our
      718
      Fleets were eluded and an invading army marching on London, would that finish everything? Would the country remain quiet? Would there be no Highlanders coming down from the North, no men of Birmingham marching to succour the capital? And even if the Government capitulated, surrendered, and handed over the whole country to the enemy, he could conceive the subsequent arrival of an admiral from the Pacific or Atlantic who would repudiate the Government and the capitulation together, and save the country by simply cutting the enemy's communications.
      In regard to the question of the country being starved out, the right hon. Gentleman, in his opinion, was wrong. We might have no Fleet at all and still this country could not be starved. So large and so numerous were the avenues of sea access to this country that it was impossible to bring that about and they must remain open. To starve us they would have to close the seas from the Naze of Norway, round by the West of Ireland to Ushant, and all the fleets in the world could not do it. Since, therefore, the avenues of arrival could not be closed, if the supplies of this country were to be stopped it would have to be at the ports from which they issued. These ports were infinite in number, and at present it would be impossible to do that unless we had in force some such arrangement as the Sugar Convention which might prohibit us from getting corn from certain countries. That would facilitate the task of the enemy, would prevent us from getting corn from certain ports, would diminish to a few, perhaps to very few, the ports of issue, and would, perhaps, render possible the closure of those few. So long, however, as this country stood to the principle of free trade and relied for supplies upon the entire world, so long as there were an infinity of ports from which corn could be sent, so long would it be impossible to starve this country. In his opinion the Fleet was the implement to protect us from invasion, and the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in placing his chief reliance upon it. But that there should be also something else was true, and what that something should be was indicated by our position. If he were a

      719
      German or a Frenchman he should never have a good word for a Volunteer or a Militiaman, but it was because we were surrounded by the sea and because we only wanted a little breathing time for the aid which must come from the provinces and from Fleets, that of all countries in the world this country might be defended by Volunteers and Militiamen. The Militia was the old traditional and constitutional force of the country, and the Volunteers had had their origin in a public spirit which had not been shown in any other country in the world. In his belief those forces were sufficient, with a very small stiffening force of Regulars, to meet anything in the shape of an invasion which might be attempted upon this country. He thought any War Minister ought to be thankful that patriotism, courage, and spirit should induce men to make soldiering a hobby and to give their money and their time to such an end, their labour and their efforts being sweetened and made delightful because they were put forth in the public service. That was, he thought, the sort of element upon which we could safely rely in time of danger, and that was an element which he was sorry to see a disposition on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to discourage. It was an element, however, which he should do his best to foster because it was one which was invaluable to the country.
      CAPTAIN BAGOTsaid that hon. Members had spoken as if it were the intention of his right hon. friend the Secretary for War to strike a severe blow at our Volunteer force, if not to do away with it altogether. He did not understand, however, that the right hon. Gentleman was in any way dealing a destructive blow at our Volunteer and Reserve Forces. They had heard a great deal about the possibility of invasion on a large scale and on a small scale, but these were matters which could not be proved and of which no adequate proof could be given to the House. It was quite clear, however, that Auxiliary Forces to the number of 200,000 would be sufficient to satisfy our requirements in any possible circumstances under
      720
      which England could be invaded by a large force, and would also satisfy those who thought that it could be invaded by a small force. What his right hon. friend contemplated was not to do away with the Volunteers in any way or even to deal a severe blow at them. If he took such a course nothing could be more damaging to the patriotic spirit of the people of this country. He hoped it would go forth to the country as the result of this debate that no serious alteration in our Volunteer system was intended by the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, or anybody else. So far as he understood it the right hon. Gentleman's proposal appeared to be a reasonable and sensible one. The Volunteer force consisted of some 250,000 men, and it was perfectly well known that some economies should be brought about. The proposal was that the number of Volunteers should be reduced to some 200,000, and that the saving thus effected should be devoted to making the remainder more efficient. It was quite clear that upon the whole now the Volunteers were not properly equipped with transport and various other equipments which would enable them to move if this invasion either on a big or a small scale took place. Moreover 200,000 men were sufficient, he thought, to satisfy both those who thought that a large invasion was possible and those who thought that only a small one was feasible. If there was any intention of abolishing the Volunteers or reducing their numbers he should be the first to oppose it, and if there was any idea of striking a serious blow at them he thought the country would resent it. If the numbers were reduced, however, it would do no harm if the result was to make those who were left more efficient. The Volunteer force had for years past said, "Give us more reality, make us more like real soldiers," and he thought they would prefer to be dealt with as Regular troops and would not mind the reduction.
      And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

    EVENING SITTING.
      CHELSEA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL [BY ORDER].
        EPPING GAS BILL [BY ORDER].
        Read the third time, and passed.
        GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY BILL [BY ORDER] (KING'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
        Read the third time, and passed.
    HIGHAM AND HUNDRED OF HOO WATER BILL [BY ORDER].
      LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [BY ORDER].
        NORWICH UNION LIFE INSURANCE SOCIETY BILL [BY ORDER].
          WEYBRIDGE AND WALTON-UPON-THAMES ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL [BY ORDER].
          Read the third time, and passed.

          GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) AND MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL [BY ORDER].
          *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.)said the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was unable to be present himself owing to illness, had requested him to move this Motion. He had also asked him to explain that his right hon. friend only put down the Motion because he understood that the Standing Orders Committee agreed to it, but if they did not agree to it he was not to force it through. Both the promoters and the opponents to the Bill were of opinion that if it were referred back to the Committee it would save discussion in the House, and his right hon. friend the Chairman of Committees understood that the Committee on Standing Orders agreed to have it refered back to them because the petition not being put in to time was due to an error. In former days petitions against a Bill had to be put in within ten days after the First Reading, but it was decided to alter the Standing Order so that now all petitions must be put in by February 12th. It appeared that the Parliamentary agents had obtained a
          722
          copy of the old Standing Orders, and it was due to that that the error had occurred. He begged to move.
          Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Resolution of the Select Committee on Standing Orders of 14th March in the case of the Petition of the Portadown Urban District Council praying to be heard against the said Bill be referred back to the Select Committee on Standing Orders with a view to consider whether, under the circumstances of the case, Standing Order 128 should be dispensed with in respect of the said Petition."—(The Deputy-Chairman.)
          *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid this was an exceptional Motion. It did not instruct the Committee on Standing Orders to do anything but to re-consider a decision they had already arrived at. He thought the language of the right hon. Gentleman was exaggerated. So far as he knew, the Committee on Standing Orders had expressed no wish to have this referred back to them. He objected to the Motion on the previous Friday, because it was made on a Friday—that was the extent of his objection. He did not feel warranted in opposing it now that the Chairman of Ways and Means had, on his own responsibility and after due consideration, put the Motion on the Paper, but he wished strongly to emphasise its exceptional nature.
          MR. HALSEYsaid the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy-Chairman was a little misinformed when he said he understood the Standing Orders Committee wished this back; that was too strong a term. It was a most unusual course for the House to refer back to the Committee a matter upon which they had come to a decision and reported. But he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Motion.
          MR. BUCHANANsaid so far as he knew there had not been any consultation with the Committee on Standing Orders as to the propriety of this proposal. The Standing Orders Committee had nothing to do with

          723
          the merits of the Bill. They had merely to say whether the Standing Order should be dispensed with. This was a some-what important matter for the House of Commons. The question was whether they were going to remit back to the Standing Orders Committee a question which they had already determined for their reconsideration. It was an unusual Motion, but not an unprecedented one. In former years cases had been remitted to the Standing Orders Committee, but in all the precedents for a Motion of this
          kind the Chairman of Committees had been able to say there were certain new facts which had not come to the knowledge of the Standing Orders Committee. As a member of the Committee he sincerely hoped the House would not assent to this Motion unless some really fresh facts were going to be adduced.
          Question put.
          The House divided:—Ayes, 104; Noes, 93. (Division List No. 104.)

          AYES.

          Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

          Flower, Sir Ernest

          Morrison, James Archibald

          Anson, Sir William Reynell

          Forster, Henry William

          Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

          Arkwright, John Stanhope

          Gardner, Ernest

          Parker, Sir Gilbert

          Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O

          Godson, Sir Augustus Freder'k

          Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

          Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

          Pilkington, Colonel Richard

          Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

          Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

          Plummer, Sir Walter R.

          Balcarres, Lord

          Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'ml'ts

          Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

          Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

          Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

          Purvis, Robert

          Banbury, Sir Fred'k George

          Goulding, Edward Alfred

          Randles, John S.

          Banner, John S. Harmood-

          Gretton, John

          Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

          Bignold, Sir Arthur

          Groves, James Grimble

          Reid, James (Greenock)

          Bigwood, James

          Hamilton, Marq. of (Lond'nd'ry

          Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

          Blundell, Colonel Henry

          Heath, Sir James (Staff'ds. N. W

          Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

          Bond, Edward

          Helder, Augustus

          Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

          Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

          Hickman, Sir Alfred

          Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

          Bull, William James

          Hoare, Sir Samuel

          Sharpe, William Edward T.

          Caldwell, James

          Hogg, Lindsay

          Sloan, Thomas Henry

          Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.

          Houston, Robert Paterson

          Smith, Rt. Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

          Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

          Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm

          Spear, John Ward

          Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

          Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

          Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

          Chapman, Edward

          Hudson, George Bickersteth

          Thorburn, Sir Walter

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

          Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

          Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

          Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

          Tuff, Charles

          Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

          Kerr, John

          Turnour, Viscount

          Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

          Law Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

          Valentia, Viscount

          Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

          Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

          Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

          Davenport, William Bromley

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

          Warde, Colonel C. E.

          Denny, Colonel

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

          Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E. (T'n't'n

          Dewar, Sir T. R. (T'r Hamlets)

          Macdona, John Cumming

          Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

          Dickson, Charles Scott

          MacIver, David (Liverpool)

          Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

          Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

          Maconochie, A. W.

          Wilson, John (Glasgow)

          Doxford, Sir William Theodore

          M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'r'h,W

          Wrightson, Sir Thomas

          Fardell, Sir T. George

          Majendie, James A. H.

          Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

          Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh're

          TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

          Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

          Milvain, Thomas

          Charles Craig and Mr. Lons-

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

          Moore, William

          dale.

          NOES.

          Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

          Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

          Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

          Abraham, William (Rhondda)

          Cawley, Frederick

          Flynn, James Christopher

          Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

          Cheetham, John Frederick

          Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

          Bell, Richard

          Condon, Thomas Joseph

          Gilhooly, James

          Black, Alexander William

          Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

          Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

          Blake, Edward

          Crean, Eugene

          Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr T'vil)

          Boland, John

          Cullinan, J.

          Hayden, John Patrick

          Brigg, John

          Delany, William

          Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

          Bright, Allan Heywood

          Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

          Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

          Broadhurst, Henry

          Donelan, Captain A.

          Higham, John Sharp

          Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

          Doogan, P. C.

          Horniman, Frederick John

          Burt, Thomas

          Fenwick, Charles

          Jacoby, James Alfred

          Cameron, Robert

          Ffrench, Peter

          Johnson, John

          Jones, Leif (Appleby)

          Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

          Roche, John

          Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

          O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

          Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

          Joyce, Michael

          O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

          Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

          Kilbride, Denis

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

          Sheehy, David

          Lamont, Norman

          O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

          Shipman, Dr. John G.

          Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

          O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

          Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R. (Northants

          Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

          Strachey, Sir Edward

          Layland-Barratt, Francis

          O'Dowd, John

          Sullivan, Donal

          Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Ac'r'gton

          O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

          Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

          Levy, Maurice

          O'Malley, William

          Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

          Lloyd-George, David

          O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

          Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

          Lundon, W.

          O'Shee, James John

          Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

          MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

          Paulton, James Mellor

          Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

          MacVeagh, Jeremiah

          Power, Patrick Joseph

          Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

          M'Crae, George

          Rea, Russell

          Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

          M'Kean, John

          Reddy, M.

          M'Killop W. (Sligo, North)

          Redmond, John E. (Waterford

          TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

          Mooney, John J.

          Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

          Fuller and Mr. J. H. Whitley.

          Murphy, John

          Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL [BY ORDER].
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [BY ORDER].
        LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL [BY ORDER].
        Read a second time and committed.

    SUPPLY [4TH ALLOTTED DAY] [5TH APRIL] REPORT.
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [6th April] to Resolution, "That a sum, not exceeding £10,101,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Pay, &c., 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."
    Which Amendment was—
    "To leave out '£10,101,000,' and insert '£10,100,900.'"—(Mr. McCrae.)
    Question again proposed, "That '£10,101,000' stand part of the said Resolution."
    CAPTAIN BAGOT (continuing his remarks)said it was impossible to increase the numbers of the forces, to improve their efficiency, and at the same time to reduce expenditure. It had been assumed that a large reduction of the Volunteers was contemplated. No one would be more opposed to such a proposal than he, but that was not the
    726
    intention of the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman desired to increase the efficiency of the force, which perhaps involved some numerical reduction, and he believed that the proposal would meet with general approval.
    Comparatively little had been said about the Regular Army, which, after all, was the nucleus of our military forces, and therefore the most important. Every Secretary of State for War was expected to make bricks without straw; he had to provide a Regular Army, and constantly had the military forces of the Continent held up before him, but he was told at the same time that he must not incur any great expenditure. There was only one other country with which a comparison could really be made if it was desired to see whether we were getting fair value for our money, and that was the United States. It was no good talking about what was done by France, Russia, or Japan, where men were taken compulsorily and paid sufficient just to keep body and soul together. In the United States, where they had a voluntary Army, the cost per soldier was three times the amount paid in this country. If the country was not prepared to increase the pay of the soldier so as to compete more fairly with the unskilled labour market, the Army would have to be popularised by the removal of restrictions on the liberty of the soldier when off duty. Taken all round, the soldier was much better off than he used to be, but things must be looked at as they were, and there was undoubtedly a feeling, possibly inherited from past times, that the position of a soldier was not quite

    727
    so good as that of an ordinary working man. That being so, he was prepared to advocate views which he knew were not popular, especially with the older generation of military officers. Recruits would be more quickly obtained if there was a general and practical recognition of the fact that in this country the general tendency amongst working men for the last thirty or forty years had been towards increased freedom. No doubt certain restrictions in the case of the soldier had been relaxed. He remembered when soldiers were not allowed to play cricket or football, or to smoke in the public streets, or, under any circumstances, to wear plain clothes. These were small matters, but they were of considerable importance to the soldier. Old-fashioned officers, especially those who favoured the German school, were inclined to think that the end of the world would come, or some terrible military catastrophe happen, if the British soldier was placed much more on the footing of the free working man of this country. Personally, however, he could see no reason why, for instance, a soldier should not be allowed to have a suit of plain clothes in the barrack-room to wear under certain restrictions. There was also the question of hours, full-grown men being expected to be in bed and lights out by 10.30. Considerable extensions of freedom might be given in regard to many of these comparatively trifling matters, and he believed the result would be greatly to popularise the Army.
    Another matter to which he desired to refer was the Intelligence Department. The South African War taught us that our Intelligence Department was much behindhand, and the country was promised that considerable increases should be made. In Germany the number of officers in the Intelligence Department was about 200, but in this country was only from twenty to forty. There had doubtless been some alterations made, but from an examination of the Estimates he was unable to ascertain where the increases had taken place, and many Members would be glad of an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that a genuine increase had been made. In time of peace an efficient Intelligence Department doubtless appeared to be
    728
    rather expensive, but in time of war there could be no greater economy.
    With regard to the Auxiliary Forces, there was considerable difficulty under present arrangements in finding out who would be prepared to go out in time of emergency to fill up the ranks either in the infantry or in the cavalry of the Regular Army. The question was discussed on a previous occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor promised a scheme under which Yeomary privates who could ride and shoot well should be registered and given a bounty of £5 a year, and then, on emergency, be drafted at once into the cavalry or mounted infantry abroad. The proposal was not received with favour by Yeomanry officers in the House, but from, conversations he had had with Yeomanry officers and men outside he believed it would be a good scheme, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter with a view to its adoption.
    MAJOR SEELYwished to bring the House back to the purpose with which this reduction was moved, viz., definitely to challenge the scheme of the Secretary of State. Much had been said as to the difficulty of understanding what was really intended. He thought, however, most Members understood what the right hon. Gentleman meant, but it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman meant one thing and the House of Commons another. If that were so, it was highly undesirable that the House should be led into adopting a scheme which the majority believed would have disastrous effects on the Militia, Volunteers, and Yeomanry. The opponents of the scheme challenged the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to have a short-service Army to stay home in time of peace and to go abroad in time of national emergency. He would not identify himself with many of the hard things which had been said about the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman had undoubtedly discouraged the Volunteers and the Militia, but not intentionally. Many Members sympathised with much that he recommended, but they wholly dissented from his proposal with regard to a short-service Army. Their first reason was that,

    729
    whether intentionally or not, it would undoubtedly tend to abolish the Militia. If they formed a home - service Army what would be the use of the Militia? Their purpose would be practically gone. Every man who was asked to join the Militia under the new order of things, would reply, "What useful purpose can we serve, because the short-service Army supplies all that is wanted." To form a home-service Army would be unfortunate, because it would mean the abolition of the Militia. Not only would it undoubtedly tend to make the Militia die away, but it would also have a disastrous effect on the Volunteers. The object of the Volunteers was to keep alive a spirit of patriotism and to provide a school of arms. These who belonged to the more rational school believed that, after all, although invasion was unlikely, it was still possible. New inventions might entirely modify naval strategy. Therefore, the country should take from every man what he could give in the way of military service, and in the Volunteers the country had the means of obtaining those services.
    The Secretary for War told the House he had the highest opinion of the Volunteers. All he could say was that the Volunteers did not think so. In the course of the debate it had been pointed out that the value of the Volunteers was not only for home defence, but the possibility that they would be able to help the country in the case of a great war. The right hon. Gentleman said the idea that they could be relied upon to reinforce the Regular Army was a pure delusion, and he stated that when they were called upon during what was known as "The Black Week," only 10,000 were found ready to go to South Africa. That was a very unfair imputation to place upon the Volunteers. The right hon. Gentleman wished the House to believe that only 10,000 out of 200,000 Volunteers could be found ready to go to the war. They were all aware that when the officers made the call for men, they readily obtained some 60 or 70 per cent. of their regiments for active service. The home - service Army was designed to provide a safeguard for the country which it was supposed the Volunteers could not give. Further, the formation
    730
    of a home-service Army would be a bad thing from the point of view of policy, because it would make small wars more easy and great wars more disastrous. This new system would place large forces at the disposal of the Minister for War and the Government, and this would undoubtedly encourage them to engage in war. What was more, they would not have a strong body of public opinion to warn them as to the result, because the people would have come more and more to look upon the home-service Army as the only fighting force with which they needed to concern themselves. The result would be that the people would be merely onlookers, and would not feel any responsibility themselves; and consequently they would not exert that restraining influence upon the Government which a wiser system would secure.
    Another point was, would this force really provide what they wanted? He stated most emphatically that it would not. It would provide a portion, but it could not possibly provide anything more than a tithe of what was wanted for a really great and desperate struggle. When such a struggle would come none of them could say, but the First Lord of the Admiralty had stated that the defence of the Indian frontier was the principal military problem for this country, and he pointed out that it was far easier for a certain Power to place troops on that frontier than in the part of the world where she was now fighting. The Secretary for War said that it was not ships alone that had overthrown Russia, but the Japanese army as well. But what army did Japan require to face a smaller force than it was held that this country might have to face on the Indian frontier? Japan had mobilised 830,000 men to achieve what she had achieved. They all hoped that such a terrible ordeal would never come to this country, but nevertheless it was just as well to look facts squarely in the face. According to Lord Selborne, what they wanted for this great struggle was 800,000 men. He did not say that Lord Selborne was right, but his Lordship belonged to the same school as the Secretary of State for War. His point was that a home - service Army would never provide that number. In November, 1903,

    731
    the Prime Minister said that, in a really great struggle, they could not depend upon the Regular Army alone, and they could only rely upon a patriotic people trained to arms, full of that self-sacrifice which alone could ensure victory. They condemned the home-service Army on four grounds. In the first place it would ruin the Militia; secondly, it would damage the Volunteers; thirdly, it would lessen the sense of responsibility for the defence of this country which rested upon the people; and fourthly, it would not provide them with the thing they needed. Nothing would provide them with that except the self-sacrifice of the people as a whole. For those reasons they condemned the home-service Army. He did not say they all condemned it, but they all looked upon it as a dangerous experiment which ought not to be tried until the House had expressed its opinion upon it. From what they had heard in the debate they knew that many hon. Members opposite viewed this proposal with much alarm. They had been told that the Committee of Defence was not unanimous upon it. Therefore, it would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House whether there was any truth in the rumour that the formation of a home - service Army did not command the assent of the Army Council or of the Committee of Defence.
    The Secretary for War would, no doubt, ask what was to be put in place of the home-service Army. He thought means might be found by which an agreement might possibly be reached. If it were ascertained that the Militia would be prepared as a body to accept liability for foreign service, it would then, no doubt, be wise to level up that force, and possibly to give its members a longer period of training.
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTER: How long?
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that six months had been suggested. This period had been suggested by Militia officers as feasible, and if the recruits could sleep out of barracks it would be an advantage, because they wished as few as possible of them to be maintained in barracks. There were also other suggestions for making the Militia more serviceable
    732
    for the purpose the right hon. Gentleman had in view. What hon. Members on that side of the House said was that they would not have the home-service Army until they had tried another plan. If it were essential to have such a force, improvement of the Militia afforded the better means of attaining that end. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he was determined to go through with the home-service Army scheme, whether he had the support of the Army Council in the proposal to proceed with the enlistment of a short-service Army to stay at home except in time of war, whether the Committee of Defence were unanimous and proposed to support him in forming a home-service Army, and whether the Committee of Defence and the Army Council were prepared to go through with the necessary concomitants of the formation of this short-service Army. He believed that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman would empty the Exchequer, and sap the patriotism of the people.
    *MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid the Secretary for War would clear up a great deal of the mystery which hung around the question of the Militia if he would tell them exactly what would be the position of the Militia if his scheme were carried into effect and what his scheme exactly was. In the Hampshire regiment there were three battalions; one was at Malta, one in England, the third was the Militia battalion, and there was a depot at Winchester. When the present scheme was carried into operation what would happen? Where would the first battalion be? Where would the second battalion be, and where would the Militia be? The hon. Member for Tunbridge had very wisely said what his remedies were for the evils which existed at the present time, and named two which he believed were undoubted and unanswerable. The first was the position of the adjutant of the depot. There was no doubt that the adjutant of the depot was in the position of trying to serve two masters. During eleven months of the year he knew that the eyes of the colonel of the regiment were upon him, and loyal as he might be to the Militia battalion and anxious as he might be to promote its

