HC Deb 06 April 1905 vol 144 cc725-60

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 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 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 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.


wished 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, 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 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, 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.


How long?


said 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 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 LUCAS (Portsmouth)

said 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 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 WALTON (Yorkshire, W.R., Barnsley)

asked 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 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 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 ALLEN (Gloucestershire, Stroud)

asked 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. PEEL (Manchester, S.)

said 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.


I expressed my adherence a year ago to the Cardwell system when, I think, I was the only private Member who did so.


said 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 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 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.


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 was not made by uninformed untravelled persons alone. It was made at the express request, and on the urgent representations, of Lord Cromer himself.


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.


I need not press the matter any further.


What reduction has been made?


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 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 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 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 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.


Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that this invitation is to be given to the Force piecemeal?


Supposing a battalion accepts the offer, what will be its condition?


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.


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?


It cannot possibly be conveyed to the whole force.


Then it will be done piecemeal?


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 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 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.


inquired how the establishment of the Volunteers was to be reduced by 114,000 men without interfering with the battalions now existing.


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 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.


That is what you proposed.


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 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 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. 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. BLACK (Banffshire)

thought 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.)

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.
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)
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.)

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.)
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.
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.)

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
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