Commons Sitting of 29 March 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Accrington Corporation Bill; Accrington District Gas and Water Board Bill. As amended, to be considered To-morrow.
Wrexham, Gas Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
London United Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (No. 1) Bill, Hitchin and District Gas Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURALS RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Morayshire, for continuance; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS (PROTECTION) BILL.
  Petition from London and other places, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Kilbarchan; and Pollokshaws; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Ashton-under-Lyne; Exmouth; Leeds; Leicester (two); National British Women's Temperance Association; and Skipton; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Morpeth, against; to lie upon the Table.
  MILK DEPOTS (LONDON) BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Battersea, against; to lie upon the Table.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE MARKS BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 3331 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (MONEY ORDERS).
  Copy presented, of Postal Agreement for an exchange of Money Orders between the Post Office of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of Russia, dated the 17th/29th October, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REVENUE (COLLECTION OF TAXES).
  Return presented, relative thereto, [ordered 28th February; Mr. Mc Crae]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]
  LOCAL TAXATION (IRELAND) RETURNS.
  Copy presented, of Returns of Local Taxation in Ireland for the year 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (IRELAND), 1877.
  Copy presented, of an Order in Council, dated 22nd February, 1905, giving effect to Rules of Court under The Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland), 1877 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
  Copy presented, of Memorandum by the Chairman of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to inquire into the

  1511
  Law relating to Compensation for Injuries to Workmen, on Foreign and Colonial Laws relating to Compensation for Injuries to Workmen. Vol. III. Supplementary Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS FUND.
  Return ordered, "relating to the Post Office Savings Banks Fund, giving—
  The amount of Consols (including Reduced and New Three per Cent. Stocks) bought and sold for cash, and the cash paid and received for the same, for each year since its establishment; and the average price of these transactions.
  The amount of Consols held by the National Debt Commissioners for the Fund at the 31st day of December, 1904; and.
  The amount of Consols (including Reduced and New Three per Cent. Stocks) cancelled in exchange for Terminable Annuities, stating, where applicable, the date of cancellation, the cash value of the stock at that date, the amount of the Annuity, the term of its currency, and the rate of interest at which, it was set up."—(Dr. Macnamara.)

  COAL IMPORTS (FRANCE).
  Return ordered, "showing the quantity of Coal imported into France from Germany, Belgium, Holland, the United Kingdom, and other sources in each of the years 1895–1904, distinguishing separately imports by sea and imports by land."—(Sir Thomas Wrightson.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Training College for Elementary School Teachers—Grant to Hereford Training College.
  SIR JAMES RANKIN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Board of Education have now come to any decision as to the amount of grant that can be given in aid of the building or purchase of buildings for the purpose of a training college for elementary school teachers; and, if so, whether be
  1512
  could state what sum had been or would be awarded to the Hereford Training College.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The matter is still under consideration, and I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to make any statement upon the subject. The Board are in communication with the Treasury upon the matter.

  Wreck of the "Khyber"—Efficiency of Coastguard Service.
  MR. SOARES: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether, in giving instructions for the inquiry to be held with regard to the wreck of the ship "Khyber," he will order that the efficiency of the coastguard service in the neighbourhood be inquired into.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) In holding the inquiry ordered to be held in the case of the "Khyber," due regard will be had to the question of the efficiency of the coastguard, in so far as it is relevant to the case.

  Irish Lightships Adrift.
  MAJOR JAMESON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state at what length of cable the Barrels Lightship was riding when she broke adrift, and at what distance from the mushroom the cable parted; and if he will supply a list of the Irish lightships which have broken adrift during the last ten years, and the reasons for their having done so.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that this lightship was riding to about 200 fathoms of chain when she broke adrift, and that the chain parted at about 80 fathoms from the mushroom. I am also informed that the only other lightships which have broken adrift during the past ten years are the Coning-beg (on 15th instant), the Daunts Rock (on 22nd January, 1903), and the South Arklow (on 3rd November, 1899), and that in each of these instances the cause was the parting of the cable during a severe gale.

  Recruiting for Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the date when recruiting for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve commenced; and whether the number 3,053, stated in the First Lord's Memorandum as the total strength of that force on 1st December, 1904, represents the total result of efforts made up to that date to obtain Volunteers for service in the Fleet in war, carrying with it the obligation to serve abroad or Wherever the exigencies of war may require.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) Recruiting for the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve began officially in London, the first centre, in August, 1903; from November, 1903, to July, 1904, recruiting commenced at various other centres at different dates. The number of men stated in the First Lord's Memorandum represents the total strength of the force (exclusive of staff) on the 1st December last. That number represents the recruiting by such divisions as the Admiralty thought desirable to authorise during the first year.

  Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve—Qualifications required for Officers and Men.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table information as to the nature of the qualifications required for officers and men entering the Royal Naval Volunteer force, and a copy of the agreement, if any, they are required to enter into when approved for service.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The nature of the qualifications required of officers and men entering the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and of the agreement under which they volunteer to serve, will be found in the Admiralty regulations and in Schedules A and B of those regulations. The regulations are issued to the public on sale and I have laid a copy upon the Table of the House.

  Petition of Women Sorters at Post Office Savings Bank Department.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Postmaster-General if a decision has yet
  1514
  been arrived at in the case of the petition, dated January 6th, 1903, from the women sorters, Savings Bank Department; and if a copy of the decision, when given, will be supplied to the memorialists in writing.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The hon. Member no doubt refers to a petition from the women sorters dated 19th January, 1903. This was considered by my predecessor, whose decision was communicated to the memorialists verbally on 25th February, 1903. If they wish for a copy of the decision they can have one on applying to the Controller of the Savings Bank Department.

  Telegraphists and Postal Duties.
  MR. BELL: To ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of his predecessor's assurances to telegraphists that no officers entering the service before 1896 should be compelled to perform duties in the postal branch, he will explain why orders have now been given that certain telegraphists entering before that date are to take duty in sorting offices or be removed from the town in which they have lived.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am not aware that my predecessor gave any such assurance as that to which the hon. Member refers. I shall be obliged if he will inform me when, and to whom, the statement in question was made.

  New Post Office at Birkenhead.
  SIR ELLIOTT LEES: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he can now hold out any hope of commencing the promised new post office building at Birkenhead during the coming financial year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I hope that it may be possible to make a beginning in the course of the coming financial year, but I am still unable to give any definite pledge in regard to the new office, as there are many other very urgent cases.

  Wages of Post Office Engineers.
  MR. CAWLEY: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that certain men employed in the

  1515
  engineering department of the Post Office, and stationed in the North-Western district, have had their wages reduced to twenty-three shillings per week through no fault of their own; and will he consider the advisability of fixing a minimum wage of twenty-five shillings per week for all adult employees of the engineering department of the postal telegraphs.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The men to whom the hon. Member refers were engaged as wiremen for a particular work, and that work being finished their engagement terminated. Rather, however, than send the men away the superintending engineer found some labourers work for them, and they are being paid the proper rate for such work. I am not prepared to fix a minimum rate of twenty-five shillings.