    733
    interests, he could not properly at the same time satisfy the requirements made upon him by the colonel of his regiment in respect of the Line battalions. The second point made by his hon. friend was that in the Militia they had a school of arms. In this respect his experience showed that although the Militiaman was a rough article when he went up for drill, at the end of a month he was quite a different man, and at the end of three months he would be on the high way to be fit for the front line of battle. In the case of national emergency it had been proved that they would go abroad, and he had no doubt that if the promised Bill was proceeded with it would not be unpopular, not only amongst the officers who might be called upon, but amongst the men also. Militiamen did make great sacrifice in the services they gave. He did not think that if the request to be made liable for foreign service was put before them the Militia would hesitate in any way about accepting that responsibility, and they would willingly agree to give their services abroad.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked the Secretary of State for War to say whether, in reducing the British garrison in Egypt and the Soudan from 3,000 to 1,000, proper consideration had been given to the opinions of military men and civilians who knew the country. We had in Egypt and the Soudan enormous British interests, and surely a force of 3,000 men was small indeed to uphold those interests in a region extending to 1,250,000 square miles. He understood that the cavalry were to be altogether withdrawn, and that there was to be a large reduction in the artillery. He recently had an opportunity of discussing this matter with military men and civilians in Egypt and the Soudan, who were from personal knowledge in a better position than the Secretary of State for War to form a sound judgment, and they regarded the recall of a portion of the British forces as a possible cause of peril in the future of a very serious character. Egypt was the half-way house to India, and it might be of importance in time of emergency to have an even larger proportion of the British Army there. When it was remembered
    734
    that in the last ten years we had increased the expenditure on the Army by £10,000,000, the House had a right to know whether we had proportionately increased our ability to defend our world-wide Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol had stated that what we needed was not a larger Army, but a more perfectly organised and efficient Army, and he also stated that no one outside of the War Office believed we were getting anything like value for our money. The hon. Member believed that was the general opinion of the country. This enormous increase in expenditure had brought no corresponding increase in the efficiency of the forces. We did not need that the Regular Army should be a dual Army. Why should we have departed from the Cardwell scheme of seven years with the colours and five years in the Reserve? That scheme answered the purpose well. Why should we not be free from the absolute chaos which a dual Army would bring about?
    He was sure the whole nation was astonished at the proposal put forward to reduce the Volunteer force. Surely the needs of the Empire would dictate that instead of being reduced, the Volunteer force should be doubled, and, by proper treatment, made more popular. He considered that it was simply a disgrace that officers in that force should have to pay out of their own pockets a large proportion of the expenses for keeping the force going. If the Volunteers were to receive proper encouragement their numbers might be doubled. What a splendid recruiting ground that would form for the Regular Army! The nation had become absolutely sick of the endless schemes put forward for Army reorganisation without any result in efficiency. Last year the Secretary of State for War said, practically, that if his proposals were not accepted he would no longer remain in that office, and this session he came to the House and propounded a very much varied scheme which had made confusion worse confounded. No man knew what the scheme of Army reform and reorganisation was. There had been so much "I, I, I," in the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and so little

    735
    in regard to what the proposals of the Government were, that really hon. Members did not know where they were. It was no use whatever for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat what he himself desired; what they wanted to know was what the proposals of the Government were.
    MR. CHARLES ALLENasked whether the words "outlying and inefficient" in the Memorandum were to be considered as being interchangeable. He admitted that there were many inefficient companies, but at the same time he thought that many of the outlying companies were ideal companies.
    *MR. PEELsaid he knew that the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division was a great authority on the Chinese army, and on all matters pertaining to that great people. The hon. Gentleman had now extended his travels to Egypt, and he was seriously disturbed as to the weakening of the garrison there. It was interesting to know that the hon. Gentleman was a strong supporter of the Cardwell system. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had given a pronouncement in which he avowed himself a determined follower of the Cardwell system, which was instituted when the right hon. Gentleman was a young man in the House of Commons. He clung to it with all the affection of youth and enthusiasm. The junior Member for Oldham had become a convert to it. The hon. Member for East Bristol had been in his day a great and ardent Army reformer, but his days of dash and defiance seemed to have passed, and he was now a humble follower of the Leader of the Opposition.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: I expressed my adherence a year ago to the Cardwell system when, I think, I was the only private Member who did so.
    *MR PEELsaid it seemed that the hon. Member had been a pioneer among private Members in leading them back to the Cardwell fold. The hon. Member for the Barnsley Division and the junior Member for Oldham had expressed themselves
    736
    as supporters of the formula of seven and five years as against the nine and three years advocated by the Secretary for War. But it was not difficult to recognise that seven and five was the same as eight and four, and the majority of people did not see any great difference of principle between eight and four and nine and three. Indeed, any intelligent foreigner after listening to these debates would come to the conclusion that this country had no need of any Army at all. The question of invasion had been scouted. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench strongly repudiated the suggestion that he advocated five men in a dinghy. He was not himself a convinced adherent of the dinghy policy. As to the North-West frontier of India, that danger had been entirely disposed of by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, although the hon. Member for Stepney sneered at the doctrines prevailing in military circles in India that there was anything to fear in that quarter. Really, therefore, they were led almost to the conclusion that no Army was wanted at all. The striking force which they had been told was necessary for the purpose of small wars was really only necessary during the existence of a Unionist Government because it was established on almost irrefragable evidence that the existence of a Unionist Government in power was coincident with the existence of small wars, and that with the disappearance of the Unionist Government the small wars almost instantly disappeared. He largely agreed with the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Aberdeen who said that it was really impossible to discuss questions in regard to the Militia and Volunteers unless they had previously discussed the possibility of the invasion of this country and the question of the vulnerability of the Indian frontier. It would have been better to have had a debate on the great questions of policy first, and after that criticism upon details would have been more fruitful.
    He desired to deal with the question of the Militia, and he was inclined to think the Secretary for War was not departing from the aim he avowed last year; he was only altering his method. The

    737
    Militia was not to be abolished; it was to be transformed. First the force was to be made liable to be sent for service abroad, and it followed that they must have the training that would fit them to meet a foreign army, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman, two years training was the least they should receive. It was very disturbing to officers and men in the Militia to be kept in the dark concerning the changes that were to take place in the force until the right hon. Gentleman had obtained a sufficient number of men on the nine years service to make up the Indian drafts. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might say that it was difficult to prophesy concerning the future, but he should bring forward some plan. He did not think it would be possible to conduct an ordinary private business on the principles which seemed to animate the Secretary for War in conducting the business of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was succeeding in getting men for his long-service Army, but he admitted that he was not getting men for the short-service Army. When there were these two competing systems they had got to consider how the ordinary soldier looked upon them. The ordinary soldier might draw an invidious distinction between the foreign-service Army and the home-service Army. But the whole of the system of a long-service Army and a short-service Army depended on the relation that was to be established between the battalions at home and the battalions abroad. Without going into too great details, the right hon. Gentleman might give some explanation as to what these relations were to be.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley? I assure him that if I smiled it was not a cynical smile, but an amused smile, because I regret that though his residence in Egypt has introduced him to distinguished acquaintances they were not able to give him better information. He referred to the reduction of the garrison of Egypt, and he appeared to regard that as one of the many crimes of the War Office. The hon. Member was only 300 per cent. Wrong in his figures. The garrison of Egypt is not 1,000, but something over 3,000. The reduction
    738
    was not made by uninformed untravelled persons alone. It was made at the express request, and on the urgent representations, of Lord Cromer himself.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: The essence of my statement was that there had been a substantial reduction of the garrison of Egypt, and if I made a mistake in the exact figure that does not affect the question of a large reduction having been made.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I need not press the matter any further.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: What reduction has been made?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The reduction has been a battalion of infantry, a battery of artillery, and a regiment of cavalry. Let me come to the main subjects of this debate, the last, I suppose, of the rather prolonged series we have had on this subject. I wish just to ask the House to go back to the beginning of the situation. I want them, if they can, to get rid of the idea that I, in this matter, have been acting as a sort of will-o'-the-wisp, trying to carry out my own particular views without any relation to the facts. What are the facts?
    When I came into office two documents confronted me, or rather one document. The other was presented to me shortly afterwards. One was the Report of the War Commission. The second was the Report of the Auxiliary Forces Commission. Those two documents were crammed full of lessons, lessons which were urged upon the War Department, upon this House, and upon the country. We were told that we should be criminal if we neglected to pay attention to those lessons and to follow the guidance which those lessons gave us. What were they? Let me give one or two examples. We were told by the War Commission that there had been a very serious state of things at the time of the outbreak of the South African War—that the Reserves were inadequate for carrying out that war, that the units were inadequate for prosecuting that war, and that we had to relieve the country from the recurence of a similar state of things in the

    739
    future. Was it or was it not my duty to try and fall in with those recommendations and give effect to them? That has been the principal object of our concern.
    We are endeavouring to do two things—to provide an adequate number of units in time of war and to provide an adequate Reserve. We have heard over and over again that a recurrence to the seven and five years system would enable us to meet the requirements of the War Commission's Report—that it would give us the Reserve we require in time of war. I say, without hesitation, that is a fallacy. It is not so; it cannot be so; and if it were true, which it is not, it would become absolutely ludicrous when you couple with that proposition the other proposition to reduce the number of Regular battalions. I challenge contradiction when I say that the seven and five years system did not give us, and will not give us in the future, the Reserves we require or the reinforcements for the Army in time of war. I do not challenge contradiction further, because the thing is so obvious, that if that be so the reduction of battalions would still further reduce that Reserve.
    What was the conclusion we drew from that state of things? We came to the conclusion that you must change the organisation of the Regular Army in such a way that you will have a larger number of cadres, a larger number of officers, and a larger Reserve. Some hon. Members have spoken of the Reserve as being destroyed, of their being an insufficient and inefficient Reserve. Let us examine that proposition. The Reserve which will be formed will be a double Reserve. That is no new thing. There are Reserves formed from two classes of men in the Army now, and there always have been. There are in every other army; there are in the Navy. It is said that the Reserve will be insufficient. That is an entire mistake. It will be far in excess of any Reserve we have ever had. It is said it will be inefficient. The men who furnish it will have had some training—training that is given to every soldier in every army in every country except our own. There are one or two exceptions, but I need not dwell upon them. They will have had more than that. We have been
    740
    now for the last four years passing men into the Reserve with under three years training. They will have nine years in the Reserve without any training at all. Men who are passed from the short-service battalion will be trained during their Reserve period; training which I believe to be absolutely essential for the proper utilisation of any Reserve at all. And why are we to be told that these Reserve men are inefficient for the purposes of war? Just look at the argument. We are told that we are creating a second class, an inferior class, of soldiers. It is admitted that we cannot get a sufficient Reserve for the Army in time of war out of a long-service Army; and we have been told, over and over again, that we are to supplement that deficient Reserve by taking men from the Auxiliary Forces. Well, I do not quarrel with that. But who will pretend that the Reservist we can take from the Auxiliary Forces will be as well qualified as is the Reservist who has been pronounced to be inefficient? As I explained the other day, the Militiaman under the present system, apart from any increased training, would require sixteen years service in order to obtain the same amount of training as the soldier who has been trained for two years with the colours. When I am told that these men are unsatisfactory and useless, I ask how can that proposition be maintained when we are asked to put in their place men who have received only one-sixteenth of their training? I must not be told that these men are ineffective for the purposes of war; they receive exactly the same training as the Reservists of every Continental country with the exception of Holland and Switzerland. I ask, are we right or wrong in endeavouring to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the War with respect to the formation of a larger Reserve?
    There is another document, the Report of the Royal Commission with regard to the Auxiliary Forces, which was presented shortly after I assumed office. That Report was perfectly specific; there was no mistake about the value which was placed on the Auxiliary Forces under their present organisation. I believe that the Report was received with

    741
    a certain amount of favour by all sections; at any rate it was an impartial Report, and one which emanated, to a large extent, from officers of the Auxiliary Forces. It pointed out certain blemishes in the constitution of the Auxiliary Forces which it would have been folly on the part of any Administration to pass over unheeded. If the facts contained in that Report are correct, then I say it is the positive duty of the War Minister to take notice of them and try to remedy them. Hon. Members have suggested that I have proposed to go far in advance of the recommendations of that Report. That, I think, is inexact. I have not made any such proposal to the House.
    Hon. Members suggest that we ought to make use of the Militia to perform the duties of the Regular Army, and one of the principal reasons given is that you cannot obtain a short-service Army concurrently with a long-service Army, because the difficulties of recruiting are so great. There have been a great many prophecies made in regard to recruiting; I have ventured to doubt some of them, and hitherto do not think I have been inaccurate in my forecasts. I readily admit that if you attempt to recruit long and short-service men side by side under anything like the same conditions you will not get long-service men. But this difficulty is not peculiar to our administration; the difficulty of recruiting is an eternal difficulty to the War Office and the country. My belief is that if you make the distinction between the two classes of men sufficiently marked, if you make the attractions offered to long-service men sufficient, if you give them that guarantee of employment which I desire to give, and that great advance of pay which the new service pay enables us to give, you will be able to do in the Army what you have been able to do in the Navy—you will be able to get two classes of men side by side. Hon. Members seem to think that that is a new thing, but it is not; for under another name it has been going on year after year. We have had up to a few months ago tens of thousands of men enlisted in the Army for three years; they have been paid at a low rate, and have been entitled to leave the Army at the end of their term, and they enlisted entirely for
    742
    service at home. We have had, concurrently, some tens of thousands of men who have been enlisted for seven, eight, and nine years, who have been receiving a higher rate of pay, and who have been serving abroad. Now, is it or is it not reasonable to divide those two sets of men according to the circumstances under which they serve? Short-service men in the future will be in exactly the same position, and long-service men too, in reference to service abroad. If the short-service man desires to make the military career his own, he can adopt it just as he could two years ago. I ask whether it is not worth while to make that experiment. It is an experiment by which we make a distinction between the two classes of men.
    Let me now come to the Militia. It has been said that I propose to injure the Militia and to abolish the Militia. I have made no proposal which by even the widest stretch of imagination could be described in these terms. On August 8th last year, just after I laid the proposals before the House, I gave a pledge that no action should be taken with regard to the Militia that was not agreeable to the wishes of the Militia. I now repeat that there is no proposal before the House to take the Militia battalions for the short-service Army against the wishes of the Militia. I have now ample evidence that, if the offer were given to the Militia battalions to take this service upon them, that offer would be responded to with alacrity by officers and men. We need not go far to seek the reason why. One hon. Member told us that an entirely different class of men go into the Militia; that is a mistake. [Cries of "No."] I will prove it. I am quite positive that half of many battalions, and more than half of other battalions, both officers and men, go into the Militia for the sole purpose of serving for a longer period than the Militia period. Therefore it cannot be described as a revolution if those officers and men are given that opportunity. I will put the thing to the test. If the thing is not congenial to the Militia it will not be done by the Militia. But I have sufficient confidence in the evidence which I have received to feel convinced that if the opportunity were given to the Militia they would accept it.
    *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that this invitation is to be given to the Force piecemeal?
    *MR. REGINALD LUCAS: Supposing a battalion accepts the offer, what will be its condition?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The condition of the hon. Member's own battalion will be precisely what it is now in every particular. Its establishment is 1,061 men. It has 480 men, or 581 men short of its establishment. I do not know whether the effect of the Bill, which will make it compulsory on the men who enter that battalion to go abroad, will be to increase or diminish its strength. I am inclined to believe it will increase it. But there will be no change in any way respecting that battalion. With regard to the recommendation of the Norfolk Commission that the Militia should be given a longer training, we desire to make that experiment and to ascertain whether it could be carried out with advantage to the Militia.
    *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the invitation he speaks of is to be convoyed separately to the different Militia units, or generally to the whole force?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It cannot possibly be conveyed to the whole force.
    *MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN: Then it will be done piecemeal?
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No; it is not to be done piecemeal. The opportunity will be given to the battalions which are required, and if they do not desire to accept the invitation they will not accept the invitation.
    As to the recommendation of the Norfolk Commission, it is that the training of the Militia should be increased to six months on enlistment. I am not quite clear whether that would be so acceptable to the Militia as is supposed. I have before me the evidence of the Militia officer who spoke for the Militia Rifle Association—Colonel Holden. He
    744
    said he considered that any attempt to lengthen the annual training of the men would be absolutely fatal to the force, as it was impossible for men in employment to get more than twenty-eight days in year for training. I think we ought to pass the Bill enabling us to use the Militia abroad before we make these changes, because until then we cannot test the willingness of the Militia to accept these conditions. If recruits enlist under these obligations, we can then see if they will consent to extend the period of training. I believe that they will; and that the ideal period of training is not the six months recommended by the Norfolk Commission but a longer one. All differences could be reconciled easily if this period were continued for a year. The moment you get a year's training on enlistment you get the whole territorial feeling with you. I have communications from nearly every county town in England offering to grant facilities with regard to training grounds, barracks, and ranges, provided we can quarter a territorial regiment in the district. You cannot do that unless the regiment is embodied, at any rate, for one year. If you bring out a battalion for six months, you have to consider a class of officers who almost cease to be civilians without becoming officers. How many Members of this House can give up six months in the year to attending the training of their battalions? How many would not give up a month or six weeks to working with a battalion in existence? I believe that the period of six months training may prove to be very inconvenient to officers and men; and though in obedience to the recommendations of the Report the experiment ought to be tried, I am not sure that the Militia will not prefer a longer or a shorter period of training.
    With regard to the Volunteers, hon. Members have asked me how it is proposed to make this reduction? We have proposed a very small reduction in the current year; and I am confident it can be made, without interference with the earnings or efficiency of the Volunteer corps, by putting into force our new regulations with regard to the standard of physical examination of the men. If we once get to this starting point, the

    745
    whole problem will be left to the commanding officers of the Volunteer battalions. The moment you can introduce a reallocation of the capitation grant the problem becomes easy. At present it pays the Volunteer officer to take any one. I want to alter that, and put the Volunteer officer in this position—that he will be equally well remunerated if he exercises selection; and directly you equalise the incidence of the capitation grant, and enable an officer to earn more money for an efficient man than he now does for an inefficient man, that would be possible. A distinguished Volunteer officer told me that he could dispense with 500 men of his own regiment with advantage if it would not involve pecuniary loss. I want the Volunteer commanding officer to be in the position of the Yeomanry officer, so that the better he makes his regiment the greater will be the pecuniary advantage. I wish to relieve him of the necessity under which he now stands of having to recruit every man, good, bad, or indifferent, who comes to his office, because he is worth 35s. to him, and he cannot afford to lose the money. I believe that as in the Yeomanry you will thus level up the character of the force until those regiments which are now pointed to as the flower of the force are only samples of the bulk.
    *MR. MCCRAEinquired how the establishment of the Volunteers was to be reduced by 114,000 men without interfering with the battalions now existing.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is not difficult. The establishment has been for years merely a fancy figure. It has had no relation to the battalions or to the strength of the Volunteers. There is another possibility of reduction. I may mention one case the other day of a company supposed to be eighty strong which turned out on inspection thirteen strong. There was considerable objection to the reduction of that company, but it was reduced, and I believe the country has been in no sense a loser by that reduction. The hon. Member for Stroud asked if the reduction was meant to apply to units as units because they were outlying. Certainly not, but every one will agree, if there are units
    746
    of the kind I have described, it is better they should cease to be units. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall asked a Question with regard to finance. It is too late to enter at any great length into that question; but he did point out a not very cheering prospect of the difficulties which will arise in the future, as in the past, with regard to the expenditure of money on the Army, and he painted a very dark picture of what the future might produce. I cannot counter any of his arguments. I believe this expenditure will have to be met whatever Administration is in power, but I do not quite accept the gloomy conclusion he arrived at. I believe if you reduce the strength of the battalions you can reduce expenditure, but I do not contest that the right hon. Gentleman was right with regard to all the items of which he spoke, that they are under present conditions irreducible and will have to be met.
    The hon. Member for Dorset made one of those rough and ready suggestions of which we have had a good many during the course of these debates. He suggested that we could save a great deal of money by simply reducing the battalions to 500 men. That is an example of the danger of discussing these matters without some more intimate acquaintance with the real internal economy of the War Office. The hon. Member had a doctrine, with which I entirely agree, that it would be disastrous to reduce units. But he said, "all you have to do is to reduce the battalion to 500 strong, and there you are." That is a mistake. The moment you do that you will cease to find any drafts for the Indian battalions or the necessary facilities for mobilisation in time of war.
    MAJOR SEELY: That is what you proposed.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I proposed a reduced establishment and a short-service term. I proposed it on a battalion which should not send drafts to India, which makes all the difference. Another hon. Member suggested that we might get over many of our difficulties by recruiting boys for the Army like the Navy. There was a great

    747
    deal in what he said with which I have a great deal of sympathy; but that, again, is one of those proposals which will not bear close examination. The difficulty is in the Army that you have to find employment for these boys from the time they come in at fifteen until they become soldiers at eighteen. You cannot employ them in the relative number of Navy boys in the regiment between those ages. Although I believe the valuable work done by the Duke of York's School might be extended, I am confident you cannot adopt the suggestion of my hon. and gallant friend.
    We have had a long and, I am sure, very useful discussion on these matters. I still feel that there has been no contribution, such as I hoped might be obtained, to the solution of this very difficult problem. The problem is there, and it will remain. I venture to express the belief that these propositions which have been ridiculed and attacked so frequently and from so many quarters will, after all, be, in a form closely resembling the present, made the solution of these problems. You must deal with this question of a Reserve. When you have to make your Reserve you will find out that short-service recruiting is essential. You will have to keep up your Army in India and the Colonies, and you will find out that long-service enlistment is essential to the maintenance of that Army. If you go back to the seven and five years service you will not get your Reserve and you will have an enormous increase in the Army Estimates; you will then be irresistibly led to the conclusion that you must effect great reductions the Regular Army; you may reduce some sixteen battalions of the Line; in doing so a great mistake will be made, and the proposition will be set aside because you will be reducing units, and you will be destroying that which is invaluable to the Army-trained officers. You will find, just as I have found, that when you come to destroy historical units of the British Army you will have entered on a task that is practically impossible, so uncongenial to the people of this country, and so unprofitable that you will have to recede from it. You will find that, so long as you make the Militia and the Line competing services, you will never get the proper quality or
    748
    quantity of officers and men. When you go round to depot after depot, as I have done, and study the particulars of the Militia battalions you will find that what I have said is true—that, whilst 35,000 men are going in and out of the Militia, the 23,000 Militia recruits under twenty years of age will not furnish you with the material you think they ought to furnish, and hope they will furnish. You will be driven to the same conclusion as that to which I have been driven. Having before you exactly the same facts your conclusions will be identical.
    With regard to the Volunteers, you will have before you the alternative of asking for an immense addition to the Estimates to provide for a purpose which even then you will not fulfil, because the more money you give under present conditions, the more money you will be required to give, without achieving the object you have in view. You will come to the same conclusion that I have come to—that you must improve the quality at the risk of diminishing the number of the Volunteers. The Army Council is doing all it can to produce a Reserve of officers. We have already done so with regard to cavalry. When I say that under our present system the better the regiment the worse the promotion I have said enough to show that there may be some advantage in having a larger exchange of officers throughout the regiments of infantry. But the question of the shortage of officers has never ceased to occupy the attention of the Army Council. It is treated almost as a paramount question. If the House will do me the favour to read the proposals I have made, they will find the question of officers is dealt with at every stage. I have been accused of obscurity with regard to these matters, I do not think the charge is well founded. [Mr. CHURCHILL: Inconsistency.] There is neither ambiguity nor inconsistency in my proposals. [Mr. CHURCHILL: Absolute contradiction.] I do not know how that may strike the hon. Member. I do not plead guilty to the charge. I have not been able to gather from the speeches that have been made that there is any one quite so clear in his mind as to what he thinks is to the advantage of the Army as I am. I will explain what I mean.