  Post Office—Alteration of Official Pay Day.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he has received a petition signed by over 6,000 London postmen protesting against the proposed alteration of their pay day from Saturday to Friday; and, if so, is he now prepared to alter his decision and retain Saturday as the official pay day.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I have received petitions upon the subject from a large number of the London postmen, and they have been informed of my decision. I am satisfied that it is desirable to change the pay day from Saturday to Friday. In order to avoid inconvenience long notice was given of the change, and an advance of pay will be made to any officer who requires temporary assistance.

  Rate Demand Notes—Particulars of Amounts required for Specific Purposes
  MR. LAYLAND-BARRATT: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in any case where the persons responsible for the collection of rates in a borough have in addition to the legal form of demand for rates furnished the ratepayers on the demand note with particulars of the amounts required for specific purposes, including that of education, the
  1516
  Local Government Board have interfered in any way to prevent this being done.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The Answer is in the negative.

  Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the lowest class for a teacher and the lowest average attendance for a school to qualify for the special consideration mentioned in Rule 112 (e) of the 1905 issue of the Rules and Regulations of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland; and will this rule apply retrospectively to those teachers who, being trained or in training when the revised salary rules came into operation on April 1st, 1900, have been compelled, irrespective of their classification and the importance of the schools entrusted to their charge, to accept third grade salary on their appointment as principals.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Commissioners require a classification of first division of second class; and they reserve to themselves the power of deciding, according to the merits of each case, whether the school is, in the terms of the rule, "large and important." The special consideration mentioned in the rule is given only to those assistants who were in the service before April, 1900, and who may now be appointed principals.

  Evicted Tenants on the White Estate, near Bantry
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inspector has been appointed by the Estates Commissioners to inquire into the cases of evicted tenants on the White Estate, near Bantry; and, if so, what is the name of the gentleman.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The applications of these tenants for reinstatement has been reported upon by an inspector, but it is not usual or necessary to state the inspector's name.

  Catholic Clerks in the Veterinary Branch of the Irish Agricultural Department.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that it has been alleged that certain Catholic clerks in the veterinary branch of the Agricultural Department had made misstatements of facts in their reply to the secretary's minute condemning the Parliamentary action taken in their case, and seeing that both the text of the clerks', reply as well as particulars of their alleged misstatements have so far been withheld from the House, he will say what steps he proposes taking to enable the House to form an independent judgment on the whole matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The facts of the case have been repeatedly stated in the House in reply to the hon. Member's Questions. I do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

  Clifden Harbour Improvements.
  MR. O'MALLEY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the improvement of the Clifden Harbour, for which £3,000 was allotted under the Marine Works Act, has yet commenced; and, if not, whether, in view of the importance to the fishing industry of this district, and also in view of the fact that distress at present prevails in the neighbourhood, steps will be taken to start this work without further delay.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The negotiations in respect of works at Clifden have not yet been brought to conclusion. Measures for the relief of exceptional distress in the Clifden Union have already been adopted.

  Arrest of the Owa of Ilesha.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information as to the arrest of the Owa of Ilesha, in the Lagos Colony, on the 19th instant, and his deportation to Benin by order of the Governor of Lagos; and, if so, whether he will state what were the reasons for this action.
  1518
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have received no information on this subject.

  Brigade of Guards—Deficiency of Officers.
  MR. COLSTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War when he proposes to fill up the vacancies in the junior ranks of the officers of the Brigade of Guards.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am not at present in a position to make any statement in regard to the measures to be taken to remedy the deficiency of officers in question.

  Service Rifle—Cost if made in Government Factories or by Private Contractors.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the cost per rifle to the Government of the present service rifle when made in Government factories and when made by private contractors for the Government, respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The figures for the present long rifle for 1903–4 were: — Ordnance Factories, £2 14s. 4¼d.; Trade, £310s. 0.1., and these prices are exclusive of cost of inspection and other Departmental expenses. The figures for the short rifle were given in reply to the hon. Member for the Epping Division of Essex on the 21st instant.†

  Cost of Ammunition.
  SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the cost to the Government per 1,000 rounds of the 303 cordite ammunition as now issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The cost per 1,000 rounds of the Mark VI. ammunition for 1903–4 was—Ordnance Factories, £4 7s. 2¾d.; Trade (average), £4 10s. 0d. For the year 1904–5 the actual factories' price has not yet been worked out, but the trade average price is £4 8s. 6d. These prices are exclusive of cost of inspection and other Departmental expenses.
  † See page 641.

  QUESSONS IN THE HOUSE

    Solderless Tinning Syndicate—Admiralty Circulars.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that in January, 1902, the Admiralty issued a circular C.P. 57/575 to contractors for tinned goods, pointing out the advantages of the patent in the hands of the Maconochie's Solderless Tinning Syndicate, Limited, and the gain, in spite of the syndicate's royalty, resulting from the adoption of this new process, and that, in a circular in July, 1902, the Admiralty drew the attention of contractors to the fact that this syndicate were prepared to supply any Admiralty contractors with the requisite plant for making these tins at once and at cost price, he will give the names of those who form this syndicate.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The Admiralty is not aware of the names of the persons forming the Maconochie Solderless Tinning Syndicate, Limited. The first circular, referred to in the hon. Member's Question, asked the opinion of leading provision preservers as to the advantages claimed by the syndicate for this tin. The second circular asked for alternative tenders for jam supplied in these tins and in ordinary tins.

    Expenditure on His Majesty's Ship "Sultan."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the Return, Navy (Vessels struck off the Effective List), can he state as to His Majesty's ship "Sultan," completed in 1871 at a total cost of £506,455, and on which £204,913 was spent in raising and reconstructing her after she had been sunk near Malta, as well as £136,521 in repairs during the last ten years, or a total of £341,434, what has been the total sum expended on this ship, whether in raising her when a wreck, or in repairs, since her completion in 1871.
    MR. PRETYMAN: £132,570 of the £204,913 were spent in the ten years
    1520
    covered by column 6 of the Return, and are therefore included in the £136,521 shown in that column. The total sum expended upon the "Sultan" since her completion has been £411,358.

    Highland Regiments.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state how many Highland regiments are quartered in the Highlands of Scotland, the strength of each regiment, the number of Gaelic-speaking ministers attached to these regiments, and whether weekly services are held in Gaelic.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): There is one Highland regiment quartered in the Highlands, at Fort George, viz., the 1st Royal Highlanders. The strength of this battalion is 591, all ranks. As regards religious ministrations, all such arrangements are left in the hands of the General Officer Commanding, to whom the hon. Member should apply for the information he requires.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILLon a point of order, asked if the Secretary of State for War had not been guilty of a breach of Parliamentary privilege in referring the hon. Member for information to the commanding officer of the regiment, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman was himself responsible to the House.
    *MR. SPEAKER: That is obviously not a question of order.

    Military Peat Moss Contracts at Belfast.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the military authorities in Belfast are at present advertising for some thousand tons of peat moss, he will give an undertaking that, having regard to the abundance of peat moss in Ireland, the peat moss for which tenders are invited will not be imported from Germany.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No restrictions are placed on the source of supply of the peat moss litter. Consideration

    1521
    will, however, be accorded to suitability and price.

    Tinned Rations in the Egyptian and Soudan Campaigns.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state whether in recent campaigns in Egypt and the Soudan tins of preserved rations, closed in the ordinary way by solder and subjected to exceptional treatment under active service conditions as great or greater than that to which the rations in South Africa recently condemned were exposed, for the most part remained in a sound state; and what proportion, if any, of such tinned goods was it found necessary to destroy during those campaigns.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No special reports can now be traced of the destruction or condemnation of preserved rations during the recent campaigns in Egypt and the Soudan.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: Surely it is known whether the supplies generally were satisfactory or whether a large proportion had to be destroyed as in the late war?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: It is a long time since, and no reports are available.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I shall draw attention to this matter later on.

    Emergency Rations—Solderless Tinning.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what proportion of the 1,034,532 emergency rations, and of the 4,537,090 meat and vegetable rations, referred to in the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General as destroyed in South Africa, had been closed and insulated with non-deleterious paper by the patent process of the Maconochie's Solderless Tinning Syndicate, Limited, and what proportion hermetically sealed with solder in the ordinary way.
    CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what proportion of the 497,125 emergency rations condemned at home and what proportion of the 365,600 of similar
    1522
    rations replaced by the contractor, many of which latter were subsequently found to be unsound, although guaranteed for two years and not sent out of this country, had been closed by the patent process of the Maconochie's Solderless Tinning Syndicate, Limited; and what proportion had been hermetically sealed with solder in the ordinary way.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: All tins of emergency rations supplied during the war were hermetically sealed with solder in the ordinary way. Certain tins of meat and vegetable rations supplied during the latter part of the war period were closed without solder, but the number is not known. So far as can be ascertained, about two-thirds of the tins were soldered and one-third were solderless.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it desirable to refer to General Butler's Committee the question of adopting the one form or the other.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir. It is not, I think, a suitable matter to refer to the Committee.
    CAPTAIN NORTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the names of the gentlemen connected with the syndicate, seeing that the Secretary to the Admiralty suppressed that portion of his Question to him.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I will endeavour to answer a Question if the hon. and gallant Member will give notice of it.
    *MR. MACONOCHIE: May I ask whether the contractors paid for the material to replace the emergency rations at Woolwich, whether they were specially inspected, and whether the Government received the money for all material supplied?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes; I believe the facts are as stated by the hon. Member.

    Militia Officers' Travelling Expenses.
    COLONEL LLEWELLYN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended this year

    1523
    to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteer Forces, namely, that officers should travel to and from their homes at the public expense when attending training or courses, or called up for duty.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The recommendation in question refers to Militia officers. As stated in the Memorandum on Army Estimates, until the reductions in the Militia therein referred to have taken place it will not be possible to give effect to the principal recommendations of the Commission. It has not, therefore, been found practicable to carry out the recommendation alluded to in the Question.

    Royal Military College, Sandhurst
    MR. CHARLES ALLEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any intention of proceeding with the enlargement of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst; and, if not, whether this will entail the abandonment of the previously arranged scheme for a two years course for cadets.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The Answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. Until the enlargement is effected, it will be necessary to reduce the course at the college from two years to twelve months in order to increase the output.

    Army Clothing Wastage.
    MR. LYELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for South Somersetshire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the War Office did not retain in stock instead of selling a short time ago a large number of suits for discharged soldiers, seeing that they are now asking for tenders for 2,000 suits of similar clothing.
    *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BEOMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): The storage room occupied by the stock in question was urgently required for other more important purposes. The hon. Member will understand that the storage
    1524
    accommodation at the Royal Army Clothing Depot is limited.

    The Transvaal War Loan.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. F. Eckstein, to the effect that nothing would give the Rand mineowners greater pleasure than to be called upon to fulfil their obligations in respect of the £30,000,000 Transvaal Loan at once; and whether he will, in view of this statement, take steps to issue this loan.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have seen the statement attributed to Mr. Eckstein, in the report of an interview in a weekly newspaper. I have nothing to add to what I said in this House on the 20th† and 22nd ‡ of March.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Was Mr. Eckstein one of those who agreed to underwrite the loan?
    MR. LYTTELTON: Either he or his firm were included among the underwriters.

    Halifax and Esquimault Defences.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when was the offer made by the Canadian Government to take over the defences at Halifax and Esquimault; what were the terms and conditions of the offer; and when and why was the offer refused.
    MR. LYTTELTON: I must refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on February 27th§ to a similar Question by the hon. Member for East Perthshire, from which he will learn the date and the terms of the offer, and will also perceive that the offer has not been refused.
    † See page 554.
    ‡ See page 825.
    § See (4) Debates, exli., 1299.

    Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.
    DR. MACNAMAEA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt were, in the evidence given before the Select Committee of 1902 on Savings Banks Funds, admitted by the Controller-General of the National Debt to be practically a phantom body; and, if so, whether he will recommend the appointment of a Committee to consider the position and duties of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and to report whether any, and, if so, what, alterations should be made in the constitution and status of the body with the view of restoring to it the position of exercising control over the national finances.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,E.): No, Sir, I am not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Committee for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member. I may add that there is no foundation for the suggestion that it is the business of the National Debt Commissioners to control the national finances.
    DR. MACNAMARAasked whether it was not the fact that the Commissioners had never met since their appointment in 1862.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think they met once—in 1864, but I am not quite certain. The work of the Commissioners is carried on by the Controller's Office in frequent communication with and under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who consults the other Commissioners if he thinks it necessary.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Have they ever met since their appointment.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I think once, but if the hon. Member wants particulars of these meetings and will put down an unstarred Question, I will, if I can, answer it.

    Pension Regulations.
    DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether
    1526
    he will consider the desirableness of providing for such alterations in existing regulations as will enable Civil servants who have served in the Army or the Navy to obtain recognition of non-pensioned military or naval service on being superannuated from the Civil Departments.
    *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH,W.): The alteration suggested by the hon. Member could not be effected without legislation, and I do not think that such legislation is called for in the circumstances of the present time.
    DR. MACNAMARA: Then if a man has served until he is eligible for an Army or Navy pension and then joins the Civil Service is he for that reason disqualified for the pension earned in the Army or Navy?
    *MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHasked for notice to be given.

    Licensing Regulations.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attenton has been drawn to the fact that, under his Licensing Rules, 1904, if the local bench, after objection by a member of the public, reports a licence as not required, the compensation authority at its preliminary meeting may decide forthwith to renew the licence without hearing the public objector, whereas the compensation authority has no power to refuse the renewal of a licence at the preliminary meeting, but can only refer it for final decision to the principal meeting, at which the licensee concerned must be summoned to attend; and, if so, whether he will modify his rules so as to secure for the public objector the right to be heard in person by any meeting of justices to which is entrusted the power of renewing a licence.
    *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. The compensation authority have no power, either under

    1527
    the Licensing Act, 1904, or the rules, to renew any licence. Section 1, Sub-section 2, of the Act provides that they may, if they think it expedient after hearing parties, refuse the renewal of a licence referred to them. If they do not think it expedient, the provisional renewal granted by the renewal authority under the Act and the rules continues in force. The right of the "public objector" (to use the hon. Member's phrase) to be heard before the justices who have power to renew licences is secured by the existing law, and is not affected by the rules, which I see, therefore, no reason to alter.
    MR. LEIF JONES: Does the licence remain a provisional licence throughout the year?
    *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I should like notice of that Question. If the hon. Member will see me privately on the subject I will give him full information.