    749
    Not a single speech made has been a constructive speech; and I believe that until hon. Members devote their minds to constructive as well as to purely destructive criticism, we shall get no further. I honestly believe that the main lines of Army reform are to be found in the proposals I have laid before the House, and I look forward with confidence to every one of those proposals being carried out.
    MR. BLACKthought that hon. Members on his side of the House and many on the other side would agree with him that there was much that was uncertain and nebulous, and little that was certain in the right hon. Gentleman's
    statement of policy, but one thing was certain and that was that he intended to diminish the number of our citizen soldiers. The general election was at hand and he wanted hon. Members to figure to themselves what answer they would return if they were asked, "Did you on the 6th of April vote for the reduction of the Volunteer force." According as they determined how to answer that question would they determine the lobby into which they would go.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 167. (Division List No. 105.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

    Denny, Colonel

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Hoult, Joseph

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Arrol, Sir William

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

    Howard, Jno. (Kent, Faversham

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

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

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col.

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Kerr, John

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

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

    Keswick, William

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Bigwood, James

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R.

    Bill, Charles

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

    Bingham, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Bond, Edward

    Gardner, Ernest

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Brassey, Albert

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

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

    Brodrick, Right Hon. St. John

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bull, William James

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Lowe, Francis William

    Butcher, John George

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Lucas, Col. Frances (Lowestoft

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

    Goulding Edward Alfred

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gray Ernest (West Ham)

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Green,Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Chapman, Edward

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Gretton, John

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Groves, James Grimble

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

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

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Milvain, Thomas

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Helder, Augustus

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Moore, William

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Renwick, George

    Tuff, Charles

    Worrell, George Herbert

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Turnour, Viscount

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Morton, Arthur H. Alymer

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Mount, William Arthur

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Myers, William Henry

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Percy, Earl

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Pierpont, Robert

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Spear, John Ward

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur Ormskirk

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Younger, William

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Purvis, Robert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    TELLER FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

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

    Alexander Acland-Hood and.

    Randles, John S.

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Viscount Valentia.

    NOES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Levy, Maurice

    Allen, Charles P,

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Asher, Alexander

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lloyd-George, David

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Ffreneh, Peter

    Lough, Thomas

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E

    Lundon, W.

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift.

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Bell, Richard

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Crae, George

    Benn, John Williams

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    M'Kean, John

    Black, Alexander William

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Boland, John

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Brigg, John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Mooney, John J.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Murphy, John

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Nannetti, Jeseph P.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Burt, Thomas

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Norman, Henry

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Caldwell, James

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Connor, John ((Kildare, N.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

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

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

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Dowd, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    O'Malley, William

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Johnson, John

    O'Mara, James

    Crean Eugene

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Shee, James John

    Crombie, John William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Cullinan, J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Delany, William

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Priestley, Arthur

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Reddy, M.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Labouchere, Henry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Lamont, Norman

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Duffy, William J.

    Langley, Batty

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Elibank, Master of

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Rickett, J. Compton

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

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts).

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    752

    753

    Roche, John

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Runciman, Walter

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Sullivan, Donald

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Tennant, Harold John

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

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

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Wilson, John (Durham Mid.)

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Tomkinson, James

    Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

    Sheehy, David

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Young, Samuel

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

    Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Mr. William M'Arthur.

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further proceeding, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business.
    The House divided:—Ayes, 214; Noes, 140. (Division List No. 106.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gretton, John

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Groves, James Grimble

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Asher, Alexander

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn Sir H.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Denny, Colonel

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Heath, Sir James (Staflords. N W

    Balfour, Rt Hn A J (Manch'r)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Helder, Augustus

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hoult, Joseph

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Elibank, Master of

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Emmott, Alfred

    Hunt, Rowland

    Bigwood, James

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Bill, Charles

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

    Bingham, Lord

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T (Denbigh)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W

    Bond, Edward

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Kerr, John

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

    Keswick, William

    Bowles, Lt-Col. H F (Middlesex

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Kitson, Sir James

    Brassey, Albert

    Fison, Frederick William

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Lamont, Norman

    Bull, William James

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Butcher, John George

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Forster, Henry William

    Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

    Caldwell, James

    Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Campbell, J H M (Dublin Univ.

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

    Cawley, Frederick

    Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn)

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Gorst, Rt Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

    Chapman, Edward

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Lowe, Francis William

    Percy, Earl

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Tennant, Harold John

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Thornton, Percy M.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Purvis, Robert

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Randles, John S.

    Tuff, Charles

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Turnour, Viscount

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Renwick, George

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

    Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Welby, Lt-Col ACE (Taunton)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Rose, Charles Day

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Moore, William

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Mount, William Arthur

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Younger, William

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Smith, Rt. Hn. J Parker (Lanarks

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Spear, John Ward

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Viscount Valentia.

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    NOES.

    Abraham,William (Cork, N. E.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    M'Crae, George

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    M'Kean, John

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Gilhooly, James

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mooney, John J.

    Bell, Richard

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Murphy, John

    Black, Alexander William

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Boland, John

    Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Brigg, John

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Norman, Henry

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Burt, Thomas

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

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Johnson, John

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

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    O'Dowd, John

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Malley, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Mara, James

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Crean, Eugene

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Shee, James John

    Cremer, William Randal

    Labouchere, Henry

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Crombie, John William

    Langley, Batty

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Cullinan, J.

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Priestley, Arthur

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Reddy, M.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Leese, Sir Joseph F (Accrington

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Duffy, William J.

    Levy, Maurice

    Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th

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

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Lough, Thomas

    Roche, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lundon, W.

    Runciman, Walter

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Schwann, Charles E.

    756

    757

    Seely, Maj J E B (Isle of Wight)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Sheehy, David

    Tomkinson, James

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Slack, John Bamford

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Young, Samuel

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    White, George (Norfolk)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Sullivan, Donal

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Sir Thomas Esmonde and

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Captain Donelan.

    Whereupon Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put,"
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put accordingly, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
    The House divided:—Ayes, 190; Noes, 146. (Division List No. 107.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'cr

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

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lowe, Francis William

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

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

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hon Sir H.

    Fitzgerald, Sir Robert Penrose

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Forster, Henry William

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Balfour, Kenneth, R. (Christch.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

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

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesh

    Bentick, Lord Henry C.

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Milvain, Thomas

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bigwood, James

    Green,Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Bill, Charles

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Moore, William

    Bingham, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Bond, Edward

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Brassey, Albert

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. N.W.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cavenaish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Parker, Sir Gilbert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Percy, Earl

    Chapman, Edward

    Howard, John (Kent, Favers'm

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Jeffreys, Rt Hn. Arthur Fred.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

    Purvis, Robert

    Coltson, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Kerr, John

    Randles, John S.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Keswick, William

    Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Renwick George

    Denny, Colonel

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Dickson, Charles Scott.

    Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Doughty, Sir George

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

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Fardell, Sir T. George

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Tollemache, Henry James

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

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Tuff, Charles

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Turnour, Viscount

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

    Smith, Rt Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Spear, John Ward

    Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

    Younger, William

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Thorburn, Sir Walter

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    NOES.

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

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.

    O'Mara, James

    Asher Alexander

    Harcourt, Lewis

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Reddy, M.

    Bell, Richard

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Boland, John

    Johnson, John

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Roche, John

    Burt, Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Rose, Charles Day

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

    Runciman, Walter

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kitson, Sir James

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Labouchere, Henry

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Lamont, Norman

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Langley, Batty

    Sheehy, David

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfred (Cornwall)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Slack, John Bamford

    Crean, Eugene

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

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

    Cremer, William Randal

    Levy, Maurice

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Crombie, John William

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sullivan, Donal

    Cullinan, J.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Delany, William

    Lough, Thomas

    Tennant, Harold John

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lundon, W.

    Thomas, Sir A.(Glamorgan, E.)

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Tomkinson, James

    Doogan, P. C.

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Duffy, William J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

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

    M'Kean, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Emmott, Alfred

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Mooney, John J.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Murphy, John

    Wills, A. Walters (N. Dorset)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

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

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Norman, Henry

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Young, Samuel

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

    M'Crae and Major Seely.

    Goddard, Danie Ford

    O'Dowd, John

    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
    Clause 1 agreed to.
    Clause 2:—
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEmoved to leave out Sub-section I, which enacted that the "Army Act shall be and remain in force." Nobody knew, he said, what the Army Act was, especially those who were specially affected by it. They had that day passed a Resolution finding the money for the Regular Forces of this country, some 227,000 in number, and he did not think it was too much to say that there were not less than 226,000 out of that number who had not the vaguest notion of what the Army Act under which they were to be governed for the next twelve months was. Anybody who was acquainted with the Army knew perfectly well that no steps were taken by the military authorities to make the provisions of the Act known to the men who were controlled by it. The Army Act contained 200 sections, and consisted of 200 or 300 pages, and it was most difficult for an expert lawyer to find his way through it. How very much more difficult it would bo for the private soldier to do so. No copies of the Act were to be found in any of the barracks so as to be available for the use of the non - commissioned officer or the private soldier. He thought that in every sergeants' mess and in every regimental canteen there should be a copy which should be available for the use of the units who formed the Regular Army. Very few of the men had even the vaguest notion of the penalties to which they rendered themselves liable by taking the King's shilling. There were no less than five parts of this Act, and however much they disapproved of its provisions, they could not, under the present system of presenting an Army (Annual) Bill consisting of two or three clauses, amend the measure. He took one particular thing which they were all interested
    762
    in. Under the Army Act no man could be enlisted for more than twelve years. That might be a good or it might be a bad provision, but it ought to be possible to bring that fact home to the knowledge of the private soldier and to the officers. They were, however, absolutely powerless to move in this particular. There was another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee, and he was told it was a good legal point, although he was not competent to solve it. Under Section 176 the Army Act was applied to men serving in a force which had been raised outside the limits of the United Kingdom or in India and serving under Regular officers. Did the Act apply to a unit serving outside of India and the United Kingdom if it happened to be commanded by Militia officers? There were many forces, especially in Somaliland, which were commanded by Militia officers. Were those forces covered by the Army Act? Another question which involved a nice point of management but not of law was that this Act was applied to Volunteers when collected together of there happened to be two or three Regular soldiers in camp, but it did not apply to Volunteers gathered together in large numbers and under a certain amount of military control if there did not happen to be one or two Regular soldiers in camp. This raised a question of policy which they were not able to discuss, but he would ask whether, if the Act did not apply to Volunteers when so engaged, it ought not to be made to apply in future.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 2, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Charles Hobhouse.)
    Question:proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out to the second word 'the,' in page 2, line 26, stand part of the clause."
    *The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)said the hon. Member was under a misapprehension in saying that the Army Act was inaccessible to soldiers and was not available for their use. It was printed in the Manual of Military Law, and it was distributed to all persons concerned.

    763
    The Act had been proposed for many years in the same form, and there was no in ention of making any change either in its form or substance.
    MR. CHURCHILLinquired if the Act did not largely consist of a number of charges formulated in legal and military language, to deal with officers who were guilty of military crimes. He presumed that he was right in assuming that these charges had not in any way been altered from the particular charges which had been before them on every previous year. Therefore he asked the Secretary of State for War this Question: Why was it when they were going through the form of elaborately passing this code in regard to a great number of charges under which Courts-martial could be held, so many officers were dismissed from the Army, not by a regular trial but by a purely arbitrary process of dismissal, which was carried out by the War Office itself. He submitted that it was unnecessarily taking up the time of the Committee for them to be asked to go through the form of passing this elaborate code under this Act, unless when officers were said to have committed offences which were chargeable under the forms of this Act they should be given the opportunity of a trial by Court-martial. He observed that there was one charge set forth in the Act which would cover a very celebrated case which occurred two years ago. The words dealt with any officer guilty of wilfully neglecting his duty and were formally set out in the Act, and yet an officer of the 2nd Life Guards, who was accused of not having taken steps to put down disorder in his regiment, was not brought to trial under this Act but was dismissed by the War Office, without being heard in his own defence, and without having an opportunity of calling witnesses in his own defence. He admitted that the military authorities must have a discretionary power of selection, and if an officer was unsuitable should be able to dismiss him from the Army on the ground that it was not for the advantage of the public service that he should be retained He did not challenge that great power, but it should be very sparingly used, and whenever it was possible to bring an officer to trial by
    764
    Court-martial, he should be so brought to trial, and whenever the accusation came within the 200 charges of this Army Act the officer should be so brought to trial. South African cases had occurred where officers had been dismissed from the Army, not because they were not qualified but because they had committed some offence in regard to which some charge could be made under this Act, but the War Office, instead of going through the form of Court-martial, chose to exercise its arbitrary power. He was one of those who thought that Courts-martial should be much more frequent in the higher portions of the Army than they now were. It would be much better to have a trial instead of hustling officers out without inquiry in cases in which they were clearly amenable to law. One of the cases referred to an officer in South Africa who raised the white flag—a very disgraceful thing to do, as he was sure the hon. Member for Peckham would agree, as he was the only member of the protectionist party who did not raise the white flag the other night when there was a division on.
    SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I wish to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether it is in order to discuss the case of an officer which occurred some time ago under the Army Annual Act.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: A case of that kind would be rather remote, but of course the hon. Gentleman can discuss the original Act.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid his desire was to call attention to the growth of the impropriety of dismissing officers without trial when they could be tried in the Army by being court-martialled. He feared that very often men were dismissed through pure personal spite. There was the case against an officer who, if the charge against him was true, committed a disgraceful offence, for which he could have been shot if he had been tried. But nothing of the sort happened. The War Office did not like trying officers by Courts-martial, they would much rather smuggle them out of the Army and not have a scandal. It was this practice

    765
    which resulted in half of the injustices which existed in the Army. In the Navy, however, officers were frequently tried by Court-martial for dereliction of duty, and he put forward the plea that a similar course should be followed in the Army for the protection of officers. He heard a case the other day, which occurred in South Africa, of a lieutenant-colonel who was accused of having used some insolent language to the officer commanding his district. The language of the Army Act would have covered that, and the War Office could have charged that officer in such a way as would have allowed him to bring evidence forward in his own defence. But what did the War Office do? They did not avail themselves of this Act, they found it much more convenient to tell the wretched officer that he was placed on half pay. He wrote immediately and asked for the protection to which he was entitled, but was told that no further communication would be entertained. He wrote to the King, but that was a mere formality—it would not be respectful to say a mere farce—and the answer was held by the same officials who dealt with the case before, that they had carefully investigated the case and saw no occasion to reopen it. He took advantage of this case to impress upon the Secretary of State for War that while they did not wish to challenge his power of selection or his discretionary power to deal with officers who commanded the War Office units, still he respectfully submitted that no officer should be dismissed from the Army without a trial by Court-martial when he was accused of any action which could be brought fairly and squarely under any charge laid down in this Act. Unless they got some definite evidence that the War Office was returning to the practice which was formerly much more used than it was now, and that the clauses of the Army Act would be actually operative clauses and would give protection to the officers, it was quite certain that they could enjoy no security of tenure and could be dismissed from the Army on trumped up charges which would not be listened to in the case of private soldiers. So long as this policy was continued officers were under a grave disadvantage, and the Members of the
    766
    House had every reason to complain that they were obliged to go through the elaborate form of passing all these charges in the Army Act when no use was made of them and they did not afford individuals the protection which they desired.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid his hon. friend had raised a point of the greatest importance, which he hoped the Secretary of State would reply to. In considering the Army Act, obviously the first question they had to consider was to whom it applied. Under Section 176 it was said that some of the persons to whom the Act applied were non-commissioned officers and men serving in a force raised by order of His Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kingdom or in India, and serving under the command of an officer of the Regular Forces. But supposing that these men were serving under the command of a Militia officer, as had been very frequently the case on the West Coast of Africa, in such an event they would not come under the Army Act, and the point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Secretary of State was whether the men were a penny the worse off for not earning under this Act. If it was not necessary to bring a portion of our military forces under the Army Act, why was it necessary to bring another portion under it? Unless there was some explanation of why the distinction was drawn he could not see why the Army Act should apply to one portion of the Army and not to the other.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he understood that there were Militia officers on the West Coast of Africa in charge of Colonial forces, and he should like to know whether they would come under this section. He also wished to make a point upon the Amendment in reference to the importance of giving a man some opportunity of obtaining information as to the Army Act. It was very long and complicated, and it was a matter of great importance to Parliament itself to see that soldiers could procure a copy of the book on Army regulations. This might cost 2s. 6d. or 3s., and they could not expect the ordinary soldier

    767
    to afford that expenditure. If, however, they had books like this placed where they could have easy access to them there would be no difficulty at all. They were very important to officers, but they were matters of life and death to the ordinary soldier. He thought Ministers ought to be very glad that some portions of the Army Act did not apply to them. To take an offence which was punishable by death—
    "He who misbehaves or causes others to misbehave in the presence of the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice shall, on being found guilty, by Court-martial, suffer death."
    He thought dissolution would be better than that. He did not know how the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would come out, because another offence with the same penalty applied to a man who "leaves his commanding officer to go in search of plunder." Then, again, the Prime Minister would come very badly out of it, because a man who shamefully abandoned his post was also punished with death. He was afraid that, on the whole, Ministers would come out very badly.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The principle of the Act and the Act itself is referred to in this section, and the hon. Member can refer to it, but he is not in order in discussing the Act.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not discussing the Act, but was quoting it as an example to Ministers. He was simply congratulating Ministers on being exempt from the Army Act. The private soldier was liable to these penalties, and the least he thought the War Office could do would be to supply copies of this document to the soldiers who were liable to dismissal penalties and death for breaches of regulations of this character. After all, how many people, knew what was in this Act of Parliament? It was a very complicated Act and there were something like 126 pages of it. The common soldier could not make himself master of these things, and he thought that after the Act itself had been supplied there should be a summary furnished—a cheap manual
    768
    which the soldier could get in his barrackroom.
    *MR. MCCRAEsaid he did not quite follow the Secretary of State when he said that the Army Act was accessible to the soldier. He knew that when they went into camp with the Regular Forces it was obligatory for the commanding officer to read the Army Act to the soldiers under his command, but he understood that it was the practice in all garrisons that they should have only one copy of the Army Act, and that was placed in the orderly room, which was not accessible to the soldier. He would like the Secretary of State for War to say in his reply how this matter stood and whether some other means should not be taken to spread a knowledge of the provisions of the Act. The penalties were very serious and the Act might be made available in the canteen or in any other room which soldiers frequented. He wished to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that the Act should be in a place accessible to the soldier who had to be tried under it so that he might know the offences with which he might be charged and the penalties for those offences.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that hon. Members who had made themselves acquainted with the provisions of the Act world have observed that the status of the Militia in regard to the Regular Forces was most carefully defined. It was laid down under what circumstances the Militia came under the provisions of this Act. Under certain circumstances when they were engaged with Regular troops they were under the Army Act, but when they were otherwise engaged they were not. In the case of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, in order that the Militia should act under the Army Act. those places had to be regarded as colonies. The Isle of Wight was not specifically mentioned in the same category, but he intended to propose that it should be so included. He only mentioned these details in order to point out that in so far as the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman applied to the Militia the Committee were really absolutely in the dark. They had again and again asked for certain