    Metropolitan Pneumatic Despatch Company's Bill.
    SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the pending Bill for incorporating a company, under the name of the Metropolitan Pneumatic Despatch Company, for the purpose of laying pipes for pneumatic despatch under the streets of the county of London; and whether, having regard to the fact that a Royal Commission has under consideration the state of London streets and the best mode of preventing the congestion of traffic, he will oppose the grant of further powers of breaking up the streets and impeding traffic to a private company until that Commission has reported.
    MR. BENN: May I at the same time ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the number of pipes and wires already occupying the subsoil of the principal London thoroughfares, and the interference with traffic arising from the breaking up of streets, the Government will oppose new and extensive powers of using the subsoil being granted to a private company such as
    1528
    that proposed to be constituted by the Pneumatic Despatch Company's Bill; and whether any communication on the subject of the Bill has taken place between the Government and the London County Council as the main drainage authority, the owner of an extensive system of London tramways, and the central representative authority of the Metropolis.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,Westhoughton): As this affects my Department, perhaps I may be allowed to reply. I have received representations from the London County Council and the Corporation of the City of London with reference to the Bill; those bodies point out the great inconvenience which will result to the inhabitants of London from so extensive an interference with the streets of the Metropolis as that contemplated by the proposed company. I share this view, and I am unable to see that any advantage for the postal service could be derived from the creation of a system of pneumatic despatch which would counterbalance the grave evils arising from the construction and maintenance of a new and extensive system of underground tubes. I therefore view with disfavour the proposals of the Bill, and am strongly of opinion that no such measure should be proceeded with until the Royal Commission which is considering the question of London traffic has made its Report. I am acting entirely in harmony with the City Corporation and the London County Council in this matter.

    Postal Arrangements with Canada.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Canada in the Senate at Ottawa, on February 22nd, 1905, that the policy of His Majesty's Government in refusing to accede to the repeated demands of the Canadian authorities for a reduction in certain postal arrangements wasextraordinary, unwise, unsympathetic, and unpatriotic; and, if so, what action does His Majesty's Government intend taking.
    LORD STANLEY: My attention has been called to the statement in question. The reasons which render it impossible for His Majesty's Government to accede to the request for the reduction of certain postal rates to Canada were fully explained by me recently in reply to a deputation. They are too long to give in Answer across the floor of the House, but I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with a report of my remarks. He will then see that there are two sides to this question.

    Foreign Officers in the British Mercantile Marine.
    MR. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade if he will state how many ships of the British mercantile marine are now commanded or officered by persons who are not British subjects.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Black-friars): The Board of Trade have no information showing the number of British ships now commanded or officered by foreigners. The desired information for the year 1901 is contained in Parliamentary Paper, 0d. 1342.

    Erosion of the English Coast.
    MR. MARKS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he can state what area of land around the English coast has been lost within the last fifty years by erosion, and the approximate value of such land.
    MR. BONAR LAW: I regret that the Board of Trade are unable to give even an approximate estimate of the area and value of the land which has been lost within the last fifty years by erosion around the English coast.

    Motor Car Speeds in the Parks.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that a case concerning the legal validity of the regulations prescribing ten miles an hour in the parks is now under appeal to the High Court; and whether, until that appeal is decided, he will allow
    1530
    the ordinary law of the land to apply and cease prosecutions which may be illegal.
    LORD BALCARRES: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner regrets that he is unable to give any pledge pending the decision of the case.
    MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: When is the decision of the High Court likely to be given?
    LORD BALCARRES: I cannot say; we have no control over His Majesty's Judges or the High Court, but we are as anxious as anybody to get the decision without delay.

    North Sea Fisheries Scientific Investigations.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether any Fishery Board cruisers have been utilised for the purposes of the North Sea Fisheries Scientific Investigations; and, if so, will he name the vessels so employed, and state for what period they were respectively engaged.
    *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): No Fishery Board cruisers have been utilised for the purposes of the North Sea Fisheries Scientific Investigations.

    Long Island Medical Officer of Health.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has yet received a report from the Lewis District Committee relative to the appointment of a medical officer of health for the Long Island; and in the event of effect being given to the suggestion, will arrangements be made for the new officer to be responsible to the Local Government Board direct, and not to the medical officer of health for the county.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. With regard to the second part I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on March 14th.†
    † See (4) Debates, exlii., 1384.
    MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the latter part of my Question.
    *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: If the hon. Member will look at the reply given on the 14th he will find I have given all the information I have.

    Absconding Newry Rate Collector.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, with reference to the case of the absconding rate collector in Newry, whether he has ascertained that Livingstone, as sole executor of the will of the late Francis Fearon, received over £900 of trust money; that instead of investing this money in the names of the beneficiaries he invested part of it in his own name in the Carlingford Steamship Company and in the Dundalk and Newry Steamship Company; and that he subsequently sold these shares and embezzled the proceeds as well as the balance which he had not invested; if so, whether he can state why the Crown held that these facts did not afford sufficient reason for applying in Canada for the execution of the warrant issued against him in Newry; and whether, in view of the fact that he subsequently embezzled the funds entrusted to him as rate collector, he will state whether steps will now be taken to enforce the warrant issued in the case.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): I have already explained to the hon. Member that a prosecution in such a case as this can only be instituted with the consent of the Attorney-General, and that my fiat was never asked for or obtained before the warrant was issued; that Fearon and his solicitor were informed what legal evidence should be furnished before any action could be taken to have Livingstone brought back to this country; that no such evidence has ever been furnished, and no legal evidence ever tendered to prove any of the several statements of facts mentioned in the Question. The absence of such evidence is the reason why the Crown have not taken any action. The Newry Urban Council complained to the police that Livingstone had appropriated a large sum of money belonging
    1532
    to them, but refused to have any information sworn in support of that charge, preferring to sue his sureties in a civil Court, which they have done. The Answer to the last query is in the negative.
    MR. MACVEAGH: Why did not the police inquire of the local authority? Is there any doubt whatever as to the facts mentioned in the Question?
    MR. ATKINSON: The urban council refused the information, and before the Attorney-General can authorise a prosecution he must have evidence before him sufficient to justify his sanction being given.
    MR. MACVEAGH: If evidence is now laid before the right hon. Gentleman will he apply for this man's extradition?
    MR. ATKINSON: If proper evidence is laid I shall be only too happy to take the necessary proceedings.

    Irish Department of Agriculture—English and Scotch Officials.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how many English and how many Scotch people are employed in Ireland by the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and what is the gross amount of salary paid to them; and whether, in the making of future appointments, the Department will take into consideration the claims of Irish candidates to employment in their own country.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): The Department have no record of the nationality of the members of their staff. In making appointments the Department endeavours to secure the services of those who, in their opinion, are best qualified for the discharge of the particular work required.
    MR. JOHN REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in answering a Question of this kind, try to give us facts. It is scarcely respectful to answer the Question in the way he has done. Everybody knows the nationality of these men.
    MR. WALTER LONG: I gave the Answer in precisely the same form as I should have done had it been addressed to me at the Local Government Board Office. I said the Department have no records. That is the case.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Who was that Answer prepared by, was it by Sir Horace Plunkett, who ought either to be in this House to answer Questions or to resign. It is a fallacious Answer. [Cries of "Order."] Yes, it is fallacious.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to comment on the Answer.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I am commenting, Sir, on the conduct of those who by calling me to order are seeking to usurp your position.