    769
    details but none had been given. Their natural course therefore was to use every possible Motion to endeavour to extract that information which they had been denied. They somewhat resented having to pass Estimates in regard to which they could not get any information.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask if this is in any way relevant?
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is travelling quite outside the limits of the question. The words of the section refer to the question of the time during which the Army Act shall be in force. The hon. Member is going quite outside that question.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that he rose to point out that the Militia under this Army Act would be affected in a peculiar manner by any alteration in their status. If he was not in order in so doing he would defer his remarks till a later stage. It was, however, of importance to learn exactly what the proposals of the Government were in regard to the Militia.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought that the Committee had a right to discuss this matter further. The Chairman had stated that the Acts of Parliament which were made by means of reference in this Act were outside of the discussion. He thought that that was a new ruling because of the previous statutes passed into law by this Bill, and if they were made law by it he thought they had a right to discuss them. Any Act which was to be enforced by the passing of this Bill, he thought, was a subject which might fairly be discussed under the clause which enacted it. He appealed to the Secretary of State for War to have the same sympathy with regard to Courts-martial that he had before he was in office. He remembered several speeches of the right hon. Gentleman in which he urged that the Army should act in the same way as the Navy and hold Courts-martial instead of carrying out the arbitrary decisions of the War Office without trying the officers. He was sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman shake his head because he supposed they would
    770
    in consequence get an unsatisfactory answer. He supported the proposals that the provisions of this Act should be made more easily accessible to the soldier than they were now. The Manual of Military Law cost 5s. 6d., and there were in consequence of its price very few soldiers who possessed it. That work was only kept in the orderly room but it should, he urged, be kept within reach of the non-commissioned officers and men.
    MR. CHURCHILLrose to ask the Secretary of State for War to reply to the Question which he had seriously asked. He wished to draw attention to the peculiar and novel form of Clause 2 of the Bill. It was entirely different to the form which used to prevail in other years. The Bill was made up of three clauses, and this Clause 2 was so arranged as to carry within its scope clauses which were contained in the Army Act. That was done, he supposed, for the purpose of passing the Bill through the House. It said that the Army Act "shall be and remain in force during the period hereinafter mentioned." Therefore he thought it necessary to remind the Committee as to what the Army Act did specifically enact. He found that on March 4th, 1903, the late Mr. Hanbury attacked it very gravely, and usefully examined this measure in all its details, and so exhaustive and careful was the examination of the measure that there were twenty-four divisions demanded by that right hon. Gentleman. He was indeed made right hon. Gentleman in consequence of his prowess. He found that on that occasion hon. Members were empowered to discuss all the clauses in the Army Act which dealt with minor punishments. He thought that a great many too many soldiers were sent to prison under this Act, and that it would be better if they were sent not to short terms of imprisonment but to long terms of confinement to barracks. Twenty-four thousand soldiers suffered imprisonment under this Act last year, and that was a vary serious state of things. It was important that a matter of that kind should not be brought on at that late hour. Under the provisions they were assenting to, the whole land forces of the Crown would be governed, ruled, and punished for the next twelve months. If there were 24,000 soldiers who had been

    771
    punished, did it not show either that the demand for a character upon a man entering the Army had not been insisted upon, or that the system was petty, capricious, and vexatious? In other words, did it not show that the system of administering justice in the Army was unsympathetic, and was much more capricious and severe than was necessary? He was asking the right hon. Gentleman a Question, and he thought it would be better for him to pay attention to the debate. [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members who said "Order, Order" were unacquainted with the rules of the House. He was quite in order in asking that the right hon. Gentleman should give attention to the debate.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am paying ample attention to the debate, but I am not compelled to gaze upon the hon. Member all the time.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Oh, I do not mind that as long as I am not called upon to reciprocate. What he wanted to know was whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that under this Act no fewer than 24,000 men were convicted and sent to prison each year. Did not the right hon. Gentleman think that the number of these men could be reduced, and that he could reduce the disgraceful number of minor punishments in the Army, and substitute for them punishments which, although detested by the soldiers, involved no permanent reproach. When the Leader of the Opposition was in the position which the right hon. Gentleman held, he did not sit there hoping that this clause would be hurried through. He rose again and again, and endeavoured to give information on all the various points raised. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman two Questions; the first had reference to the enormous number of imprisonments in the Army, and the second to the undue use by the War Office of the form of dismissal from the service of officers without trial.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that he was rather bewildered to find that all these points were in order because he
    772
    should have thought they were questions of administration.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: That is a reflection on the Chair.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERrepeated that they were points of administration. He had always agreed that Courts-martial were very good things indeed, but it was a mere question of administrative detail as to how far the discretion which, of course, must be vested in the War Office should be exercised or not. He agreed that officers accused of a crime should be given an opportunity of having a Court-martial, but he thought that in every case it must be a matter of discretion as to how far the powers conferred upon the War Office should be utilised or not utilised. As to the number of men in prison, the hon. Member was under a misapprehension, because he had taken the number of cases of imprisonment and not the number of men imprisoned. It was no doubt a subject of regret that any man in the Army should be in prison at all, but that matter could not be settled by that House. He did not think there was any reason for altering the form of the clause, and no Amendment could be accepted by the Government with that object.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the point which was made was that practically the soldier had no access to the Army Act, but even if he had access to the book which contained it it would be of very little use to him. What he wanted to emphasise, therefore, was whether it would not be possible to have something in the nature of a text book dealing with points in which the soldier was interested. The points as to punishment, etc., might be given, but not the whole of these 190 clauses which the ordinary soldier could not digest or carry in his mind. It was a question of considerable importance and one to which the right hon. Gentleman might well he thought, give attention. Such a small text book could easily be drawn up, and then there would be a chance of each individual soldier really understanding what were the offences for which he could be punished,

    773
    and these 24,000 offences would probably in that case be considerably reduced.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he rose to emphasise the suggestion which had just been made about preparing an abstract of the provisions of this Act which should not merely be available for the use of soldiers after they had enlisted, but in order that those who desired to enlist might become acquainted with the conditions of service before they did enlist. It would be easy to follow the example set by the Factory Acts and the Mines Regulation Acts. Those were very elaborate documents, but an abstract of them was made, and it was compulsory upon an employer to have that abstract exhibited in a conspicuous position, where it could be seen and read, not merely by persons employed but by persons applying for employment. He rose for the purpose of asking whether the right hon. Gentleman would not agree to the introduction of a short Amendment, so that the provisions of the law should be made known to every soldier and to those about to become soldiers. This much he knew, that if applicants for enlistment were aware of the conditions under which they were to join, the nature of the offences and the punishments, the enlistments would be much fewer than at present. He did not think the Committee should sanction a system of enlistment under false pretences, and men should clearly understand that by becoming soldiers they were giving up their rights of citizenship. The object of the Act they were now passing was to take these men from the purview of the ordinary law and place them under a law of which they knew nothing. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the Army and of honesty, would agree to some form of words being inserted which would make it obligatory upon recruiting officers and others to summarise briefly what the duties of recruits were to be, what continued offences, and what were the punishments which attached to those offences. If this were done he felt sure that a better class of man would be obtained and the standing and morale of the Army would be increased.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that when a soldier enlisted he surrendered a large portion of his liberty and for a large number of offences, instead of being tried by the civil law, he was tried by the military law. The punishments, moreover, were far more severe, and many things which were perfectly justifiable on the part of a private citizen were made unjustifiable by military law from the fact that the soldier had been deprived of the ordinary rights of civilians. It was true he acquired a right to be tried by Court-martial for offences which were not applicable to anybody but a soldier, but that right was often taken away. The whole thing was thoroughly and absolutely unjust. No doubt the head of every department had the power to turn out an employee who was inefficient, but he could not punish him. The Secretary of State for War said he must retain his power to turn out people who were inefficient. Let him retain that power, but let him not extend it to cases where the law had laid down what steps were to be taken if a soldier was suspected of an offence and the punishment he was to be subjected to. In those cases Parliament had laid it down that the War Office should not cashier an officer and turn him out of the Army because they were afraid to bring him before a Court-martial, and thus deprive him of the benefits and guarantees given by the Act.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that Section 176 laid it down that non - commissioned officers and men serving in a force raised by order of His Majesty beyond the limits of the United Kingdom and India, but serving under the command of an officer of the Army, should be subject to military law. There were a great number of units in the Protectorates and Colonies which had been raised outside the United Kingdom and India, and they were principally commanded on active service by officers of the Militia force. Were those men when commanded by an officer of the Militia force, if they did an illegal act, under military law? It was provided that nothing in this Act should affect the law as regarded a colony, but there was a difference between a colony and a protectorate. The Act said that soldiers

    775
    were subject to a certain law in a colony. Were they subject to the same law in a protectorate? They were entitled to have an interpretation of the Act from the War Office.
    MR. DISRAELIinquired as a point of order whether hon. Members could raise every point and every section of the Army Act upon the clause before the House. Could they discuss the time it had been in force and where it had to be enforced?
    MR. LLOYD- GEORGE,upon the point of order, said that it was a very important one. The clause was practically a reenactment of the Army Act and said—
    "The Army Act shall be and remain in force during the period hereinafter mentioned."
    If these words were not passed the Army Act would not be in operation at all. Therefore he submitted that they were entitled to discuss the Act which would be in existence during this period. He contended it would be quite competent for them to move as an Amendment "except Section 130," and so on.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the preamble of this Act recited that the raising or keeping of a standing Army within the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in time of peace was against the law. Surely an Act which governed the Army and was renewed from year to year was capable of discussion in the House.
    MR. CHURCHILLwished to point out that the provisions of the Army Act which was re-enacted by this clause were very numerous. In the year 1893 a most distinguished man—Mr. Jeffreys—dealt with this Act during the discussion of this Bill.
    THE DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I said before that it is not in order to go into the particulars of the Act, nor can the Act be discussed clause by clause, but it is in order to refer to the Act. It is mentioned in this clause and it is in order to refer to it, but I have already expressed my opinion that hon. Members should not go into too great detail.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUELwished to know whether it was in order to move Amendments to the original Act on this Bill.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid the appending of the Army Act made the matter quite clear, and his hon. friend the Member for Oldham had shown that much detail was gone into in a previous year. There were not any alterations made in the Army Act as it stood in 1901 by the Army (Annual) Acts of 1902, and 1903, but in previous years alterations were made, and if alterations were made in the Army Act by the Army (Annual) Act it must be apparent that these alterations were alterations in detail and must have been made through the discussion of the Act as they were discussing it now.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid he understood the Chairman's ruling and should strictly adhere to it.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he wished to resume the observations he was making when the hon. Member raised a point of order in which he was clearly wrong.
    MR. DISRAELIagain rose to call attention to a point of order but——
    THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANsaid the point of order had been sufficiently raised. He would watch the debate and would call the hon. Member to order if he transgressed.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEagain asked if the sub-section would be applicable to troops serving in protectorates.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreplied that, where a Regular officer was in command, the Act was applicable, where the commanding officer was not a Regular the local Ordinance was applicable, and he was under the law as it existed in the colony.
    MR. J. A. PEASEinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would answer the reasonable Question which had been put to him. Was it reasonable to suppose that

    777
    the ordinary soldier would become acquainted with the 190 clauses of the Army Act which to him were nothing less than legal jargon. Its contents should be put into a small leaflet or book and the soldier should know the character of the sentences to which he was subject.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the Act was circulated in a form in which it was easily accessible to the private soldier. It was in every orderly room, and no complaint had ever been received as to the way in which it was circulated. The War Office could not undertake to adopt the suggestion that they should circulate an abstract, because the terms upon which a soldier entered the Army were perfectly clear. The Army Act was perfectly accessible, and he believed soldiers were acquainted with the general conditions under which they served.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERthought it was a monstrous statement to say that a book in the orderly room was within the reach of every soldier. The soldier could not go into the orderly room.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: He can go into the library.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERinsisted that in spite of what had been said the book was inaccessible to the private soldier.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he had sat on Courts-martial many times, and it would
    surprise him if many soldiers had ever heard of this Act. He wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an extraordinary fact which he made bold to say the right hon. Gentleman never knew of before. If a soldier got into a four-wheeled cab in which there were already four persons, did the right hon. Gentleman know what the penalty was? If this were done by an ordinary man the penalty he would suffer would be of the smallest, and, in the absence of any provision, 6d. would be sufficient. If an officer did it he would be cashiered because he overcrowded a cab, while a private soldier would suffer imprisonment. The penalties were savage. They all knew what imprisonment meant in the case of a soldier, and sentences of 100 days imprisonment were by no means uncommon, and to inflict such a penalty in the case of a soldier, and to cashier and ruin an officer because he got into a cab with four other persons when the cabman said, "I don't wish to take you," was obviously quite unjust. If this provision were brought to the notice of soldiers and officers he was sure they would object.
    MR. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes. 158; Noes, 123. (Division List No. 108.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Bingham, Lord

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Denny, Colonel

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Bond, Edward

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

    Brassey, Albert

    Doughty, Sir George

    Arrol, Sir William

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Butcher, John George

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt Hn. Sir H.

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

    Egerton, Hon. A de Tatton

    Bailey James (Walworth)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

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

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cochrane, Hon, Thos. H. A. E

    Fison, Frederick William

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Forster, Henry William

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

    Bigwood, James

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bill, Charles

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Gordon, Hn J E (Elgin & Nairn

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'rH'mlet

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Gretton, John

    Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Groves, James Grimble

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Milvain, Thomas

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Lnd'nderry

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Spear, John Ward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Moore, William

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hoult, Joseph

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Tuff, Charles

    Hunt, Rowland

    Mount, William Arthur

    Turnour, Viscount

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

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Kerr, John

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Keswick, William

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Percy, Earl

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Purvis, Robert

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Long, Col Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Randles, John S.

    Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Renwick, George

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Viscount Valentia.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

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

    M'Crae, George

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Allen, Charles P.

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Mooney, John J.

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Gilhooly, James

    Murphy, John

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Black, Alexander William

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Boland, John

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Norman, Henry

    Brigg, John

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Caldwell, James

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

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Johnson, John

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

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

    O'Dowd, John

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Jones, Lief (Appleby)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Malley, William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Mara, James

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    O'Shee, James John

    Crean, Eugene

    Klibride, Denis

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Cremer, William Randal

    Labouchere, Henry

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lamont, Norman

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Delany, William

    Langley, Batty

    Reddy, M.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Levy, Maurice

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, John

    Elibank, Master of

    Lloyd-George, David

    Rose, Charles Day

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

    Lough, Thomas

    Runciman, Walter

    Emmott, Alfred

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Fenwick, Charles

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    780

    781

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

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

    Slack, John Bamford

    Warner, Thomas Courtney T.

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Sullivan, Donal

    White, George (Norfolk)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Major Seely and Mr. Treve-

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    lyan.

    Tomkinson, James

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 120. (Division List No. 109.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fison, Frederick William

    Morpeth,Viscount

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Arrol, Sir William

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

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

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Percy, Earl

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

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Purvis, Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry

    Randles, John S.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bigwood, James

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renwick, George

    Bill, Charles

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

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Bingham, Lord

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Bond, Edward

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Brassey, Albert

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Butcher, John George

    Kerr, John

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

    Keswick, William

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, A. B. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker (Lanarks

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Spear, John Ward

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

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

    Tuff, Charles

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tumour, Viscount

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Denny, Colonel

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Doughty, Sir George

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E (Wigtn

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

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

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

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

    Moore, William

    Alexander Acland - Hood

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    and Viscount Valentia.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Allen, Charles P.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Higham, John Sharp

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Johnson, John

    Reddy, M.

    Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

    Jones, David B. (Swansea)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Black, Alexander William

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Boland, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Brigg, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.)

    Roche, John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rose, Charles Day

    Caldwell, James

    Labouchere, Henry

    Runciman, Walter

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lamont, Norman

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Levy, Maurice

    Sheehy, David.

    Crean, Eugene

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lough, Thomas

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, W.

    Slack, John Bamford

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sullivan, Donal

    Donelan, Captain A.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Crae, George

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Master of

    Mooney, John J.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

    Murphy, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Norman, Henry

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wills, Arthur W (N. Dorset)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

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

    Fuller, J. M. F.

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Dowd, John

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Malley, William

    Charles Hobhouse and Mr.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Mara, James

    Lyell.

    second word 'the,' in page 2, line 26, stand part of the Clause."
    Whereupon Mr. SECRETARY ARNOLD-FORSTER moved, "That the Question 'That the Clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON rose to move to report progress and gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had moved something, but did not catch what it was.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER.I think I was perfectly in order in moving, and I have moved.
    MR. MCKENNA: The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly
    inaudible. We desire before the Question is put to know what the Motion was.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANexplained that the Question had been put from the chair.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Do I understand that you accept the Motion, Sir.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have put the Question.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 114. (Division List No.110.)

    AYES.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Arrol, Sir William

    Balcarres, Lord

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

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

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Percy, Earl

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bigwood, James

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bill, Charles

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Purvis, Robert

    Bingham, Lord

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'donderry)

    Randles, John S.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bond, Edward

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

    Renwick, George

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middles'x

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Brassey, Albert

    Hoult, Joseph

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Butcher, John George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

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

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

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Kerr, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Keswick, William

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

    Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker (Lanarks

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

    Spear, John Ward

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

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

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Davenport, W. Bromley

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Denny, Colonel

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Tuff, Charles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Turnour, Viscount

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Doughty, Sir George

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

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

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

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

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Milvain, Thomas

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

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

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wilson John (Glasgow)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Moore, William

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Fison, Frederick William

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morrell, George Herbert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Alexander Acland - Hood

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Cullinan, J.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Delany, William

    Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Higham, John Sharp

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

    Balck, Alexander William

    Duffy, William J.

    Johnson, John

    Boland, John

    Ellice,Capt E C (S.Andr'ws Bghs

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Brigg, John

    Emmott, Alfred

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Eamonde, Sir Thomas

    Joyce, Michael

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Caldwell, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    Lamont, Norman

    Cawley, Frederick

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

    Langley, Batty

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Gilhooly, James

    Levy, Maurice

    Crean, Eugene

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cremer, William Randal

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lloyd-George, David

    786

    787

    Lough, Thomas

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Lundon, W.

    O'Malley, William

    Slack, John Bamford

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    O'Mara, James

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    O'Shee, James John

    Sullivan, Donal

    M'Crae, George

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    M'Kenna, Reginald,

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Tomkinson, James

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Mooney, John J.

    Reddy, M.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Murphy, John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Norman, Henry

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Roche, John

    Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)

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

    Rose, Charles Day

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Runciman, Walter

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

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

    Sheehy, David

    J. H. Whitley and Mr.

    O'Dowd, John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Lyell.

    Question put accordingly "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 117. (Division List No.111)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Atkwright, John Stanhope

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O.

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

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fison, Frederick William

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Milvain, Thomas

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

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Gardner, Ernest

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Moore, William

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

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

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Bigwood, James

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Bill, Charles

    Green,Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Bingham, Lord

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gretton, John

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bond, Edward

    Groves, James Grimble

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Brassey, Albert

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

    Percy, Earl

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Butcher, John George

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire

    Hoult, Joseph

    Purvis, Robert

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham)

    Randles, John S.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Renwick, George

    Coates, Edward Feetham

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

    Ridley, S. Forde

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

    Kerr, John

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Keswick, William

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Denny, Colonel

    Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N. R

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Legge, Col Hon. Heneage

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Doughty, Sir George

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

    Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers-

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

    Spear, John Ward

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Loyd, Archie Kirkman

    Stanley, Rt Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Strutt, Hn. Charles Hedley

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Tuff, Charles

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Turnour,Viscount

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    and Viscount Valentia.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

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

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Black, Alexander William

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

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Boland, John

    Johnson, John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Reddy, M.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Joyce, Michael

    Richards, Thomas (W Monm'th)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Labouchere, Henry

    Roche, John

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Charles Day

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Langley, Batty

    Runciman, Walter

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

    Crean, Eugene

    Levy, Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Delany, William

    Lough, Thomas

    Slack, John Bamford

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lundon, W.

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Suliivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tomkinson, James

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Crae, George

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

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

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Murphy, John

    Wason, John Oathcart (Orkney)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E)

    Norman, Henry

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Flynn, James Christopher

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

    Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

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

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Dowd, John

    Emmott and Mr. Barran.

    Clause 3:—
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that he desired to move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again. It was now a quarter to three and they had been sitting there and dealing with the Bill for about two hours and a-half. They had made very substantial progress, but there still remained a clause and a schedule of very considerable importance to be dealt with. They raised a question in which a large number of Members were interested, and they also raised many other matters in respect of this Bill and the Army Act. He thought the
    790
    Committee ought to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon them. He did not think the Prime Minister had been there during the course of the earlier discussions, but he did not think anyone would deny that the discussions which they had had were of a practical character. ["Oh."] He did not know whether hon. Members who said "Oh" were present during the discussion. The Secretary of State made no statement to the effect that their discussion was not practical, and he answered their Questions more or less. After all, the Committee ought to remember that this was an important Bill which affected the

    791
    whole of our Regular Army, and to a large extent, the Militia and the Volunteers, and they ought to have opportunities to discuss it. They knew that the Government wanted to get rid the Militia and the Volunteers. [Cries of of "Withdraw."] What was there to withdraw?
    MR. SKEWES-COX: The allegation that the Government wish to get rid of the Militia and the Volunteers. That is a most inaccurate allegation.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would that amend it to this extent that he would say that the Secretary of State for War wished to abolish the Militia and the Volunteers. ["No."] Well, the right hon. Gentleman had said so. He wished to get rid of the whole of the Militia and largely of the Volunteers. But that was beside the mark. His point was that this was an important Bill and the Opposition had not taken the advantage which they might have taken of discussing it at length. It was discussed a few years ago when the Liberals were in office, and the Government of the day, seeing that there was a desire to discuss it, gave the opposition an opportunity of doing so. What they objected to was that the Government had not given them proper opportunities of discussing it, and he did think it would be desirable if progress were reported. He would appeal to the Prime Minister that for the sake of the Secretary for War himself the Motion should be acceded to. That right hon. Gentleman had taken part in many heavy discussions during the week and had been in the House all that day. There had, moreover, been prolonged sittings during the week.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E)congratulated the hon. Member on being in such a fine vein of humour at such an hour in the morning. The hon. Gentleman argued that, because he
    792
    and his friends had sat up to please themselves on four nights in the week, they now required special relaxation to recover from their self-imposed labours. That was hardly an argument that appealed to the Government. It was said that the last Liberal Government gave greater opportunities for discussion of this Bill. They did. The opportunity lasted from midnight until eight o'clock in the morning. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] precisely, then why should hon. Members wish to adjourn now? It was the most singular reason that was ever given by an hon. Gentleman sitting on that bench for adjourning a debate when they had reached three o'clock, that when he and his friends were in office the discussion lasted till eight o'clock in the morning.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the Government which then sat on that bench did not closure as this Government had done.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that was because it wished for martial law.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it was not desirable to discuss closure, but whether closure was put on or not the late Government resisted, on the other occasion, Motions for adjournment and they thought that they gave a fitting opportunity to discuss this Bill. Why should he, after that, say that they should not discuss this Bill.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Because we are not prepared to discuss the Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid its importance nobody denied, and if it was not passed the whole constitution of the Army would ipso facto fall to pieces. [An HON. MEMBER: It would be as bad as the Government.] But there was no use in prolonging discussions over clauses which were precisely identical down to the very comma with the Bill which the House passed last year. There was nothing new in the Bill before the Committee; it was a constitutional necessity, and he hoped the House would continue to discuss it with a view of passing it into law.
    *MR. MCCRAEtrusted that the Prime Minister would accede to the request of his hon. friend, and said that one reason why the Bill should be postponed was that as it stood it made a very invidious distinction as regarded the Volunteers. Was the Secretary of State for War aware that the Army Act only applied to those Volunteers who were brigaded along with the Regular Army. It had been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman to bring up the status of the Volunteers as far as possible to that of the Army.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the Bill on the Motion to report Progress.
    *MR. MCCRAEsaid he was not going to discuss the Bill. He was only suggesting a reason to the Prime Minister why he should accept this Motion to report Progress, because there were questions of great importance which it would not be fair to discuss at three o'clock in the morning. He put it to the Prime Minister, on behalf of those who had not had the opportunity of having two nights off in the week, if he had any human sympathy left, to agree to the Motion.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid that if the Prime Minister had been present and not absent, and had heard the debate, he did not think he would have told them that this was an Act which they ought to pass year after year without reasonable consideration. At all events, he was convinced that our soldiers in the Army and the people in the country would not consider that the Government and the right hon. Gentleman opposite were rightly safeguarding the interests of our soldiers by thrusting an important measure like this through the House in the early hours of the morning without any discussion whatever. He appealed to the Prime Minister to give them reasonable and proper facilities for the consideration of the measure. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not use his Parliamentary majority in this flagrantly unfair fashion against the interests of the Army.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was sorry the Prime Minister could not see
    794
    his way to accede to the reasonable request which had been put forward. There was no programme of legislation before the House, and the Government could not therefore use the excuse that they were hard pressed to get important Bills through. If they had that excuse he could understand their discussing this Bill till an early hour in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman had been simply dawdling all these weeks and then the Committee was compelled to sit into the early hours of the morning to pass a Bill of this sort. The Prime Minister said it was irrelevant whether this Bill was closured or not in 1893, but it was not irrevelant for this reason: the Prime Minister himself said there was a difference between discussing a Bill before twelve o'clock and discussing it after twelve.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to discuss the question of closure.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it seemed to be perfectly in order for the Prime Minister to make an observation but it seemed to be out of order for him to reply to it.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: On the point of order, said he had always understood as to the closure that they were not allowed to discuss the particular merits of a particular question of closure, but they were allowed to discuss as to whether the closure was under certain circumstances carried fairly or otherwise. That distinction had been taken over and over again and he could show the Chairman half-a-dozen instances.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The action of the Chair in the application of the closure cannot be discussed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was not discussing the conduct of the Chair. He was discussing a remark made by the Prime Minister, and he was sure the Chairman would not have one rule for the Prime Minister and another for a private Member.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think the hon. Member should make that remark. An observation about the closure

    795
    was made across the floor of the House and I simply answered it. I did not start it.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he did not know who started it, but he thought the circumstances of the hour were sufficient to justify the Motion to report Progress. In the interest of the Prime Minister himself he thought they ought to have an adjournment. From the very close attention he had given to the business of the House that day, he thought I that they, ought to report Progress in his interest. Besides that, there were the poor Whips, who were short-handed at that moment. Then there was the very popular chief Whip of the Party opposite; in his interest he thought they ought to adjourn so as to enable him to get a rest, It was all very well for the Prime Minister to resist Progress, but why did he not have some feeling for this poor sufferer? The chief Whip had been there when the Prime Minister pursued the policy, which he initiated, of running away. He should also think it had been a harassing day for the Prime Minister himself, who ought to give himself the rest which he did not have the night before in consequence of a certain election. He thought also that it was only fair to his supporters that he should adjourn. It must have been a very harassing day also for them, and they showed signs of despondency and despair. He thought they should reconsider their position, but they did not seem to have given themselves any time to do that. For these and other reasons he thought they ought to adjourn the debate. The right hon. Gentleman also seemed to forget that there were people outside the House who took an interest in this matter. He seemed to forget that there was such a place as Brighton, although perhaps the Patronage Secretary had informed him that there had been an interesting discussion going on there, and that the Motion had been carried.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is relevant to the Motion before the House, which is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid it was because he wanted Progress that he was
    796
    reminding the Prime Minister that the country wanted progress. There was a very important question which would have to be discussed under Clause 3. They had not been allowed to discuss Clause 2, which dealt with matters of life and death to soldiers, but on Clause 3 they had to deal with the question of billeting and it also dealt with matters of importance to officers, and the pay of officers. They had also new clauses to bring forward with a view of enabling soldiers to have proper access to this Act of Parliament which even the War Minister, with all his lucidity, could not explain to the Committee. Another important subject was the abolition of corporal punishment in the Army. His hon. friend the Member for South Donegal had three or four hours to discuss the question of flogging in the Navy; why should they not have three or four hours to discuss it in the Army? He thought they ought to have an opportunity of discussing these very important matters at a time when the House of Commons could really discuss them with energy and intelligence, and when they could be reported in the public Press. The Prime Minister did not think the country was taking an interest in the discussion of the House of Commons, but he thought he had been disillusioned within the last twenty-four hours.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINwas quite sure that the Prime Minister was not aware of the fact that up to the present not a single Irish Member had been allowed to address the House. It was undesirable that the Irish Members should be asked to commence the debate at three o'clock in the morning. They had heard several eloquent speakers from Wales, and several Scottish Members had spoken. He thought Ireland was also entitled to have a voice in this, matter because Irish and Scottish soldiers, practically did all the fighting for England. He thought it was unfair of the Prime Minister, who had not had to listen to some of the speeches to which they had had to listen, to go home at three o'clock in the morning and impose upon the Committee the necessity of continuing.

    797
    the debate till eight o'clock. He happened to be a constituent of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Belfast and he understood that when he left the War Office he would also leave the representation of West Belfast. The next, clause which would come before them was a very important one—
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss anything that is coming later on.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he did not propose to discuss the clause, but merely to call attention to the fact that a very important clause was about to be discussed. An hon. friend of his had raised a very important point as to the publication of an abstract of the Army Act, and this next clause was the one upon which it could be raised. In his opinion an abstract of the Act should be supplied to the barracks of Ireland and England.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: It would be quite out of order for the hon. Member to discuss that question.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he only mentioned it because an important suggestion had been made, therefore, speaking purely unofficially and on his own behalf and as the only Member for Ireland who took an interest in this question, he thought the Prime Minister should withdraw his opposition to the Motion that Progress should be reported. He thought
    he could show the Prime Minister where one of the clauses of the Army Act was absolutely illegal.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is speaking to the Motion to report Progress. It is absolutely out of order for him to discuss that matter.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid the Prime Minister was not there when the second clause was passed, and he thought he should point out to him that in the Army Act one of the clauses stated that rates should be struck by the grand jurors in Ireland, whereas as a matter of fact there were no grand jurors in Ireland.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not refer to the clauses of the Army Act. He must confine himself to the reasons for reporting Progress.
    MR. JOSEPH DEVLINsaid he was pointing out how much of the time of the House had been lost already by passing an Act which dealt with grand jurors in Ireland which did not exist.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR MR. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 150; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 112.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Brassey, Albert

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Butcher, John George

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

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

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

    Arnold-Forster,Rt Hn. Hugh O.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Balcarres, Lord

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Fison, Frederick William

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

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

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Forster, Henry William

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Gardner, Ernest

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

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

    Bhownaggree, Sir M.M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'H'mlets

    Bill, Charles

    Denny, Colonel

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Bingham, Lord

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Bond, Edward

    Doughty, Sir George

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Gretton, John

    Groves, James Grimble

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

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Maxwell, WJ. H (Dumfriesshire

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Milvain, Thomas

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hay, Hon. C'laude George

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords N. W

    Moore, William

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Spear, John Ward

    Hoult, Joseph

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hunt, Rowland

    Mount, William Arthur

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Kerr, John

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Tuff, Charles

    Keswick, William

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Turnour, Viscount

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Percy, Earl

    Ward, Colonel C. E.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Purvis, Robert

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Randles, John S.

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

    Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol, S.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Renwick, George

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Viscount Valentia.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Shee, James John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Black, Alexander William

    Johnson, John

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Boland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Reddy, M.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E.(Waterford)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Caldwell, James

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Langley, Batty

    Roche, John

    Cawley, Frederick

    Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

    Runciman, Walter

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Levy, Maurice

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (IsleofWight

    Crean, Eugene

    Lough, Thomas

    Sheehy, David

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lundon, W.

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sullivan, Donal

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Crae, George

    Tomkinson, James

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Ellice, Capt E.C. (S.A'd'w' sBgh)

    Mooney, John J.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Emmott, W Alfred

    Murphy, John

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Nannetti Joseph P.

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Norman, Henry

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

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

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

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

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

    Gilhooly, James

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

    Keir Hardie and Mr Arthur

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herb. John

    O'Dowd, John

    Henderson.

    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."
    The committee divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes,150.(Division List No 113.)

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee, James John

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Black, Alexander William

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

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boland, John

    Johnson, John

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Lief (Appleby)

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e)

    Richards, Thomas (W.Monm'th

    Barke, R Haviland-

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Buxton, Sydney Charles

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cawley, Frederick

    Langley, Batty

    Runciman, Walter

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Levy, Maurice

    Sheehy, David

    Crean, Eugene

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, W.

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Delany, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sullivan, Donal

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tomkinson, James

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Crae, George

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Daffy, William, J.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Ellice, Capt E. C.(S.A'd'w'sBgh)

    Mooney, John J.

    Warner,Thomas Courtenay T.

    Emnott,W Alfred

    Murphy, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Norman, Henry

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

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

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

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Wilson, John(Durham, Mid.)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O' Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Herbert Gladstone and

    Gilhooly, James

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

    William M'Arthur,

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O' Dowd, John

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Butcher, John George

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

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Campell, J.M.H.(Dublin Univ.)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

    Finlay, Sir R.B.(Inv' rn' ssB' ghs

    Arrol, Sir William

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Balcarres, Lord

    Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Colston, Chas, Edw. H. Athole

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

    Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.)

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

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gordon, Maj. Evans-(T'r H' m' s

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Denny, Colonel

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Bill, Charles

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Bingham, Lord

    Disraeli, Conings by Ralph

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Doughty, Sir George

    Groves, James Grimble

    Bond, Edward

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Gretton, John

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middles'x

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Brassey, Albert

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hamilton, Marq.of(L' nd' nd' rry)

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Heath, Sir James (St'ff'ds.N.W)

    Moore, William

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Morgan, David J.(WaIthamst'w

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hoult, Joseph

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Spear, John Ward

    Hunt, Rowland

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur(Ormskirk

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

    Kerr, John

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Keswick, William

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    O' Mara, James

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Tuff, Charles

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Turnour, Viscount

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Percy, Earl

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C.E.(T' nt' n

    Leveson-Gower, Fred'k N. S.

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Purvis, Robert

    Whitley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

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

    Randles, John S.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Willough by de Eresby, Lord

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Renwick, George

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

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Wilson, John (Glasgow.)

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Maxwell, Rt. H Sir H.E.(Wig'n

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Alexander Acland-Hood

    Milvain, Thomas

    Rutherford, John(Lancashire)

    and Viscount Valentia.

    MR. O'MARAwished to explain a personal matter. In the last division he got into the wrong lobby. It occurred in this way——
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has made his explanation and it will appear in the Papers tomorrow in the ordinary way.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE moved an Amendment to provide that payment for the refreshments which innkeepers were bound to supply to soldiers billeted upon them should be paid for by "the officers, non- commissioned officers, or other responsible persons in charge of the detachment." He wished to clear up the question of who was the person who was liable to meet these payments to the innkeeper. If these men refused to provide a meal they were subject to all sorts of pains and penalties. They had to find such quantities of "diet" and small beer as might from time to time be fixed by His Majesty's regulations.
    MR. O'MARAsaid he very much resented the speech which had been made by his colleague the Member for North Kilkenny, who said that no Irish Member other than himself was interested in the Army. Long before the hon. Member had come into that House
    804
    he had proved that nobody took a deeper and keener interest in the Army than he did himself. Night after night after twelve, o'clock he had endeavoured to improve the efficiency of the Army. He did resent that the hon. Member should think that military knowledge was confined to himself. He thought, however, that Kilkenny, with two out of its three Members taking an interest in this subject, was well represented. As he was endeavouring to explain to the Chairman, he unfortunately found himself in the wrong lobby. ["Oh."] He was not going to pursue that subject, as he was most careful to obey the rulings of the Chair, but it occurred while he was reading Clause 106, which had reference to this matter. That clause provided that if by reason of any sudden order to march, or otherwise, the officer or soldier was unable to make such payment to the innkeeper he should cause the account to be made out and sign it. If he were the innkeeper upon whom soldiers were billeted he should write off all the accounts as bad, because he should have no chance of recovering the amounts from the Secretary for War. That was a great hardship on these unfortunate innkeepers throughout the country on whom soldiers were quartered. If the suggestion of hon. Members were followed and everybody read the Army Act he hoped they would not find themselves in the

    805
    same predicament as himself, viz., in the wrong lobby.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not refer to that; he must confine himself to the Amendment.
    MR. O'MARAsaid he would do so, and proceeded to contend that the Amendment was a most proper one. He appealed to the Secretary for War to accept the Amendment, so that the innkeeper should be paid.
    *COLONEL WELBYsaid it was some years since he had been marching with troops, but the sum for the billets was always paid before they left the billets, the officer or non-commissioned officer in charge being responsible they were paid, and certifying to it. He did not think there was any difficulty about the innkeeper being paid even when he engaged other billets, but whether the price paid was sufficient was another matter. He had never heard of a case where there was any difficulty about payment for billets.
    MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he should like to know what the British taxpayer thought of this, and explained that "diet" was an old Scotch phrase, meaning a meal. The Amendment before the Committee was one of very considerable importance and suggested that in addition the clause might be amended by adding that the payment should be at such reasonable prices as might from time to time be fixed
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid the point was perfectly clear; the Act pro vided that an officer whoso force required billets in accordance with the Act should before he departed pay a just demand.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEthough that the answer given by the Secretary for War was a perfectly reasonable one an said he was prepared to withdraw the Amendment. He should not have move these particular words if he had bee aware of the section which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LLOYD- GEORGE MR. LLOYD- GEORGE moved to leave out the words "At prices given in the schedule of this Act," in order to insert "at reasonable prices." In the towns in which soldiers were billeted licensed victuallers were compelled to take them in, and that very often dislocated the whole of their business. They did not object to take the soldiers in, but they objected to the prices of the schedule.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We must reserve the prices until we come to the schedule.
    MR. LLOYD- GEORGEthought he might move to omit the prices in the schedule and to insert in this clause "at reasonable prices." They could not have a schedule which was applicable to the whole of the country, because the prices were different and the accommodation was different. That was the point taken by Mr. Hanbury in the debate in which the Chairman took so conspicuous a part, and supported Mr. Hanbury's contention. He was perfectly in order. In some parts of the country accommodation could be supplied much more cheaply than in others, and if they had a schedule applicable to the whole country it was very unfair. In some watering places where accommodation was exceedingly scarce, soldiers came during the training season, the innkeepers were bound to take them in, and were obliged to refuse ordinary visitors during the season, and obliged to take such sums as lfrac12;d. and 4d. He thought there ought to be some scale of terms which was perfectly elastic. He had opposed licensed victuallers as much as anybody on that side of the House when he considered they were I exacting unfair terms from the public, but he wanted perfect fairness for them. He asked if it was fair to compel the licensed victuallers to accept 1frac12;. and 4d. for the meals of a soldier. This was not the affair of the soldier at all, but it was a question whether the country should pay reasonably for the accommodation which was afforded to their servants.
    Amendment proposed—
    "In page 3, line 11, to leave out the words 'the prices specified in the Schedule to this Act,

    807
    and insert the words 'reasonable prices.' "—(Mr. Lloyd- George).
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MAJOR SEELYthought the Amendment was an exceedingly reasonable proposition, and although it was now somewhat early in the morning he thought that if they had been taking the Bill under ordinary circumstances they certainly would have raised this point. The hon. and gallant Member for Taunton was good enough to explain to them in the course of the few remarks which he made a short time before, that when he went from place to place with the Scots Greys there was not much objection to the punctuality of the payment made, but he could not be certain there was no objection to the price. From what he knew of the billeting of soldiers, he was aware that, although innkeepers had no objection whatever to billeting them as such, they did object very strongly in some places to the prices which were paid. In his opinion the prices paid were not reasonable, and probably the Committee were not aware how much it was that the keeper of a victualling house was asked to do for soldiers. The keeper of a victualling house was to receive officers or soldiers, and was required to furnish such accommodation, lodging, attendance, and food as
    was necessary. There was a specia note stating that the officer should pay for his own food, which was inserted later in the Act. The actual prices paid might, perhaps, be more effectively discussed on the schedule, and, therefore, it was only necessary to say here that they were on an extraordinarily low scale. This scale had not been varied for thirteen years, and it included the lodging, attendance, and food of the soldier. These charges did not apply to private houses, as they did in Germany, because here private houses were specifically excepted, and the consequence was that all soldiers had to be billeted at inns. The point he wished to put before the Committee was that the system of billeting was not at all the same as that pursued in any Continental country, and that, therefore, the charges to be paid which were enumerated in the schedule were really wholly inadequate——
    Mr. Secretary ARNOLD- FOESTEB Mr. Secretary ARNOLD- FOESTEB rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    MAJOR SEELY:You ought to have replied.
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided; Ayes, 146; Noes, 105. (Division List No. 114.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Forster, Henry William

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Gardner, Ernest

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

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

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Arrol, Sir William

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Balcarres, Lord

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

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

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

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

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Denny, Colonel

    Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Gretton, John

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Groves, James Grimble

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Bingham, Lord

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hamilton, Marq.of (L'donderry

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Harris, F Leverton (Tynemouth

    Bond, Edward

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

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

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

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

    Brassey, Albert

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

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield. Brightside

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Hoult, Joseph

    Butcher, John Gaorge

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

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

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

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Hunt, Rowland

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

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Kerr, John

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Keswick, William

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    .Mount, William Arthur

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Spear, John Ward

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Lawson, John G. (Yorks., N. R.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Percy, Earl

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Tuff, Charles

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Turnour, Viscount

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

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Purvis, Robert

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Randles, John S.

    Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Renwick, George

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE. (Wigt'n)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Moore, William

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Viscount Valentia.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Malley, William

    Abraham, William (Rhondda)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Mara, James

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Shee, James John

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Black, Alexander William

    Higham, John Sharp

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boland, John

    Johnson, John

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Redmond, John E (Waterford)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

    Richards, Thos.(W.Monmouth)

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Caldwell, James

    Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Roberts, John H. (Deubighs.)

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, John

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Charles Day

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Langley, Batty

    Runciman, Walter

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

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

    Crean, Eugene

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Sheehy, David

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lloyd-George, David

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Cullinan, J.

    Lundon, W.

    Sinclair, John(Forfarshire)

    Delany, William

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sullivan, Donal

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radelifte)

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Tomkinson, James

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Crae, George

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Ellice, Capt EC (S.Andrw'sB'ghs

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wason, John C (Orkney)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Mooney, John J.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Murphy, John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

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

    Ffrench, Peter

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

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Findlay, Alex (Lanark, N.E.)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Charles Hobhouse and Mr.

    Fuller, J. M. F.

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

    Herbert Samuel.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Dowd, John

    Gladstone, Rt, HI Herb. John

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
    The committee divided; Ayes, 145; Noes, 101.(Division List No.115.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Gardner, Ernest

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin &Nairn

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn Hugh O

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

    Peel, Hn Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Percy, Earl

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

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bartley, Sir Georgo C.T.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Purvis, Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Hamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nderry

    Randles, John S.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bingham, Lord

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renwick, George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Heath, Sir James(Staffords N W

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Bond, Edward

    Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brassey, Albert

    Howard, John (Kent, Favershm

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Butcher, John George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hn Col. W.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Kerr, John

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Keswick, William

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, Hn HL W (Mile End)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks NR

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lewson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

    Tun, Charles

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

    Turnour, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Lonsdale John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Welby, Lt.-Col. ACE (Taunton)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W.F.

    Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir HE (Wigt'n)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

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

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Finlay, Sir R B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

    Moore, William

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Fisher William Hayes

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Fison, Frederick William

    Morpcth, Viscount

    Viscount Valentia.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morrell, George Herbert

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Cautson, Richard Knignt

    Duffy, William J.

    Abraham William (Rhondda)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Elibank, Master of

    Allen, Charles P.

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Ellice, Capt E C (SAndrw'sBghs.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Emmott, Alfred

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Crean, Eugene

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Black, Alexander William

    Cremer, William Randal

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Boland, John

    Cullinan, J.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Brigg, John

    Delany, William

    Ffrench, Peter

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

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

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Doogan, P. C.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Caldwell, James

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    M'Crae, George

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Griffith, Ellis, J.

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Roche, John

    Hardie, J Keir (MerthyrTydvil)

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo. North)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Mooney, John J.

    Samuel, Herbert L. (CL veland)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murphy, John

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitecharel)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

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

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

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Sheehy, David

    Johnson, John

    O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Donneil, John (Mayo, S.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radelifte)

    Kennedy, Vincent P(Cavan,W.

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

    Tomkinson, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Dowd, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lamont, Norman

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Langley, Batty

    O'Malley, William

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    O'Mara, James

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    O'Shee, James John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mio.)

    Lundon, W.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reddy, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Redmond, John E.(Waterforo)

    Osmond Williams and Mr.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Richards, Thomas(WMonm'th)

    Fuller.