    Irish Public Loan Fund Board
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the cost of administration of the Public Loan Fund Board of Ireland is derived wholly or in part from the profits derived from the compulsory purchase of stationery by local loan fund societies from the Loan Fund Office in Dublin Castle; and, if so, will the Government take the necessary steps to abolish this monopoly and to defray the cost of administration of the Public Loan Fund Board out of the Imperial Treasury.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The expenses of administration of this Board are derived in part from the sale of promissory note and debenture forms, under the authority of 6 and 7 Vic., cap. 91, Sec. 46, and 35 and 36 Vic., cap. 17, Sec. 2. The Government are in no way responsible for the administration of the Loan Fund Board. The reply to the second inquiry is in the negative.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not the purchase of the stationery compulsory under the statute?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I ought to have notice of that Question. I can only give the facts as they reach me.

    Donegal Farm Prize Scheme.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Department of Agriculture in Ireland has requested the secretary of the County of Donegal Committee of Agriculture and Technical Instruction to prepare a map of county Donegal, showing the residence of each entrant under the Farm Prize Scheme, 1905; and, if so, will he state for what purpose such a map is considered necessary; and whether, in view of the trouble and cost that the preparation of such a map would involve, he will say from what fund such expense would be defrayed, and direct that the information given in the entry forms shall be used to enable the officials of the Department to locate the competitors.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The map is required for the convenience of the itinerant instructors in agriculture, who are supplied free of cost to the county, to act as judges under the scheme of prizes for cottages and small farms. The only expense would be the cost of a county index map, viz., 2s. 6d., which would be defrayed out of the administrative expenses of the scheme. It is apprehended that but little trouble would be involved in marking on the map the approximate location of competing holdings.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not this map rendered essential owing to the ignorance, of the itinerant instructors?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member to refrain from commenting on the Answers.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: It is the only chance one has.

    Galway Guardians and Education Rule No. 127b.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the resolution adopted by the board of guardians of Galway Union at their meeting, held on 22nd instant, protesting against the new rule, No. 127b, issued by the Board of

    1535
    National Education, Ireland, complaining that the enforcement of this rule would mean the withdrawal from their schools of the male assistant teachers of Ireland, and asking for the withdrawal of the rule in question; and, if so, what action does he propose taking in the matter.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The resolution has been received. I have already stated that the Commissioners will specially consider any case in which the enforcement of the rule would lead to the disemployment of an assistant teacher.
    MR. FLYNN: Will the Commissioners consider the propriety of withdrawing the rule altogether in view of the objection raised to it?
    MR. WALTER LONG: I have stated they are not inclined to do that, but they will consider individual cases.

    Castlederg and Killeter No. 2 Dispensary District.
    MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. John McGlinchy, dated March 6th, instant, sending to the Local Government Board a petition signed by 220 ratepayers in the Castlederg and Killeter No. 2 Dispensary District of Castlederg Union, North Tyrone, relative to the place of residence of the medical officer, and complaining that his residence is on the bounds of the district, which imposed on many of the destitute poor when requiring medical aid the necessity of travelling up to twelve miles in all weathers for the purpose of obtaining it; and, if so, will he take the necessary steps to obviate this, and insure that the medical officer may take up his abode in a central position in his district which will be reasonably accessible to all the poor inhabitants who are entitled to medical aid.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The petition did not allege that any hardship to the sick poor had resulted from the position of the medical officer's residence. The officer in question has complied with the terms of his appointment by residing within his district, and the Board see no
    1536
    reason for interfering in the matter, upon the facts at present before them.

    County Kerry Evicted Tenants.
    MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have taken any steps to effect the reinstatement of Messrs. David and Daniel Loughnan, Kilmurry, Cordal, Castleisland, county Kerry, whose holdings have been lying derelict since the time of their eviction; and, if not, when the Commissioners may be expected to take such steps in the interest of the evicted tenants.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Applications for reinstatement have been received, but the estate concerned has not yet come before the Commissioners.
    MR. MURPHY: But having regard to the fact that these farms are derelict, cannot the right hon. Gentleman instruct the Estates Commissioners to enter into negotiations with reference to them?
    MR. WALTER LONG: It is not the intention of the Irish Government to interfere with the order in which the Estates Commissioners deal with applications.
    MR. MURPHY: But these are derelict evicted farms and they could move quickly.
    MR. WALTER LONG: They are perfectly competent to deal with these cases themselves.
    MR. MURPHY: I think they are perfectly incompetent.

    Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
    MR.DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the report of the inspector in the case of the Caldbeck Estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County, has yet been considered by the Estates Commissioners; and, if so, can he say what course they propose taking with respect to the distribution of the untenanted land, which comprises half the estate, and for which claims have

    1537
    been submitted on behalf of thirty-four small occupiers in the locality.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The inspector's report is under the consideration of the Commissioners.

    De Freyne Estates.
    MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Boards have yet concluded negotiations for the purchase of the De Freyne Estates in the counties of Roscommon, Sligo, and Galway; and whether he can give the particulars as to price for the different classes of tenancy, the number of tenants, the amount of untenanted land, valuation, rental, and total price.
    MR. WALTER LONG: Negotiations have not yet been concluded.

    Kerry Fair Rent Appeals.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the Chief Land Commission will sit in Kerry to hear fair rent appeals.
    MR. WALTER LONG: It has been provisionally arranged that a sitting will be held at Killarney on June 27th.
    MR. FLAVIN: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a more definite reply?
    MR. WALTER LONG: What possibly could be more definite than the actual date—June 27th.

    Trinity College Tenantry.
    MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the relations between Trinity College and their tenants will be published; and whether he will circulate the same as a Parliamentary Paper for the use of Members of the House.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners expect to complete their Report about the middle of next month. The question of issuing the Report as a Parliamentary Paper will be decided when it is received.
    MR. FLAVIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider "next month" definite?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Mahon Estate, County Galway.
    MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a portion of the Mahon Estate, Ballydonlon, county Galway, purchased by the Estates Commissioners, is to be given to a Mr. Rothwell, petty sessions clerk of Ballinasloe, who was never a tenant on the estate, and who does not live within miles of it, seeing that Mr. Rothwell is already in possession of more than one farm elsewhere.
    MR. WALTER LONG: The purchase of this estate by the tenants was completed in April last, Mr. Rothwell was not one of the purchasers.

    Dual Duties in the Dublin Post Office.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that it is the custom to send men appointed on the telegraph side in Dublin to the sorting office at a moment's notice, where they have to take up duties which they are unaccustomed to; if when employed in the sorting office these men make mistakes, will their want of practice be taken into account when their increments are considered; and, when they eventually return to the telegraph room, will due allowance be made for their absence from the instruments if any mistakes are made in important public messages.
    LORD STANLEY: I have no information, but I will make inquiry on the subject to which the hon. Member refers.