    Whereupon Mr. Secretary ABNOLD-FORSTER moved, "That the Question That the clause stand part of the Bill' be now put."
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: On a point of order, I submit that it is not fair and respectful to the House that a Minister of the Crown should mutter and mumble some Motion of which the Committee does not hear a word.
    MB. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: Not a word was heard.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes, 100. (Division List No. 116.)
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman speak out in the English language. He had better raise his voice next time.
    *THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman moved that the Question, "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill" be now put. The Question is "That the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill be now put."
    Question put.

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

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

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Forster, Henry William

    Arrol, Sir William

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

    Gardner, Ernest

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

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

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

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Balfour-Rt. Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'mlets

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Denny, Colonel

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Gretton, John

    Bingham, Lord

    Doughty, Sir George

    Groves, James Grimble

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Bond, Edward

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

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

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemouth

    Brassey, Albert

    Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

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

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

    Butcher, John George

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Briahtside

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

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Hoult, Joseph

    815

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Moore, William

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Hunt, Rowland

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Smith, A. H (Hertford, East)

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

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Smith, Rt Hn. J Parker(Lanarks

    Kerr, John

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Spear, 'John Ward

    Keswick, William

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)

    Peel Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Tuff, Charles

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

    Percy, Earl

    Turnour, Viscount

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

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

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Purvis, Robert

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Randles, John S.

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Reid, James (Graenock)

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Renwick, George

    Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Milvain, Thomas

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Viscount Valentia.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Black, Alexander William

    Johnson, John

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden V

    Boland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Reddy, M.

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Joyce, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Caldwell, James

    Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roberts, John H. (Denbigns.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Lamont, Norman

    Roche, John

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Langley, Batty

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilrid (Cornwall)

    Runciman, Walter

    Crean, Eugene

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lloyd-George, David

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

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sullivan, Donal

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Taylor Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Crae, George

    Tomkinson, James

    Ellice,Capt EC (S.Andrw'sB'ghs

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Emmott, Alfred

    M'Killop, W.(Sligo, North)

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Mooney, Jonn J.

    Walton. Joseph (Barnsley)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Murphy, John

    Wason, John C. (Orkney

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

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

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

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Flynn, James Christopher

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Conner, John (Kildare, N.)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

    Charles Hobhouse and Mr.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Dowd, John

    Fuller.

    Griffith, Ellis, J.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Question put accordingly, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 145; Noes, 101. (Division List, No.117.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Balcarres Lord

    Gordon,Maj Evans-(T r'H'mlets

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

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

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Balfour, Kenneth R. Christch.

    Greene, Walford D (Wednesbury

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Percy, Earl

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Gretton, John

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Groves, James Grimble

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Bingham, Lord

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Purvis, Robert

    Bond, Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Randles, John S.

    Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Midell'sex

    Heath, SirJames (Staffords.NW

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Brassey, Albert

    Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Renwick, George

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hoult, Joseph

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Butcher, John George

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

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

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Kerr, John

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Keswick, William

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Smith, RtHn J Parker (Lanarks

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Lawson. Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

    Spear, John Ward

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N. R

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Denny, Colonel

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

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

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Tuff, Charles

    Doughty, Sir George

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Turnour, Viscount

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Warde, Colonel C.E.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Welby. Lt. Col. A. C. E (Taunton)

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

    Maxwell, Rt, Hn. Sir HE. (Wigt'n,

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Maxwell, W. J. H. Dumfries'hire

    Whiteley H.(Ashton und. Lyne

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Milvain, Thomas

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    Fisher William Hayes

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Fison, Frederick William

    Moore, William

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir

    Forster, Henry William

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Alexander Acland Hood and

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Viscount Valentia.

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick)

    Morrison, James Archibald

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

    Mount, William Arthur

    NOES.

    Abraham, William(Cork, N. E.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Johnson, John

    Allen, Charles P.

    Elibank, Master of

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Ellice, Capt. EC (SAndrw's Bghs

    Jones, William (Carnarvons.)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Joyce, Michael

    Black, Alexander William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

    Boland, John

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Kilbride, Denis

    Brigg, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Lamont, Norman

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Ffrench, Peter

    Langley, Batty

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall.)

    Caldwell, James

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Cawley, Frederick

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gilhooly, James

    Lundon, W.

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Crean, Eugene

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Cremer, William Randal

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Cullinan, J.

    Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Delany, William

    Hayden, John Patrick

    M'Crae, George

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Doogan, P. C.

    Higham, John Sharp

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

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

    Mooney, John J.

    818

    819

    Murphy, John

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Taylor, Theodore O. (Radeliffe)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Reddy, M.

    Tomkinson, James

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

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Trevelyan, Charles philips

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    O'Connor, John (Kildare,N.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Roche, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

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

    Rose, Charles Day

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Dowd, John

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mia.)

    O'Malley, William

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

    O'Mara, James

    Sheehy, David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    O'Shee, James John

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Catheart Wason and Mr. Runciman.

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    MR. KEIR HARD1E MR. KEIR HARD1E moved a new clause, which read as follows:—"An abstract of the Army Act, principally of those sections referring to Judges,offences, and punishments, shall be prepared and exhibited in every recruiting station, and shall be read to each applicant for service in the Army before he is permitted to enlist. "Under the Coal Mines Regulation Act an abstract of the Act and a copy of the rules in force in a colliery had to be prepared and posted up in legible characters in some conspicuous place at, or near, the mine, where they might be read by persons employed or those about to be employed. The Act also provided that a copy of this abstract and rules should be supplied to every collier working in the mine. Under the Act of 1887 it was laid down in effect that, if colliers were to be expected to obey the law, steps should be taken to let them know what the law was, and surely what was held to be necessary in the case of colliers should not be less necessary in the case of soldiers. The Army Act which they were discussing consisted of 190 clauses, and it was impossible to believe that even an experienced soldier could know a tithe of the clauses which he was expected to obey. Young men were induced to enter a sphere which was altogether new to them, and where their duties were altogether new. There was nothing to which they had been accustomed in their former state of life, and yet they were expected to obey all the provisions of this Act subject to very serious penalties. It was, for instance, laid down that, if a young soldier saw soldiers on the other side whom he thought he could take prisoners, and in his zeal rushed out to secure these men without having first obtained permission from his superior officer, he by that very act
    820
    was rendering himself liable to pena servitude. He asked that these things should be put in such handy form that the soldier should know what was expected of him. There were other things in this Act with which a person seeking enlistment should be made acquainted. There were all sorts of restrictions and limitations imposed upon the soldier. He saw the glowing advertisements posted outside the post offices, churches and prisons, and read the glowing accounts of deeds of heroism on the field of battle, but he was not made acquainted with the regulations and conditions under which he was expected to serve when he enlisted. Even if it were desirable to parade the glories of the Army in order to induce a man to enlist, the other side also should be revealed to him, so that the man might not enlist in ignorance of what he was doing. One reason why men of decent stamina were refusing to enter the Army at all was because they heard that the conditions of service were unduly hard and severe. These facts got spread abroad and made men chary about enlisting. Thousands were of his opinion that if good meu could be obtained they would make up for the weaklings. The more honour and honesty there was in regard to enlisting in the Army the better would be the class of men likely to be drawn into it.
    *MR. ARTHUR HENDERSONseconded, and said he thought they were fully justified in pressing this new clause. They had appealed to the Secretary of State for War that something in the nature of an abstract should be published for the benefit of the soldier. Those appeals, however, were evidently not considered and there

    821
    fore they were compelled to take the only course open to them, and that was to bring forward a new clause and propose that it be added to the Bill. This was no new principle they were asking the Committee to accept. The mover of the Resolution had pointed to the Coal Mines Regulation;Act, which provided for an abstract so far as miners were concerned. There was a much more recent example to be found in the Truck Act of 1898, passed by a Conservative Government. Under that Act the employer was to summarise the main features and post them in a place so that those employed should know the conditions which would apply to them. One hon. Member had suggested that the case of the soldier and of the ordinary workman were entirely different, but he failed to see where the difference existed. Surely if it were right for Governments to enforce conditions upon employers it must also be right that Governments, who were employers, should be prepared to accept similar conditions for the servants they employed. It was, moreover, right that the Committee should stand up for the soldier. They had had a general desire expressed since the publication of the Report of an inquiry into the condition of the Army, for a higher degree of efficiency, and efficiency could not be built up on ignorance. If they were going to withhold from the soldier, or from the individual who desired to enlist, the actual conditions under which his services should take place, surely it was not tending to the promotion of a higher state of efficiency. He ventured to suggest that the more knowledge they could give to the individual unit in the various sections of the Army the better it would be. We might have a smaller Army as the result, but it would be better to have a smaller but informed Army, and that the men should enter the service fully informed as to the conditions under which the were to serve.
    A New Clause (Exhibition of abstract in recruiting stations),—(Mr. Keir Hardie),—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That tin Clause be read a second time."
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid he could not accept the clause as he thought it was quite unnecessary. He did not see why such a provision was more necessary for the Army than it was for the Navy. No exception was taken on the part of the men in regard to their present state of information, and it had not been contended that what was called the "Small Book" which they were entitled toapply for and possess and which most men did possess, was insufficient. The sections of the Army Act which deal with discipline were read out constantly to the troops, and every soldier could see the Act itself and what was known as the summary of the Act contained in the "Small Book."
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: Are those read out also to the recruits joining?
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid that some of them were ignorant of what the contents of this "Small Book" might be, but what they desired was that both those who proposed to become recruits as well as those who joined the Army should really understand what the penalties were to which they subjected themselves when they joined the Army, and what the offences were in respect of which those penalties were imposed. Many hon. Members thought that the State should be a model employer, and the House had compelled employers to place certain rules before their workmen It was now proposed that they should lay down rules very similar for themselves to those they had laid down for others. Was, he asked, the "Small Book" a fair abstract of the 190 clauses, of the Army Act?
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid it was indeed surprising that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War who expressed a most extreme-anxiety for the reorganisation and reform of the Army in order to make it more efficient for the defence of the Empire, should have a moment's hesitation in conceding what had been asked for in the new clause proposed. It was absolutely reasonable that those who were asked to join the Army should be informed before they were recruited

    823
    what were the terms and conditions, the regulation, and discipline to which they were to be subjected. He represented a district of Yorkshire from which came a very large number of recruits during the war, and a very large number of Militia, Yeomanry, and Volunteers also came from there and offered to go to South Africa to fight the battles of their country. But their experience was that the discipline of the Army was needlessly harsh in many respects, and the system sent back nine out of ten of these men absolately disgusted with the Army and military operations, and when the time came again when this country needed every son to fight her battles they would not get the same response as on the last occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to defend the British Empire he would remove unjust and senseless restrictions and the petty conditions which were contained in the Army Act. If was high time that the Army Act was raconsidered by the House to a much
    fuller degree than it had been in late years. For the Prime Minister to tell them that the Army Act had been passed year after year was no excuse for his proceeding to endeavour not to allow them a fair opportunity of discussing it. The Secretary for War owed it to the Committee that he should not meet proposals of this sort in a carping spirit, but that he should welcome them and remove everything which was an impediment to the best men entering the Army. He regretted deeply the manifestation of this want of sympathy both on the part of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War.
    Mr. Secretary ARNOLD- FORSTER Mr. Secretary ARNOLD- FORSTER rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 141; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 118.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Keswick, William

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Arrol, Sir William

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

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Lawson, John G.(Yorks., N. R.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Balcarres, Lord

    Finlay, Sir R. B.(Tnv' rn' ssB' ghs

    Leveson-Gower Frederick N. S.

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

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

    Fison, Frederick William

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

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee.

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Forster, Henry William

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bingham, Lord

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F

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

    Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r.H' mlets

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn. Sir H. E. (Wigtn

    Brassey-Albert

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Butcher, John George

    Green, W. Alford D (Wednesbury

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gretton, John

    Moore, William

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Groves, James Grimble

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Morrison, James Archibald

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Mount, William Arthur

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

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

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Percy, Earl

    Davenport, W. Bromley-

    Hunt, Rowland

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Denny, Colonel

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

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Kerr, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

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

    Purvis, Robert

    Smith, Rt. Hn J. Parker (Lauarks

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Randles, John S.

    Spear, John Ward

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ornskirk

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Renwick, George

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

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

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Tuff, Charles

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Turnour, Viscount

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Viscount Valentia.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Allen, Charles P.

    Haydeu, John Patrick

    O' Malley, William

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Higham, John Sharp

    O' Mara, James

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

    O' Shee, James John

    Black, Alexander William

    Johnson, John

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Boland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J.Compton

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lamont, Norman

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Langley, Batty

    Roche, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Runciman, Walter

    Cullinan, J.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Samuel, Herbert D. (Cleveland)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

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

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sheehy, David

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Duffy, William J.

    M' Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Crae, George

    Sullivan, Donal

    Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw'sBghs

    M' Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Emmott, Alfred

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Mooney, John J.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Murphy, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, John C. (Orkney)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, George (Norfolk)

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

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

    Whitley, J. H.(Halifax)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O' Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O' Connor, John (Kildarc, N)

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

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

    Arthur Henderson and Mr.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O' Dowd, John

    Keir Hardie.

    Question put accordingly, "That the clause be read a second time."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 94 Noes, 141. (Division List No.119.)

    AYES.

    Abraham William (Cork N. E.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Allen, Charles P.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Duffy, William J.

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Black, Alexander William

    Elibank, Master of

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

    Boland, John

    Ellice, Capt EC (S. Andrw's Bghs

    Johnson, John

    Brigg, John

    Emmott, Alfred

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Joyce, Michael

    Caldwell, James

    Fenwick, Charles

    Kennedy, Vincent P. Cavan, W.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark NE

    Lamont, Norman

    Crean, Eugene

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Langley, Batty

    Cremer, William Randal

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Cullinan, J.

    Gilhooly, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Delany, William

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Lundon, W.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    O' Malley, William

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    O'Mara, James

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    O'Shee, James John

    Sullivan, Donal

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    M'Crae, George

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Tomkinson, James

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mooney, John J.

    Reddy, M.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Murphy, John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Roberts, John H. (Denhighs)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Roche, John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rose, Charles Day

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Runciman, Walter

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo,S.)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr.

    O'Dowd, John

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

    Arthur Henderson.

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn Hugh O.

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H' ml' ts

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Arrol, Sir William

    Goschen, Hon, George Joachim

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury).

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Percy, Earl

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Green, Walford D (Wednesbury

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balearres, Lord

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Purvis, Robert

    Banner, John S, Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Randles, John S.

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renwick, George

    Bingham, Lord

    Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords, N.W

    Ridley, S Forde

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hope, J.F.(SheffieId, Brightside

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brassey, Albert

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Butcher, John George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

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

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Carson, Rt. Hon, Sir Edw. H.

    Kerr, John

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

    Keswick, William

    Smith Abel H.(Hertlord, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Smith Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks)

    Clive, Captain Percv A.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Spear, John Ward

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lanes.)

    Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Toralinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Tuff, Charles

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Turnour, Viscount

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Denny, Colonel

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Willough by de Eresby, Lord

    Fellowes, Hon, Ailwyn Edward

    Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir HE(Wigt'n

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

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manc'r.

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Finlay, Sir RB (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    TILLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Moore, William

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Fison, Frederick William

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Viscount Valentia.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morpeth,Viscount

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrell, George Herbert

    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he rose to move to report Progress, and submitted that the time had arrived when the Prime Minister should allow them to do so. They had made considerable progress and there was Progress to report. They had practically got through the whole of the Bill and had come to deal with new clauses. There were four or five of the new clauses to be proposed which were very important. ["Oh."] Did hon. Members mean to suggest that the question of corporal punishment in the Army was not an important question.
    SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: It has been repealed.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It has not. Whoever told you that told you wrong.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move anything?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was moving to report Progress on the Bill, and he appealed to the Prime Minister to allow them to report Progress as the measure must necessarily take some time. There was a very important Bill coming on at noon. Could it be that the object of the Government was not to forward their own business, but to delay other business? Did they want the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sisters Bill not to come on?
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Lloyd- George.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the Motion was not one that he could be expected to accede to. He was not aware of any occasion on which, the Army Bill, upon which they were now engaged, introduced without changes to the House had taken more time than this Bill had taken. There was nothing in the circumstances this year which should make them depart from their ordinary course. He hoped the hon. Member would allow them to continue the discussion.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid he understood that it was not necessary that the Act
    830
    should be passed until the 30th of April. They had four days next week and three the week after before the holidays began. Any night on Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday next week would be fully ample time to discuss the matter in Committee; and as it was quite certain that the Government did not mean to accept any Amendment it meant that once that stage of the Bill was over, the only remaining stage, would be the Third Reading. That would mean under the system of closure, which apparently was regularly to be applied, half an hour on Monday or Tuesday next. Under those circumstances why should not the Prime Minister allow them to report Progress now at a reasonable hour. If he did not, what was the alternative? This Bill required an enormous amount of amendment. The Prime Minister had to set the brute force of his majority against the ingenuity on the Opposition side. The brute force was that of a weakened majority. Once before the right hon. Gentleman, attempted this plan, but he failed to carry it out. The Opposition could protract the proceedings till twelve that day, or till midnight. [Cries of "Go on."] He very well remembered last session that cries of "Go on; go on" were raised at five or six o'clock in the morning, but between eleven and twelve and one and two there was abject silence on those benches. Hon. Members opposite ought to recognise, if they did not, that there was a quite sufficient body of Gentlemen on that side of the House who were ready to sit as long as they were. They ought to recognise that every single clause of this Army Act was the subject of Amendment by new clauses inserted in the Army (Annual) Bill, and the closure had to come into operation on each new clause under the present system. It was therefore possible for them to have at least 190 new clauses. Would it not be infinitely better for the right hon. Gentleman to allow his dejected followers to go home quietly to bed, and he would in the long run get his Bill through with far less expenditure of labour than if he persisted in going on now. The next Motion of Progress might be moved at ten o'clock, but the three or four hours which intervened had better be spent in bed.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid that this was the second evening this week that this Bill had been put down for discussion. It was put down on an earlier evening as the second order, and then the House come down to discuss it at a reasonable length, thinking that they should have another opportunity. But for some mysterious reason there was nobody on that bench to move the Committee stage of the Bill on Tuesday evening last, and the result was that the discussion instead of taking two evenings had been confined to one evening. They on that side, however, were not responsible for he action of the Government on Tuesday last. They regretted their absence and would have been perfectly prepared to discuss this Bill then. They were, however, driven to discuss this Bill in one evening when it ought to have taken two. Ever since they had been discussing these matters there had been great
    consultations between the Financial Secretary and the Attoraey-General in order, he had no doubt, to arrive at a fuller comprehension of this Act than the Financial Secretary had before this discussion took place. They were not, however, only going to discuss clauses with which the Attorney-General was familiar, but new clauses with which he was unacquainted. He thought it was better that they should adjorn till Monday next when the two hon. Gentlemen could come to an agreement on the points.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR Mr. A. J. BALFOUR rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 141; Noes, 96. (Division List No. 120.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Bristol, S

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Atkinson, Rt Hon. John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Massey-Main waring, Hn. W. F.

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

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Maxwell, W.J.H (Dumfriesshire

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.

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

    Milvain, Thomas

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gordon, Maj Evans(T'r H' mlets

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

    Moore, William

    Bingham, Lord

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Bowles, Lieut.-Col H F (Middle'x

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Brassey, Albert

    Gretton, John

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Groves, James Grimble

    Mount, William Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Hambro Charles Eric

    Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

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

    Hamilton, Marq of(L'donderry)

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

    Percy Earl

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hope, J. F(Sheffield, Brightside)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hoult, Joseph

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Colston, Charles Ed w. H. Athole

    Hunt, Rowland

    Purvis, Robert

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col W.

    Randles, John S.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Kerr, John

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Keswick, William

    Renwick, George

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Denny, Colonel

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W (Mile End)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Duke, Henry Edward.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N.R

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Egerton, Hon. A. do Tatton

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Tuff, Charles

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

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

    Turnour, Viscount

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Spear, John Ward

    Walrond, Rt. Hon Sir William H

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes

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

    Alexander Aoland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chiehester)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Willoughby do Eresby, Lord

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Mara, James

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Shee James John

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Black, Alexander William

    Johnson, John

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boland, John

    Jones, Lief (Appleby)

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Joyce, Michael

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Roche, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lamont, Norman

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Langley, Batty

    Runciman, Walter

    Crean, Eugene

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Cremer, William Randal

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Samuel, S. M. (White chapel)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lloyd-George, David

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

    Delany William

    Lundon, W.

    Sheehy, David

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Sullivan, Donal

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Crae, George

    Tomkinson, James

    Ellice, Capt E. C (S Andrw'sB'ghs

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Emmott, Alfred

    Mooney, John J.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Murphy, John

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Findlay, Alexander (Laiiark, NE

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare N.)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

    Gilhooly, James

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

    M'Kenna and Mr. Charles

    Gladstone, Rt. Kn. Herbert John

    O'Dowd, John

    Hobhouse.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Malley, William

    Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress; and leave to sit again."

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Doogan, P. C.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    Allen, Charles P.

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Duffy, William J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Elibank, Master of

    Higham, John Sharp

    Black, Alexander William

    Ellice, Capt E.C (SAndrw'sB'ghs

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

    Boland, John

    Emmott, Alfred

    Johnson, John

    Brigg, John

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Jones,William (Carnarvonshire

    Burke E. Haviland

    Fenwick, Charles

    Joyce, Michael

    Caldwell, James

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan, W.

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N.E.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Lament, Norman

    Crean, Eugene

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Langley, Batty

    Cremer, William Randal

    Gilhooly, James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Cullinan, J.

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    Lloyd-George, David

    Delany, William

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Lundon, W.

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    834

    835

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    O'Malley, William

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    O'Mara, James

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    O'Shee, James John

    Sullivan, Donal

    M'Crae, George

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Tomkinson, James

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mooney, John J.

    Reddy, M.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Murphy, John

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Rickett, J. Compton

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

    Roche, John

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Rose, Charles Day

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Runciman, Walter

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Herbert Lewis and Mr. Cath-

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

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    cart Wason.