    Dual Working in Irish Post Offices.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware, notwithstanding the statement made by Mr. Kirkwood in answer to the Irish witnesses before the Bradford Committee that in large offices dual working had only to be undertaken during the first few years of service, that officers with over five years service are still employed on dual working in Dublin; and can he

    1539
    say what grounds Mr. Kirkwood had for making this statement when the performance of dual duties was being advanced as a claim for extra remuneration.
    LORD STANLEY: The hon. Member has omitted the words "as a rule" from the evidence given by the official witness. It is a fact, as stated by the witness, that "at the larger offices dual working has as a rule only to be undertaken for the first few years of service." The present conditions at Dublin are due to the falling off in the telegraph traffic, which has necessitated a transfer of staff to the sorting office, where their services are required.

    Dublin Telegraph Clerks' Grievances.
    MR. NANNETTI: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General is he aware that sixteen sorting clerks and telegraphists in Dublin appointed to the telegraph side have within the past few years been repeatedly sent to the sorting office at a moment's notice, and have as a consequence to perform irregular duties; and whether, seeing that such withdrawal from the instrument room interferes with their efficiency as telegraphists, and that public work is endangered when handled by telegraphists out of practice, and, having regard to his condemnation of this system when speaking on last year's Estimates, will he see that it is abolished; and further, is he aware that, although these men have been removed from the instrument room on the plea of surplus staff, since their removal as many as 126 hours overtime were performed in the instrument room.
    LORD STANLEY: The officers to whom the hon. Member refers are, under the conditions of their appointment, liable to serve either on the telegraph or on the postal side. Their employment on postal work does not produce the serious results which the hon. Member apprehends. As regards the last part of his Question, I will make inquiry.

    Public Servants and Vaccination.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that candidates for the public service are not allowed to take up appointments unless they have been vaccinated, and that this
    1540
    regulation penalises candidates who have a conscientious objection to vaccination, will he take such steps as may be necessary to enable such candidates to obtain exemption from the rule enforcing vaccination.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST
    LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,E.): I cannot quite understand the use of the word conscientious in the Question. I do not see how anybody can conscientiously object to being vaccinated.
    MR. WEIR: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman understand that I may have a conscience, and in my conscience I may object?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can understand an objection to being vaccinated, just as I can understand objection to sleeping in an insanitary room; but the objection is not a conscientious one; it has nothing to do with conscience.
    MR. WEIR: I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the case of one person who has a conscience.

    Highland Regiments.
    MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Imperial Committee of Defence will consider the difficulties in adopting any War Office scheme which seeks to group Highland regiments with Lowland regiments, divest them of the kilt, and quarter them with Lowland regiments in the Lowlands of Scotland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am told there is to be no grouping of Highland with Lowland regiments, that there is no change to be made as regards their quarters, and that there is no idea of divesting Highland regiments of their kilts.

    Compensation for Improvements of Town Holdings.
    MR. BENN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will introduce legislation to enable persons living in towns in Great Britain to enjoy like advantages to those living in agricultural districts in respect of compensa-

    1541
    tion for improvements executed as tenants of lands and buildings held by lease.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not prepared to extend our present programme of legislation.

    Prevention of Corruption Bill.
    MR. BARRAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of recent disclosures in connection with the supply of goods to Government Departments, he will give facilities for passing during the present session through this House the Prevention of Corruption Bill, introduced into the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, and which has already been passed by that House several times.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid that the condition of public business prevents me giving an assurance such as the hon. Gentleman desires.

    The Fiscal Retaliation Resolution.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I regret I have not been able to give him private notice—whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution standing on the Journals of the House which runs as follows:—"Resolved, nemine contradicente, That, in view of the declarations made by the Prime Minister, this House thinks it necessary to record its condemnation of his policy of fiscal retaliation;" what precedents can be cited in favour of a Government ignoring such a Resolution; if he proposes to ask the House to expunge that Resolution from its Journals, and, if so, when; or whether, if the Resolution stands, he considers retention of office consonant with his public duty or personal honour.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not take the ordinary course of giving me notice of his Question, because if he had done so I would have made myself acquainted with what appears to have taken place last night. At present my sole knowledge is derived from the Question the hon. Member has put to me.
    MR. LOUGH: Will not the right hon. Gentleman say if he means to take any step in regard to the Resolution? If he was not here last night, surely he could have made himself acquainted with what occurred through the ordinary channels of information?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I only wish to ask one short and simple Question. Is the right hon. Gentleman still Leader of the House of Commons?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am Leader of the House of Commons so long as the majority of that House gives me its confidence. If the right hon. Gentleman doubts whether that is the present fact, there are means at his disposal for testing it.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Where were your followers last night?
    MR. CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered any one of the Questions I put to him; and, if I rightly understand him, he requires notice; and, if so, I will put down the Question for to-morrow.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have now read the Resolution. What is it the hon. Member asks?
    MR. CHURCHILL: I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to ask the House of Commons to expunge the Resolution; what precedent he can cite in favour of the Government's ignoring a Resolution which specifically Condemns their official policy; and whether, while the Resolution stands, he considers his retention of office consonant with his public duty or his personal honour.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The last phrase is one that should be withdrawn.
    MR. CHURCHILL: If it goes beyond the limit which Parliamentary language should allow, I willingly leave out the last phrase. I have no desire to go further than the extreme limits of Parliamentary language will allow.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I raise no objection to any language the hon. Gentleman may use. I rate it at its true value. I propose to take no action in the matter. I do not see that any action is required.

  NEW BILL.
    EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) BILL.
    "To amend The Education Act, 1902," presented by Mr. Arthur Henderson; supported by Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Bell, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. J. Wilson, Mr. John Johnson, Mr. Broadhurst, Sir John Gorst, Mr. Thomas Richards, Dr. Macnamara, and Mr. Keir Hardie; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 11th April, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

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

    ARMY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
    *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he listened on the preceding night with very deep attention to the speech of the Secretary of State for War, a speech which enabled them to under stand the working of the right hon. Gentleman's mind and of that of the Government, and to appreciate the attitude of himself and his colleagues upon the question of Army reform. The first part of that speech was a clear and emphatic repudiation of the principle upon which all former schemes, for the last forty years, of Army reform had proceeded. The second part dealt
    1544
    with the logical consequence of the adoption of a wholly different basis on which to reconstruct the Army system; while the third part of the speech was an exposition of the difficulties of the situation rather than a declaration of decisions already arrived at, and the concluding portion really was a sort of reconnaissance in order to ascertain the Parliamentary situation and to see how far the logical consequences of the principle adopted could be pushed in dealing with military problems in the House itself. The right hon. Gentleman was justified in endeavouring to discover how far the House of Commons was prepared to accept the logical consequences of the new principle that had been adopted, because no scheme of reform could be carried out unless it secured the assent of the House and of the country, and when they remembered how complete was the reversal of the principle hitherto guiding our Army policy authoritatively laid down by Governments—when they considered that reversal—they were bound to feel that it must take some time before the House and the country could fully grasp the consequences. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore wise to advance cautiously, in order to carry the House and the country with him. That was the state of affairs which the Government had now to face.
    There had been many voluminous criticisms, in and out of the House, on the action of the Government, and on the action of the right hon. Gentleman in respect to Army reform, but one thing was clear, and that was that the criticism had not been directed against anything the Government or the War Office had actually done. On the contrary, that seemed to have been accepted with great unanimity by Parliament, but the criticism had been directed against what they had not done. No credit had been given for what they bad done, but the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were attacked and scolded for leaving undone the things they ought to have done. When they listened to those criticisms, what did they find? They found that those who were most violent in their attacks had no alternative policy to offer. It appeared to him that this group of critics of the