    O'Dowd, John

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

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Sheehy, David

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Mount, William Arthur

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Murray, Col. Wyndhara (Bath)

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

    Gordon, Maj Evans (TrH'mlets

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Arrol, Sir William

    Goschen Hon. George Joachim

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Percy, Earl

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs).

    Plummer, Sir Waller R.

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

    Gretton, John

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Groves, James Grimble

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Purvis, Robert

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

    Randles, John S.

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Renwick, George

    Bingham, Lord

    Heath Sir James (Staffords. NW

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hope, J.F. (Sheffield, Bright side

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

    Hoult, Joseph

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Brassey, Albert

    Howard, John (Kent Faversham

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Butcher, John George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Kenyon-Slaney, Rt Hon. Col. W.

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Kerr, John

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Keswick, William

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks.)

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Laurie, Lieutenant-General

    Spear, John Ward

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

    Lawrence, Wm. E. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N.R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Craig Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Tuff, Charles

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Turnour, Viscount

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Denny, Colonel

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Macdona, John Gumming

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

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

    Kgerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

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

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

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

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Moore, William

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Fison, Frederick William

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Viscount Valentia.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Forster, Henry William

    Morrell, George Herbert

    *THE DEPUTY- CHAIRMANasked the hon. Member for Oswestry to explain his new clause which provided that notwithstanding anything in the Act it should not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment upon soldiers for insubordination and other offences. How did he bring that in as a new clause, seeing that the Act had already been altered and flogging abolished?
    *MR. BRIGHTsaid that Section 133 of the Army Act proved that the new clause was in order. Section 133 provided that power should be vested in the Secretary of State, and in India in the Governor-General, from time to time to make, alter, and repeal rules for the management of military prisons and the maintenance of discipline in them and for the punishment of prisoners by the infliction of twenty-five lashes for offences committed by such prisoners. That was to say, that there was the power of inflicting twenty-five lashes in military prisons for offences of military insubordination or otherwise, and he thought it was an exceedingly shocking state of things. They had believed that some time ago all corporal punishment had been abolished from the Army, and he thought it was something rather contrary to our present degree of civilisation to find that simply for offences in discipline in prisons there was still power to inflict such an extreme penalty as twenty-five lashes under the support and authority of the Secretary of State. He did not know whether this was likely to commend itself to the House, and he thought there ought to be some reconsideration of this matter. He thought this was an instance of savagery. He did not know whether this provision was acted upon, but what had struck him about the Act was that it wanted a thorough overhauling, and if the result of that night's debate was to get these twenty-five lashes done away with something would have resulted from it. He begged to move.
    MR. TOMKINSONseconded the new clause and said this was a subject in which he felt very deeply interested. They looked with
    838
    great interest each year to the Report of His Majesty's Inspector of Military Prisons, and he thought they had ground to complain that they did not receive it much earlier. The latest Report they now had in their hands was that for 1903. He had turned to that, and saw that on seven different occasions in our home prisons, excluding those in Egypt and India, corporal punishment with the, cat-o'-nine tails was inflicted, although the inspector did not give any details as to the number of lashes.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member say that this is in military prisons?
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid he was alluding to military prisons. A great improvement had taken place, and that great improvement was due to the very earnest lady who wrote a very thrilling book called "Scarlet and Steel." It was said to be sensational and exaggerated, but he had looked into the matter and had ascertained the sources of her information, and found it was founded on fact and on truth. What was the state of the case? The soldier now was supposed to be let off absolutely from the disgraceful and degrading punishment of flogging. He was sent to a military prison only for a military offence, and he continued a soldier. If he committed a civil crime he was tried before a civil Court and went to a civil prison, and that did not come under their cognisance. As he had said if a soldier sent for a military offence to a military prison was still a soldier and ought not to be subjected to this disgraceful and odious punishment of flogging which was now inflicted upon him. He contended strongly that the supposed necessity for flogging in military prisons was only a proof of the incompetence of the authorities, namely, of the governors and warders, to keep order there. Previously to recant reforms there were in this country two classes of military prisons, one at the head of which were officers who were gentlemen, and at the head of the other were retired sergeant-majors or retired police officers. In these different prisons were practically the same number of prisoners, and yet there were practically twice as many corporal punishments

    839
    inflicted in the prisons presided over by the ex-sergeant-majors or the police officers as there were in the prisons presided over by the officers and gentlemen. That proved that one class of men had thought it necessary to inflict this sort of punishment twice as often as had the other class. Corporal punishment had been done away with in Irish prisons and had not been inflicted for years, and yet in our military prisons it had been inflicted on several occasions, although the Irish authorities had found themselves able to dispense with it, and to keep perfect order without it. He thought that the soldier in the British Army ought to be absolutely free from any liability to such a punishment, whether free or detained in a military prison. It was a cruel and brutalising punishment—the punishment of a slave.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Yes, of a Chinese slave.
    MR. TOMKINSONsaid it was torture. People asked what twenty-five lashes meant. The lash had nine tails, and was a method of inflicting the severest punishment without actually endangering life.
    New Clause (Prohibition of corporal punishment,)—(Mr. Bright,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
    *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield)thought the hon. Member for Oswestry had chosen an unfortunate method of drawing attention to this subject, because he had drawn up a new clause by which it was suggested that the practice of flogging continued in the Army. He was sure the hon. Member did not intend to suggest that, but that undoubtedly was the suggestion made by his clause. In his speech, however, he pointed out that he was referring to military prisons.
    *MR. BRIGHT: I am willing to alter the clause so as to make it refer to military prisons only.
    *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTthought the Committee quite understood what the hon. Member desired. It was quite true that in military prisons they retained this power for enforcing discipline, which was found to be necessary for the protection of warders placed over civil prisoners. It was not for him to say whether it was necessary or not. He objected to this form of punishment as much as any hon. Members could, but the proper method of raising this very important question was not upon a side issue on the Army Annual Bill, but as a direct issue upon the larger question of whether it was or was not necessary to retain the power in prisons generally, on the Civil Service Estimates. He was quite sure that the Secretary of State for War would follow the example of abolishing this punishment if it were set by the civil authorities.
    MR. J. H. LEWISsaid it was not their fault that they were raising the question now. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted the enormous importance of it, and his Government had forced on the discussion of this question till twenty minutes past six in the morning. There were a large number of military offences under the Act which were punishable by flogging. Taking the fourth clause, there were in that seven classes of offences, and any prisoner who was subject to military law and who committed one of those offences would be liable to suffer death or any such punishment as was mentioned in the Act, and flogging was mentioned in the Act.
    *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: No, the hon. Member is mistaken.
    MR. J. H. LEWISsaid the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oswestry had read the clause in which that punishment was laid down. In the next clause there were six different classes of offences for which the offender was liable to suffer penal servitude or such other punishment as was mentioned in the Act. In other clauses there were other offences for which the offender was liable on conviction to suffer death or such other punishment as was mentioned in the Act. He thought that his hon. friend

    841
    had made out a case for the new clause. They had had an admission from the Government that the question was of a most important character, and they had had a statement that flogging did not now prevail. But they found that it did now prevail, and now was the time for the House of Commons to discuss and vote upon the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL(Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said that if the hon. Gentleman would look at the Army Act he would see that he was mistaken in supposing that flogging in the Army for any of the offences he referred to existed as a punishment. Flogging in the Army had been abolished, but a soldier was subject in civil prisons to the same punishment as other persons.
    AN HON. MEMBER: But his offence is a military one.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid precisely so, but if it was found necessary in civil prisons to have recourse to flogging, for what reason could the hon. Member suggest that it was not suitable in military prisons? Civil and military prisoners were on the same footing. If the whole subject was to be considered, he very much doubted if it would be possible to secure safety for the warders if flogging was abolished. He confessed that he had serious doubts upon the subject, and it would be obviously absurd to make this distinction now between civil and military prisons, and that was the only question with which the Committee was concerned.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Is it not abolished in Ireland?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I am not aware of that.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the Parliamentary Secretary to the War Office had told them that this was not a suitable opportunity on which to raise this most, important question, but he might point out to the hon. Gentleman that when the opportunity arose on the Vote for Prisons they were closured, and, therefore, His Majesty's Government had
    842
    not on that occasion given them an opportunity to raise it. His Majesty's Government had led the country to believe, and the country did believe, that flogging had been abolished absolutely and utterly in the British Army. [Cries of "So it has been."] It had not, because they now found that it prevailed in military prisons. Therefore, as the occupants of military prisons were soldiers, flogging was not abolished in connection with the Army. He would challenge any Member on the Government side of the House who voted against this new clause to go down to his constituents and see if he could get a vote of confidence; which showed that flogging in any shape or form, whether it was inside or outside military prisons, should not be permitted. It was a degrading form of punishment which ought to be abolished for ever. If nothing else had been done by their sitting up all night than the raising of this question of common humanity and justice to our soldiers the night would have been well spent. They sought to have in the Army men of good character, morale, and physique, but when a man possessing those qualities knew that when he entered the Army, by some mischance, he was liable to be sent to a military prison and flogged there, he would not enter the Army. Flogging was not popular in connection with the British Army, and it was generally believed to have been abolished for ever. The question had been raised of flogging in civil prisons, but they on that side objected to that as much as to flogging in military prisons. They could not discuss civil prisons that evening, but they were entitled to say that they abhorred the practice and that flogging was calculated to discourage the best class of men from entering the Army and was responsible largely for the ineffective condition of the Army.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the Financial Secretary to the War Office, although he admitted the importance of this matter, rather evaded the point of his right hon. friend's clause. He said that there was flogging in civil prisons, and that the Government were only applying the same rule to military prisons, but the Financial Secretary had overlooked this fact, that the civil prisons

    843
    received prisoners who had done something which involved a moral taint. Many of the offences under the Army Act, however, for which a soldier would be sent to a military prison were mere acts of indiscretion.
    *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It has not been suggested that they are flogged for such offences as that.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that there again the hon. Gentleman had overlooked the difference between the two classes of prisoners. A man might be imprisoned in a military prison not because he was guilty of any moral turpitude, but simply on account of an indiscretion. They had 24,000 cases of imprisonment in a year in the Army, and these were not cases of crime. They were not offences in the sense in which they were in civil prisons. What happened? The moment the prisoners were in the military prisons they were liable to be flogged by the order of a couple of subalterns sitting as a Court-martial. [Cries of "No, no !"] He said that two subalterns, sitting as a Court-martial, at the present time could order a flogging. [Several HON. MEMBERS: The hon. Member is quite wrong.] His authority was obtained from those who had investigated the matter for themselves.
    LIEUTENANT MORRISONpointed out that two subalterns could not constitute a Court-martial as the law required three subalterns to constitute one.
    MR. J. A. PEASEsaid he thought what the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said was rather due to something that he had told him a few moments ago. He thought it was only fair that if the hon. Gentleman had made a mistake on his direction he, at any rate, should take the responsibility. In 1897 he went very fully into this matter. He got a gentleman at the Bar to go into all the statutes under which prisoners could be flogged in prison for various offences. He had to go through a large number of cases, and in one of those cases he distinctly remembered that two subalterns were responsible for the flogging of one
    844
    of these prisoners in a military prison. He was quite sure of the fact.
    MR. LLOYD- GEORGEhoped the hon. Member was satisfied now. [Cries of "No."] All he could say was that he was prepared to accept the authority of his hon. friend. Supposing they had 24,000 military offences in the course of a year for which offenders were imprisoned. In all those cases they could be flogged, and he did not think it was fair to treat members of the Army in the same way as they treated criminals. Did the hon. Member think it was fair and calculate I to raise the character of the Army, that the soldier, for a breach of discipline, should be liable to the same class of punishment as the burglar or housebreaker in Wandsworth Gaol.
    LIEUTENANT MORRISONsaid that as he was challenged by the hon. Member, he might say that the discussion that night was not calculated to clear the matter up. What he had wanted was the hon. Gentleman's authority for his statement.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had asked the hon. Member a specific Question and one which really went to the root of the matter. That Question was whether the hon. Member considered it right that a soldier who was in prison for a small breach of discipline should be treated in the same way as a prisoner in Wandsworth Gaol, who was there for house-breaking or stealing, and the hon. Gentleman very discreetly refrained from answering his Question. The defence of the War Office was that because this was done with the criminal and civil prisoners the same treatment ought to be meted out to the soldiers in military prisons. But what was the use of abolishing flogging in the Army when, by the simple excuse of putting a man in prison for drunkenness—and that was what very often happened—he could be flogged for a military offence. That was the Answer which was given by the Financial Secretary.
    *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid that what he wished to convey was that they held that what was necessary for the protection of civil warders in the one

    845
    case, was necessary for the protection of soldier warders in the other case.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he quite understood that the hon. Gentleman's proposition was that the soldier was on the same level as the criminal. [Cries of "No."] But that was the proposition, and, according to the hon. Gentleman, he was to be treated on the same level as a criminal, and yet the hon. Gentleman was one of those who ranted more than anyone else against anyone who was said to attack our soldiers in the South African War. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman was engaged in attempting to rush through a Bill at seven o'clock in the morning in which he placed the soldier on the same level as the criminal. The First Lord of the Treasury had put them on the same level as the Chinese coolie, but the hon. Gentleman had gone further and put them on the same level as the criminal. Gentlemen on the other side said that they had abolished corporal punishment in the Army, but now they had to admit its existence. [Cries of "No."] They would deny anything. Their only answer was the closure. Here they had in this Act a provision for twenty-five lashes being given, applying to every man in a military prison for offences not of a civil character but of a military character. He was glad to have extracted from the hon. Member that admission.
    *COLONEL WELBYwished to explain how totally wrong the hon. Member was as to the treatment of men in military prisons. No Court-martial in peace time could inflict the punishment of flogging, and the only way in which a soldier could suffer flogging in prison was for an offence against prison discipline. And then this punishment was only given in cases where there had been personal violence towards the warders. He had only known one case of its being inflicted, and, as far as he could recollect, in that case the punishment was a warded by the Garrison Board of Visitors. He had been a member of that board, and, after they had awarded that punishment, it
    had to be confirmed by the general officer commanding, and one of the board had to see it carried out. He was the officer who was detailed to be present, and all he could say was that, although he did not wish to see the man flogged, the only man who seemed to be suffering from it was the doctor, whose nerves gave way. The punishment was so light that the man himself suffered so little that he laughed. Then, again, there was a difference between the lash used in prisons and that used in the old days when there was flogging in the Army. The lash in the old days had not only nine lashes but nine knots on every lash. The "cat" which was used now had nine lashes, but there was only one knot on each lash, while the handle, which used to be springy, was now stiff, making the strokes far less severe. He thought it was very wrong for the hon. Member for Carnarvon to try and make out to the world that soldiers were treated in the same way as burglars. He said it was not true.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid that his hon. friend was perfectly justified in every word which he had just uttered. The defence put forward by the Financial Secretary was that corporal punishment was never inflicted upon soldiers except upon exactly the same terms as it was inflicted upon civilians, and his argument was that if they objected to corporal punishment they should raise the question on the Vote for Civil Prisons. But the cases were not parallel, for the law which governed civil prisons was not the same as the law which governed military prisons. Military prisons were subject to the Prisons Act of 1877, and the Act which governed civil prisons was the Prison Act of 1898. Until the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary could prove that military prisons were governed under the Act of 1898 he could not prove that the punishment was inflicted upon soldiers upon the same terms as civilians.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 89; Noes, 136. (Division List No. 122.)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Mara, James

    Caldwell, James

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    O'Shee, James John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Joyce, Michael

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crean, Eugene

    Kilbride, Denis

    Reddy, M.

    Cullinan, J.

    Langley, Batty

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Delany, William

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Roche, John

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Lundon, W.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Duffy, William J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Elibank, Master of

    Mac Neill, John Gordon Swift

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

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

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sheehy, David

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    M'Crae, George

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Ffrench, Peter

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Mooney, John J.

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Murphy, John

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Gilhooly, James

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Villiers, Ernest Amherst

    Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Morthyr Tydvil)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

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

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Dowd, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

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

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Bright and Mr. Tomkinson.

    Johnson, John

    O'Malley, William

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Kvesham

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Arrol, Sir William

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Flower, Sic Krnest

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Forster, Henry William

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hon. W. F.

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

    Gardner, Ernest

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

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.

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

    Milvain, Thomas

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Molesworfh, Sir Lewis

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

    Moon, Edward Robert Paey

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Moore, William

    Bingham, Lord

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Morpeth, Viscount

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

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Brassey, Albert

    Gretton, John

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Groves, James Grimble

    Mount, William Arthur

    Butcher, John George

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry

    Murray (Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW

    Percy, Earl

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Hoult, Joseph

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

    Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hunt, Rowland

    Purvis, Robert

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

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

    Randles, John S.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Kerr, John

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Keswick, William

    Renwick, George

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Denny, Colonel

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Egerton, Hon. A. do Tatton

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    848

    849

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Spear, John Ward

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Stanley, John Arthur (Ormskirk

    Wards, Colonel C. E.

    Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Whiteley, H.(Ashton-und-Lyne

    Viscount Valentia.

    Tuff, Charles

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

    MAJOR SEELYsaid it appeared that military prisoners were not treated the same as civil prisoners.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Do I understand that the hon. Member wants to alter the Civil Prisons Act? Of course he cannot do that.
    MAJOR SEEsaid he wished to propose a new clause as follows—
    "On and after the passing of this Act the Prisons Act of 1898 shall be substituted for the prisons Acts of 1865 and 1877 under Section 133, Sub-section 2, of the Army Act."
    The effect of that would be that for the first time military prisoners would, in point of fact, be treated in the same way as civil prisoners. At present they were not so treated, because he thought the Committee would realise that their prison procedure was gradually getting less and less severe, so that the present Act of 1898 was less severe than the previous Act of 1877, and still less severe than the Act of 1865. Therefore they had discovered that military prisoners had a real and genuine grievance, inasmuch as they were liable to be punished under the Acts of 1877 and 1865 while civil prisoners were punished under the Act of 1898. In the Army, however, a man might find himself in prison for absurdly small offences. Not only might he find himself in prison for overloading a chartered vehicle, but he might find himself in prison because he forgot to pay the driver of the cab which he had hired. Then, having got into prison for a trivial offence for which a civilian would not get into prison at all, if he became obstreperous he did not find himself punishable under the less severe Act of 1898, but under the Acts of 1865 and 1877.
    New Clause (Prisons Act, 1898)—(Major Seely)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he certainly did not think it would be wise to read this clause a second time. It was quite clear that the hon. Member was dealing with this matter a good deal in the dark. If he would look at the Act of 1898 he would find that the Secretary of State could make rules as to the manner in which corporal punishment should be inflicted on civil prisoners. He did not wish to dogmatise, but he believed that it would be found that offences for which military prisoners were exposed to corporal punishment were substantially the same as those for which civil prisoners were exposed to that punishment. The acts were aggravated breaches of prison discipline, and in by far the vast majority of cases they were assaults, mostly of an aggravated character, upon warders. The Secretary of State for War authorised him to say that he would have the whole matter looked into with a desire to assimilate the system under which corporal punishment was administered in civil and military prisons, if they were not assimilated at present. If they were found to be dissimilar, steps would be taken to assimilate them.
    MR. McKENNAthought they had reached a point at which the Government might reconsider their determination not to close these proceedings. At a quarter to seven o'clock the Financial Secretary to the War Office assured them, in the most positive manner, that the position of the two classes of prisoners, military and civil, was identical, and at ten minutes past seven the Attorney-General got up, and, with much more prudence, said that he believed that there was substantial similarity between the two.
    *MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I never used the word "identical."
    MR. McKENNAasked how the hon. Gentleman could dare say that when he had cheered a passage which he had read and which seemed to imply identity. Of course he meant it. This came of sitting