    1545
    Government policy was very much in the position of the costermonger who asserted, "If you won't let me drive the apple-cart I'll upset it." They were ready to upset the Government, but they could show no alternative policy. Their trumpets blared forth criticism of the Government, but they could not agree among themselves on a practical policy. That was the situation which the Government had to face in the present House of Commons. What had they done so far? They had reconstituted the War Office an undertaking which had appalled most Governments and which every Government had in turn shirked. If they looked upon the history of Army reform, they would find one continued long wail as to the incompetence of the War Office, and yet no Government had had the courage to tackle that question. This Government, however, in a very short time had reconstructed that office and had accomplished a task which previous Governments feared to touch. They had also done a great deal towards the devolution of military administration. They had found them-selves face to face with a situation of extreme danger in respect of drafts for India, and they had made a departure in policy which was full of future possibilities. They had, for instance, come to an agreement with the Canadian Government to relieve the mother country of the cost of the garrisons of Halifax and Esquimault, and he regretted very much that they were called upon to discuss these Estimates in the absence of the correspondence with the Canadian Government on this question, the production of which had been promised. They wanted to know the full effect of that correspondence. The fact remained, however, that these things had been done, and the Government had made essential progress in carrying out principles which had been so long desired by all students of the question of Imperial defence.
    The causes of the failure of the numerous Army reform schemes which had been brought forward were two-fold—first, proceeding on a false principle, which ignored the influence of sea-power upon military policy; and secondly, the persistent refusal to face the facts of
    1546
    our geographic position and economic circumstances. Further than that, former Ministers had hurried their schemes through in order to avoid the country finding out this mistake. Much waste and confusion had arisen in consequence. But there was another and more modern feature connected with the discussions in this House to which he wished to call attention, and that was that they had a group of hon. Members who had had a few months experience of operations in the field, and therefore thought themselves competent to deal with the full problem of Imperial defence. He did not want to say anything unpleasant, but it seemed to him, so far as the House was concerned, that the South African War had produced a noxious growth of mushroom Napoleons, and that had these exponents of the right way to deal with the Army lived in Germany twenty years ago they would no doubt have condemned Moltke as a slow coach and bustled him along. But the development of a sound policy suited to the military requirements of the Empire was a matter which ought to be cautiously dealt with, they should only proceed with it step by step. He realised that they had to deal with forces created in a totally different condition of affairs, and that that produced a complicated problem which it must take time to solve. Therefore, he would not join with those—and he envied them their youth, eagerness, and impetuosity—who were urging the Government to take a precipitate course in Army reform. It was a testimony to the reality of the efforts of the War Office that they were not going too fast, and he would raise no note of discontent because the Government, having defined the principle which was guiding them, were not sending up balloons and fireworks to catch a passing popularity, but appreciated the full responsibility of the task devolving upon them of trying to adapt existing forces to the true principles which they had accepted.
    In regard to their general scheme, he must say that he heartily concurred in the decision that whatever else happened, the cavalry and field artillery, who took a long time to create and train, should be kept at a higher standard of relative strength than other branches of the

    1547
    Army which did not take so long to train. He thought it was greatly to the credit of the Government that these most expensive forces were to have this attention, and that they were not giving way to a false cry of economy, but were determined to keep those forces ready for any emergency. He was glad also to see in their policy a clear intention to look closely at the expenditure on the Royal Engineers. The right hon. Gentleman had said that his work in that direction was not completed, and he was not satisfied that the expenditure on that force might not be modified or reduced. For that he thought the Government deserved credit. Then there was another branch of the Army to which he would like to refer, and that was the Garrison Artillery. He would like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the arm of the service which had developed most rapidly of late years had been the Garrison Artillery, and the rate of the increase in that force which was now a tremendous charge on the Estimates was due to the collateral position created by disbelief in our sea power. He trusted that his right hon. friend in developing his scheme would remember that, and bear in mind that this large force of Garrison Artillery was created as a necessary corollary to a false principle that an enemy's fleets and armies would be able to move across the sea and attack any place they liked. It was, therefore, an exaggerated War Office notion of naval probabilities which caused fortresses to be created all over the world, and thereby necessitated the increase of the Garrison Artillery force. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman had his close attention fixed upon that point, which required special scrutiny in view of the change of principle in our policy.
    He did not propose to touch upon naval questions, but allusion had been made by the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that arrangements had been devised for handing over the aquatic defence, to which a large portion of our Army was devoted, to the Navy, and he thought that when the question came to be thoroughly threshed out it would be found that this work might well be undertaken by men in the Navy and Marines over a certain age, and that it could thus
    1548
    be done more efficiently and with greater economy to the country. Then he came to the question of the infantry, to the question of long service and short service. He would not dwell upon that. He agreed entirely in the principle of the policy. Seeing that they had to keep such a very large force abroad during peace he confessed he did not see how they could, out of a necessarily long-service system in peace, create such a reserve as it was necessary for them to have incase of an outbreak of war. It was, therefore, necessary that there should be two classes of service in the Army, long and short. He must express his personal regret that the scheme of short-service battalions had not been based more largely on the Militia. It was a matter of opinion, no doubt, but he thought himself that had the Secretary of State, instead of creating entirely a new system of Regular short-service battalions, built one up upon the Militia system, ho would have found less opposition in the country and in Parliament. He himself felt somewhat uncertain as to whether the Militia had altogether been sufficiently recognised as the basis on which to build up the short-service system which really was the nursery of Reservists. He did not pay much attention to arguments founded upon the present relative value of Militia battalions to one another, because since the districts were originally arranged there had been a considerable redistribution of population which had altered the possible conditions of strength and efficiency. If the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded to re-allocate the Militia according to the distribution of the population he would have had a broad Militia basis on which to develop his short-service battalions He was glad to think the right hon. Gentleman was not regarding that as hostile criticism but rather as a reasonable observation. [Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER assented.] Of course the first step to be contemplated in such a programme as building up the Militia was the extent and area of Militia service and the rendering the force liable for service oversea. If the Government would make up their mind to pursue that policy he believed it would be a step in the right direction. But, of course, the bed-rock of all their difficulties was the difficulty of getting men.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD - FORSTER, Belfast, W.): No.
    *SIR JOHN COLOMB: Of getting any sufficient number for the requirements of a great war. The present inflow of recruiting was to some extent attributable to the condition of trade at the present moment. Looking at it broadly, it must be admitted that the class from which soldiers had hitherto been drawn was a diminishing class.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No.
    *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid that was his individual opinion, and the question was whether they could offer sufficient inducements to men of a different and higher class to enter the Army. He looked upon conscription as an idle dream: he did not believe this country would submit to it to provide for oversea service. What, then, were they to do? He thought that the country would not be sincere in its treatment of this question till it really appreciated the proportion and magnitude of modern war and the insufficiency of our forces to meet the conditions which might at any day arrive. When the country was sincere it would find its way of escape by a very simple arrangement. That was to secure that the only gate into any civil employment in the State should be through the ranks of the Army. He believed that would in the future—and a not very distant future—prove to be the only means of providing a British Army for oversea service which was the only Army we should require in time of war.
    Now he came to the real crux of the whole matter—the question of the Volunteers—and that completed his review of the reform scheme. In regard to the Volunteers, he yielded to no man in his appreciation of their efforts and of the spirit which created them. When the force was first constituted he was one of those who were selected to help in those great gatherings which took place, and he learned to appreciate the spirit which animated them. Although there was then a professional hostile feeling against the force, he certainly did not share it. But he held, and
    1550
    for forty years had persistently preached that to maintain a gigantic army of Volunteers to repel a great invasion of these shores was incompatible with the doctrine of sea supremacy. At list his view had been accepted by the Government. The difficulty of the Government, now that this force had been created under a false conception of military necessity, was to decide what to do with it. What could they do with a force of 240,000 armed units when they had come to the deliberate conclus on that its maintenance was imcompatible with their true policy. They could not immediately wipe it out of existence, and the process of reduction must be slow. The alternative to a large reduction was to apply the Volunteers to the purposes of service over-sea; but in that case they must catch their Volunteers who were willing to go first, and secure men who were prepared in an emergency to submit to a call for service abroad. He did not think for one moment that the Volunteers would accept that alternative. If hon. Members thought otherwise let them organise a deputation to the Secretary for War with a view of entreating him to circularise colonels of Volunteers, directing them to invite their men who would sign an agreement to serve over-sea in a great emergency to send in their names. Such a proceeding would, he believed, prove up to the hilt that the circumstances and nature of the civil employment of Volunteers rendered it impossible for them to enter into any such obligation. He did not believe 10 per cent. of the men would sign. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, let hon. Members try, and if only 10 per cent, did sign, it meant that they would have to incur the expense of maintaining one hundred Volunteers in order to secure the services of ten men when occasion arose. Would the Volunteer force then be a cheap force? If the House sincerely accepted the doctrine that a great invasion of this country was impossible, the only possible course to pursue with regard to the Volunteers was to reduce them to a certain standard. It was a question of fixing the number that was really the crux of the matter. He thought the Government were shirking the question or fixing numbers too much. He had not heard from the Government