    851
    so late in the morning. The hon. Gentleman, who in ordinary cases was the soul of honour, was seduced at ten minutes past seven into using language which was almost, if not quite, the language of prevarication, [Cries of ''Oh" and "Withdraw."]
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That is not Parliamentary language, and must be withdrawn.
    MR. MCKENNA: Well, I withdraw it. I attribute my use of it to the time—ten minutes past seven. The hon. Member proceeded to say that he hoped that the Attorney-General and the Secretary of State for War would recognise that this was one of the questions which might fairly be raised on the Army Act. He should certainly support the new clause of his hon. friend.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that the debate which had taken place on this Amendment was a complete justification for what had happened before. It was said that prisoners in military prisons were treated in exactly the same way as prisoners in civil prisons. Now, however, it turned out that they were treated under a much more severe set of Acts of Parliament. He appealed to the Government to accept the clause, and he ventured to say it would facilitate the progress of the measure very considerably at this stage if they would make this concession. If, however, they did not think the form of words in which it had been drawn were quite adapted to the occasion, would they undertake to deal with the matter. The application of the Act of 1898 to military prisons was only prevented by a technicality, and if the Government agreed to the principle of the extension of the Act of 1898 to military prisons would they agree to bring up a clause on Report. [Mr. CALDWELL: There will be no Report.] Well, if there was not a Report stage, the Government could move to recommit the Bill on this particular, and he thought that his hon. friends and himself could undertake that if the Bill wore recommitted it would not be made the opportunity for discussion. Of course it would be very much better if they would now accept the form of words;
    852
    and as they had already in principle accepted it, why should it not be incorporated with the Act. It would facilitate matters, however, if they would introduce the words now.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid he thought the hon. Member would find it was unnecessary to make this alteration, and was sure he would be satisfied with what he had already stated. If the hon. Member would look at the Manual of Military Law, he would find that under Section 133, which gave power to make rules with regard to corporal punishment in military prisons, there was a note which he thought completely bore out what he said a few minutes before. The Prisons Act of 1898 restricted the offences punishable by corporal punishment first to mutiny and incitement to mutiny, and secondly to gross personal violence to an officer or servant. Paragraph 152 of the rules for military prisons restricted corporal punishment in prison to the same offences. The Act of 1898 provided that corporal punishment should only be inflicted upon the order of three visitors after inquiry upon oath, and after approval by the general or other officer commanding the district. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with that explanation.
    MAJOR SEELYdid not think the considerations urged by the Attorney-General afforded a sufficient ground for not accepting this Amendment, but on the other hand afforded a reason for accepting it. He thought he was correct in saying that the note which the Attorney-General had read was not made under the binding force of law.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: No, it states what the effect of the rules is.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid it might state the effect of the rules, but how was it to be interpreted. If he accepted his Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman would be in a better position than he would be by being dependent upon the officer commanding or upon the note. It would be better to put the provisions of the Act of 1898 in at once, and why should they not do it?
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYsaid that the power was given to the proper authorities to make rules for military prisons, and on that, form of rules they prescribed the same form of punishment for military prisoners as was prescribed for civil prisoners under Act of 1898. Surely the hon. Member had got what he wanted by that. What was the use of pressing for something so anomalous as that rules should be made by the Homo Secretary for military prisons.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that if he was right the punishment could be inflicted in pursuance of the Prisons Acts of 1865 and 1877. It was not that they were asking the Home Office to lay down regulations for military prisons, but they wanted to substitute the Prisons Act of 1898 for the other Acts. He thought it would be a great deal better to have the provision set out in the Act instead of its being set out in a foot-note.
    MR. LLOYD- GEORGEcould not help thinking that the Government were unnecessarily stubborn. They accepted a clause in principle, but they seemed to say that they could deal with the matter by general regulations. The same remark would apply to the Act of 1898.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: But this Amendment would put military prisons under the Home Secretary.
    MR. LLOYD- GEORGE,with every respect for the Attorney-General, thought that he was making a pedantic objection. It was not past the ingenuity of the hon. and learned Gentleman to frame words. ["Oh" and "Withdraw."] If the Attorney-General thought he ought to withdraw he would, but he did not think he had been offensive.
    SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I thought I was treating the Committee fairly.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that, taking the Act of 1865 alone, they had a dozen offences for which a man could be flogged, including that of profane language.
    SIR ROBERT FTNLAYsaid a soldier could not be flogged for using profane
    854
    language under that Act, and there was no power to inflict the punishment in the dozen cases mentioned.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that nobody said it did, but why, he asked, should not the soldier have the same protection as the criminal. The Financial Secretary to the War Office thought they were being treated on level terms with the criminal. All they asked was that they should have equal rights with a burglar and equal statutory status with a housebreaker when he got into prison. They asked that he should be given this not as a privilege but as a right, and it ought to be granted not on the grace of the Secretary of State, but by Act of Parliament. Once he was in prison the soldier ought not to be put on the same footing as an ordinary criminal. The Government would save time by assenting, and they appeared to be resisting simply from stupid stubbornness. They seemed determined to go on blundering.
    MR. J. H. LEWISsaid that if the Government would make the concession which was asked for, probably the Bill would then pass with very little trouble.
    MR. WHITLEYthought there was a good deal to be said in regard to the proposal of his hon. friend. If the Attorney-General put this proposal on Monday in the form of a new clause the matter might be disposed of in three-quarters of an hour. The matter could be put right by putting the soldier on the same basis as any other part of the population.
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid he did I not think it was necessary to amend the law, but he would consider if anything could be done in a subsequent year. If he found that there was any difference between the two sets of prisoners he should be prepared to amend, but if, however, he found that there was no difference between the two sets he should not be prepared to amend.
    MR. MCKENNAsaid a soldier was often seat to prison for not obeying his captain, and also because he was found guilty of repeated irreverence at chapel. He had committed offences in regard to

    855
    which, under the Act of 1865, there was no statutory protection against flogging. In this class of cases the soldier should have the same statutory protection as the criminal and should not depend upon mere rules and regulations for his security from excessive punishment. They asked that the soldier should have

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Dowd, John

    Allen, Charles P.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Malley, William

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

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

    O'Mara, James

    Black, Alexander William

    Johnson, John

    O'Shee, James John

    Roland, John

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Brigg, John

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Caldwell, James

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Langley, Batty

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Roche, John

    Crean, Eugene

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rose, Charles Day

    Cullinan, J.

    Lloyd-George, David

    Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

    Delany, William

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny N.)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mac Veagh, Jeremiah

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Crae, George

    Taylor, Theodore C (Radeliffe)

    Ellice, Capt. EC (S. Andrw'sBghs

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Emmott, Alfred

    M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Mooney, John J.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Murphy, John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Joseph Walton and Major

    Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N)

    Seely.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

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

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'r H'mlets

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Gray, Frnest (West Ham)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Arrol, Sir William

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Gretton, John

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Denny, Colonel

    Groves, James Grimble

    Balcarres, Lord

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Hambro, Charles Eric

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

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hamillon, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynemth

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Heaton, Sir James (Staffords NW

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Helder, Augustus

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'cr

    Hope. J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Bingham, Lord

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

    Hoult, Joseph

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Finch, Rt. Hn. George H.

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Brassey, Albert

    Finlay, Sir R. B.(Inv'ru'ss B'ghs

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Hunt, Rowland

    Butcher, John George

    Fison, Frederick William

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

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

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Kerr, John-

    Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

    Forster, Henry William

    Keswick, William

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Gardner, Ernest

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

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

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    the same statutory protection given him which under the Act of 1898 had been given to the burglar.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 123.)

    Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Spear, John Ward

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W.(Mile End)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Talbot, Lord K. (Chichester)

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

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

    Percy, Earl

    Tuff, Charles

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Turnour, Viscount

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Walroud, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Purvis, Robert

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

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Randles, John S.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne)

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

    Renwick, George

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

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Milvain, Thomas

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Moore, William

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Viscount Valentia.

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    MR. MCKENNAsaid he had handed in a new clause which, perhaps, the Secretary of State for War would be able to accept. It came in after Clause 2 and was to the effect that the persons subject to military law as soldiers should include all non- commissioned officers and men raised beyond the limits of the United Kingdom and India while serving under an officer of the Militia.
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid the point raided by the hon. Member was already mot by the Act. The question of men going on expeditions was dealt with by Clause 9, Sub-section 6, which said that all persons engaged on active service were included under the Act, and were subject to military law.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. MCCRAE*MR. MCCRAE moved a new clause providing that Volunteers who went into camp without being brigaded with Regular Forces should be subject to military law. He thought that this provision must have been omitted from the Army Act which, apparently, did not take into consideration the changed circumstances which now existed in regard to Volunteers. Before the Volunteers were brigaded with the Regular Forces this Army Act did not apply to them, but now that they were so brigaded they came under the Army Act. But, if they went into camp alone, then that Act did not apply to them.
    858
    He thought that it would be desirable that they should not make any distinction between the Army and the Volunteers, and they certainly should not make any distinction between Volunteers and Volunteers. Commanding officers of Volunteers who went into camp would, if this clause were agreed to, feel their hands strengthened. Troops very often were under the impression that they were under the Army Act, and, of course, commanding officers did not take steps to enlighten them. But he did not think that position ought to continue, and, therefore, he hoped that the Secretary of State for War would agree to his clause. He had himself seen instances where very peculiar questions had arisen as to regiments which were in camp regimentally, and he did think that the commanding officers of regiments which had to go into camp without being brigaded should be put into the same position as those in camp brigaded with the Regular Force.
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid he had some sympathy with the view of the hon. Member, but before any such Amendment was passed it would be necessary to give notice to the Volunteers. He thought it would be unwise without giving special notice to introduce this fresh provision.
    Mr. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid the Amendment touched an existing grievance of commanding officers. He knew of a

    859
    case where there was considerable question in a Volunteer camp which arose owing to the presence of one or two men of the Regular Forces or of the Militia. It was impossible to take any steps to restore the men to a state of discipline. When the Secretary of State for War made such a statement as he had just done it was not recorded in the Journals of the House, and when a new Secretary of State for War succeeded he looked to the Journals of the House and finding no such statement said quite fairly that he saw no record of the promise having been given, and that the whole matter was quite new to him, and so the question fell through. What they wanted was that some record should be left so that the question should be dealt with at an early date, and that a matter to which they attached so much importance should not be buried in the unfathomable recesses of Hansard.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HIGHAM MR. HIGHAM (Yorkshire, W. R., Sowerby) moved a new clause with a view of amending Section 4 of the Act of 1881. It was to the effect that, every person accused of an offence under the Army Act shall be entitled to demand to be tried by Court-martial. There had been many cases of injustice in which men would have liked to have been tried by Court-martial, but were disgraced for life without a trial. The section of the Army Act of 1881 contained seven offences which he need not take up the time of the House by reading. They were military offences, but the men had not the option of demanding a Court-martial, and they were at the mercy of some one above them in that respect.
    New Clause (Amendments of Section 4 of Army Act, 1881)—(Mr. Higham)—brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERreferred to an Answer that he gave to a Question two or three days before, and said the hon. Member was under a misapprehension.
    860
    Every private soldier had a right to a Court-martial where he was punished by deprivation of pay, but the right did not extend to an officer. It was not possible that the War Office should give up the power they had of dispensing with the services of an officer without his conduct being brought before a Court-martial. He thought Court-martial was a very desirable method of ascertaining whether an offence had been committed, but sometimes in the interests of the officer concerned and of the Army the other course was adopted, and he did not think it right to dispense with the power to take it.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEinquired whether there was not a power with every officer of the Navy to demand a Court-martial. Was he right in supposing that, every officer of the Navy if he ran his ship ashore, or if he committed a breach of discipline, or of the rules, could demand a Court-martial? What had been the result of that practice in the Navy?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Wood- bridge)said there was some confusion about this question. He thought the hon. Member was confusing the case of the accidents to vessels which were followed by a Court-martial with supposed personal offences. In the latter case he believed he was right in saying that the officer had no right.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid there was no such right; no person in the employment of the Crown had a positive right of that character.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid there was reason in the refusal of the Secretary of State to make a distinction between the officers of the Army and the Navy. There did, however, exist in the minds of officers who had, perhaps, unfortunately been wrongfully dismissed from the service, a sense of wrong that their cases had never, so far as they knew, been brought forward fully and carefully for trial. It ought not, however, to be beyond the power of the Secretary of State for the time being to devise a process by which these cases could be tried by some competent tribunal, by which

    861
    tribunal every case would be reviewed as criminal cases were reviewed by the Home Office. That would not abrogate the power of the Crown to dispense with the services of officers where it was necessary. It would also give an opportunity for redressing grievances that might exist and that might be but too well founded. He asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office to make a note of the fact, and to bring it up next year with some proposal for a method more satisfactory than that at present existing.
    MAJOR SEELYappealed to the Financial Secretary to the War Office to carry out, now that he was in office, the eloquent words he used when he sat below the gangway. The hon. Member would remember that, on the case of a distinguished officer who was dismissed, he himself brought the matter before the House and in very eloquent language pleaded again and again that officers should have a right to demand a Court-martial. He was sure that anyone who heard the hon. Member then would be quite certain that when they appealed to him to fulfil, when he was in office, what he said when he was out of office, they should plead not in vain. This officer was removed from his

    AYES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Mara, James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Shee, James John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Black, Alexander William

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Langley, Batty

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Caldwell, James

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roche, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lundon, W.

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

    Crean, Eugene

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Cullinan, J.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sheehy, David

    Delany, William

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Doogan, P. C.

    M'Crae, George

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    Mooney, John J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Duffy, William J.

    Murphy, John

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Elibank, Master of

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Tomkinson, James

    Ellice, Capt EC (St Andrw's Bghs

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Emmott, Alfred

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Fenwick, Charles

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

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

    Ffrench, Peter

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.

    TELLEKS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

    Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

    O'Dowd, John

    Higham and Mr. Cathcart

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.

    Wason.

    position and frequently asked for a Court-martial but could not get one. He would ask the Financial Secretary whether he would not on that occasion say something of the same kind as he said two short years ago, when he vehemently upheld the view which they were now bringing before the Committee.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he had been very much impressed with the case in question, and he thought that the then Secretary for War behaved with extreme harshness. If the Financial Secretary had changed his mind would he read his own speech in the Kinloch case. He thought that any officer who was under an accusation should have the opportunity of meeting his opponents face to face. There ought to be proper inquiry in these matters and a Court-martial should be held in every case affecting an officer's character. Because there were not trials or Courts-martial in many cases in South Africa he believed a number of gentlemen were under a cloud who did not deserve any imputation.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 77; Noes, 133. (Division List No. 124.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

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

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Arroll, Sir William

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Atkinson. Rt. Hon. John

    Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Percy, Earl

    Balcarres, Lord

    Gretton, John

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

    Hamilton, Marq of (L'nd'nderry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Purvis, Robert

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords. NW

    Randles, John S.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Helder, Augustus

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bingham, Lord

    Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside

    Renwick, George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hoult, Joseph

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Brassey, Albert

    Howard, Jn. (Kent, Faversham

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Hozien, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Butcher, John George

    Hunt, Rowland

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Kerr, John

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Spear, John Ward

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.N.R

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham

    Tuff, Charles

    Denny, Colonel

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

    Turnour, Viscount

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Maclver, David (Liverpool)

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Egorton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Maconochie, A. W.

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

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

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

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

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

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

    Milvain, Thomas

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Fison, Frederick William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Moore, William

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount, Valentia.

    Forster, Henry William

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    MR. JAMES O'CONNOR MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.) moved a new clause as follows, "Anything to the contrary notwithstanding contained in the Array Act all officers, non-commissioned officers, and men shall be equally liable to the punishment provided respectively for the several offences contained therein." The hon. Member said he did not propose the Amendment in any spirit of hostility whatever to the officers of His Majesty's Army, for whom he had a very great respect. He had always found them most honourable and high-minded men, but he thought that no invidious distinctions should be made between them and the men whom they commanded in
    864
    regard to the punishments to which they should be subjected. He would ask the Attorney General whether, if he were called upon to prosecute any Member of the House, he would deal with the Gentleman any more lightly because he was a Member of that House. He ventured to say that he would press for punishment in a greater degree because he was his fellow Member, if he were guilty of any crime whatever. He would also say that if the hon. and learned Member had to prosecute any member of the profession, of the etiquette of which he was the guardian, for an offence against the moral law he would press for punishment in a greater degree because he

    865
    was a member of his own profession. In the Army Act the punishments of officers and men were differentiated. In Part 1, Section 6, Sub-section 10, for the offence of leaving his post as sentinel before he was regularly relieved an officer was liable to be cashiered, but a soldier was liable to imprisonment. Under Section 9, Sub-section 2, it was provided that if an officer disobeyed any Lawful command given by his superior officer on active service he should be liable to be cashiered while the soldier was liable to inprisonment. There were several other cases in which the same penalties were imposed, such as drunkenness. He submitted that no army could be well governed or well conducted unless the officers of that army set a proper and good example to the men beneath them, and he did not think it could be expected that the individual members of the Army should have any respect for the laws of the Army unless the officers were subject to the same punishment as their men. The present distinction was an invidious one.
    Another New Clause (Punishment)—(Mr. John O'Connor)— brought up, and read the first time.

    AYES

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E).

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Malley, William

    Allen, Charles P.

    Higham, John Sharp

    O'Mara, James

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

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

    O'Shee, James John

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Black, Alexander William

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Boland, John

    Joyce, Michael

    Reddy, M.

    Brigg, John

    Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

    Redmond (John K. (Waterford)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Langley, Batty

    Roberts, John H. Denbighs.)

    Caldwell, James

    Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington)

    Roche, John

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rose, Charles Day

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Lloyd-George, David

    Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

    Crean, Eugene

    Lundon, W.

    Samuel, S. M (Whitechapel)

    Cullinan, J.

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Sheehy, David

    Delany, William

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Doogan, P. C.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Sullivan, Donal

    Duffy, William J.

    M'Crae, George

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Elibank, Master of

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Tomkinson, James

    Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andr'wsB"ghs

    Mooney, John J.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Emmott, Alfred

    Murphy, John

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Fenwick, Charles

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    Ffrench, Peter

    0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)

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

    Gilhooly, James

    O'Connor, John (Kildare. N.)

    Gladstone. Rt. Hn. Herbert John

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo. S.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

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

    Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

    Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

    O'Dowd, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
    SIR ROBERT FINLAYthought he might congratulate the hon. Member upon the interest and vigour of the speech which he had just delivered after an all-night sitting. They both belonged to the same profession, and he was glad that the hon. Member had enlivened the debate as he had done. He thought the hon. Gentleman, however, did not realise what a terrible punishment being cashiered was. It was a punishment worse than death, and he did not believe that there was any officer who would not rather have a sentence of imprisonment than be cashiered. If imprisonment were substituted for cashiering it really would mitigate the penalty. It was realised that a more severe punishment was justified in the case of an officer than in the case of a soldier, and for that reason the officer was cashiered. He hoped the hon. Member would not persevere with this clause.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 82; Noes, 135. (Division List No. 125.)

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Gardner, Ernest

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Aguew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin — Nairn)

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Arnold-Forster, Rt Hn. Hugh O.

    Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Green, Walford D. (Wednosbury

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

    Balcarres, Lord

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Percy, Earl

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

    Gretton, John

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Pryoe-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N. W

    Purvis, Robert

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Helder, Augustus

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Bingham, Lord

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Renwick, George

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Hornby, Sir William Henry

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Butcher, John George

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Hunt, Rowland

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn, Sir John H.

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Skewes-Cox, Thomas

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Smith, Rt Hn. J. Parker (Lanarks

    Chapman, Edward

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Spear, John Ward

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

    Coates, Edward Feetham

    Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

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

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N. R

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

    Tuff, Charles

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Turnour, Viscount

    Denny, Colonel

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Lucas, Roginald J. (Portsmouth)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Macdona, John Cumming

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

    Duke, Henry Edward

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und-Lyne

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

    Majendie, James A. H.

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

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

    Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

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

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

    Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs

    Milvain, Thomas

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

    Fison, Frederick William

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Moore, William

    Forster, Henry William

    Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

    Schedule:—
    MR. J. H. LEWIS MR. J. H. LEWIS moved an Amendment to the schedule in order to omit the words specifying of what the soldiers' breakfast should consist. The allowance was half-a-pound of bread and a cup of tea. It did not include any butter or dripping or margarine, and the men had to be content with a cup of tea without sugar and milk. Some years ago the late Mr. Hanbury made a forcible protest against this treatment of soldiers, and attributed it to the fact that the private soldier had no vote. They ought, as a nation, to be ashamed to treat
    868
    the private soldier so. What became of all the money which had been poured out so freely during the last few years? Thousands had been spent upon sectarian schools; but the private soldier was treated to breakfast at the rate of three halfpence.
    *MR. ARNOLD- FORSTERsaid the schedule was already part of the Act, because the breakfast as specified in the schedule had already been passed. Therefore the Government could not accept this Amendment. The schedule ran that breakfast was to be as specified

    869
    in Part I. of the second schedule of the Army Act. The second schedule of the Army Act gave particulars of the breakfasts, and having passed the Army Act they could not go back.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEinquired if the second schedule of the Act had yet been passed; and if not, would he be in order in moving an Amendment.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE,on the point of order, said that all that had been proposed was the omission of these words. It was very well known that they could not move increases in Committee, and the only way in which to call attention to the subject was to move a reduction.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I think that the schedule is covered by the last line of Clause 3 in this Bill It does not refer to the Army Act but to the schedule of this Act.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsupported the Amendment. The soldier who read the account of the debate would, he said, be no doubt enamoured at the treatment he received from a grateful country. They were told that they were dependent upon the soldier for sleeping safely in their beds at night. This was a maximum grant in regard to breakfast, and it amounted in cost to three halfpence, when it had been found that to breakfast a child in school cost more than a penny. It would be seen from that the miserable way in which the soldier was treated. The total allowance for a horse was 1s. 9d. per day.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman,
    870
    but he is now talking about another line in the schedule, and must confine himself to the Amendment.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid he was not going to move anything. He simply wanted to indicate a point. It was that 1s. 9d. was the rate for the food of a horse and the total amount for the food and lodging of a soldier was 1s. 7d. Breakfast cost three half-pence, and the allowances were an insult to a soldier in his most vital part which no Englishman could stand.
    MR. JOSEPH WALTONinquired if the schedule would not have to be put as a whole to the House, and therefore whether they could not move to amend any part of it.
    THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We have passed to a certain part of the schedule and cannot go back.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid be believed he was the only one in the House of the original band of three patentees of all-night sittings on the Army (Annual) Bill. That band consisted of Mr. Bartley, Mr. Hanbury, and himself. There was this essential difference between the discussion in 1893 and the present, because in 1893 the Government of the day altered the Bill and introduced it in an entirely different form from that adopted in previous years. They were opposed by a mechanical majority, but nevertheless their action was justified, because some of the Amendments they had proposed to the Bill were introduced by the Government themselves in the House of Lords.
    MR. McKENNA: But you were dealing with an intelligent Government.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They were not intelligent during the night they opposed us.
    *THE DEPUTY CHAIEMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that on the former occasion they objected to the three half-pence for breakfast on the ground that the licensed victualler, out of the kindness of his heart and his generosity and devotion to the service, gave the soldier an excellent breakfast for three half-pence. Their objection was not that the men did not get enough to eat but that the licensed victualler was not paid enough. His knowledge was that the soldier did get a good breakfast, and if there was any injury at all it was to the man from whom it was purchased. He did not see the reasonableness of omitting the provision as to the payment of the three half-pence, because it would leave the licensed victualler with no payment at all.
    *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Member who last spoke was quite correct. The effect of this Amendment would be to deprive the licensed victualler of all payment. It was, as a matter of fact, arranged that the private soldier should have an uncommonly good breakfast, and this three half-pence only furnished him with a small part of it.
    MR. J. H. LEWISsaid, if his Amendment were carried, its only effect would be to turn out the Government
    872
    and replace them by other people who would do justice to the common soldier.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid that not only was three half-pence provided for breakfast, but it was specified what the soldier should receive for it.
    MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he was one of the mechanical majority who divided against the hon. Member some years ago. He then rather sympathised with the hon. Member's argument, and he thought the case that was now made was stronger, because they had in the interval come to voting an additional £15,000,000, and out of that sum something should be found to increase this three half-pence. They wanted to prevent the licensed victualler losing, but the only way they could do that was to move what was practically a reduction.
    Amendment negatived without a division.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. SPEAKKR adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock a.m.