    1551
    any indication of the number of men in the Militia and Volunteers needed for the requirements of the Empire. It was no use fencing with the question. They must determine the standard for the Army on the principle of their military necessities under the conditions of a supreme Fleet, and then they must apply that principle to the Volunteers. Admitting the possibility of a temporary raid on the coast—though he did not admit the probability—he thought the standard should be fixed at a number which could successfully deal with such a contingency, that the disposition of the Volunteers for the defence of the coast should be arranged with a view to dealing with small and insignificant raids, and that the Militia and Regular Army should be relieved from all duties in connection with attempted landing.
    In conclusion, he desired to refer once more to the fact that there had been a total reversal of the principle upon which, for some fifty years, our Army policy had been founded. It was not a now departure, but a return to the old policy by which the Empire was made—the doctrine of a free sea, with a free Army, with its corollary that the low-water mark of the enemy's coast and not our own coast was our frontier. The tangle of our present military confusion arose from the fact that fifty years ago the War Office started the theory that steam fleets were not to be relied upon, and year by year the idea was developed, until two or three years ago the climax was reached when the Secretary of State for War calmly declared that Members must not confuse their minds on the Army problem by thinking about the Navy. That, he thought, awakened the House and the country to the absolute irreconcilability of an armed invasion while we had predominance at sea. Without that predominance we cannot live. Our present military arrangements were the product of that great mistake, and it was for whatever Government that happened to be in power so to deal with the forces created under that idea as to make them fit for the real and not the sham purposes of war. The difficulties were not so much military as political. When the Government were dealing with any great problem
    1552
    involving expenditure they had to consider the relations of Parties in this House and popular feeling in the country, and that was what made the difficulty in the question of the Volunteers. Personally, he thought the difficulty in course of time would solve itself. The Volunteers themselves were most intelligent thinking men; hitherto they had been encouraged by War Ministers to believe that the country was really in danger of a great invasion, and that they must undergo sacrifices to be ready to resist such invasion; but when they realised that this was only a fad of a defunct War Office and not a fact, they would not consider it necessary or desirable to incur so much self-sacrifice to provide for an emergency which could never arise. On the other hand, if the authorities asked for a real sound force of Volunteers charged with and responsible for the defence of different parts of the coast against small and reckless raids, they would get the very cream of men who, while they could not give over-sea service, were ready to submit to some hardship to perform definite military duties at home. Military arrangements had their ramifications in every grade of society. It was impossible to touch any branch of the service without creating political friction, and when listening to the speeches of distinguished Volunteers in the House he could not help asking himself whether the people of Sheffield, the Isle of Wight, Plymouth, and other places represented by these Volunteer officers really believed that the Volunteers were to rule Parliament, and that Parliament was not to rule the Volunteers. It could not be denied that the Volunteer vote was an important vote, having political influence on the mind of any Government; but he believed that the spread of the truth and a wider comprehension of the obligations and duties of the Empire under conditions of sea supremacy would eventually overcome the difficulties with which the Secretary for War was now confronted. He hoped that both Parties would keep their eyes fixed on the military necessities of the Empire, and manfully crush the opposition which arose from considerations of popularity, which would have to be overcome if the Empire was to be preserved.
    MAJOR SEELYin moving a reduction of 10,000 men, expressed his appreciation of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth, but said his pleasure at finding how near to common agreement were those who wished to arrive at a proper conception of the country's real needs was slightly tinged with regret that he should have implied that Members who happened to be Volunteer officers were influenced by their constituents in thinking it unwise to reduce the Volunteers. He could assure the hon. and gallant Member that he had no desire to influence votes by his support of the Volunteers. Those with whom he acted on Army questions took a view on this question totally different from that of the hon. and gallant Member, but he hoped completely to convert not only the hon. and gallant Member but also the Secretary of State for War. The suggestion that the Volunteers would not go abroad if an emergency arose was a serious allegation, but when the question was last under discussion the Secretary of State for War made a still more serious allegation by saying that the idea that the Volunteers formed any real reserve in case of war was a complete delusion. He hoped to show that the complete delusion was on the side of the Secretary of State for War. It so happened that he was one of many Members of the House who were concerned in the call to arms made during the South African War, when it was really ascertained whether or not the Volunteers would prove a reserve in case of necessity. The hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth suggested that the Prime Minister should be asked to institute an inquiry as to how many of the Auxiliary Forces would volunteer in the future under certain hypothetical circumstances.
    *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid his point was as to how many would hold themselves in readiness to go abroad in case of emergency.
    MAJOR SEELYsuggested that a more fruitful matter for discussion was what actually did happen in a period of great national stress, when this very question was asked of the Volunteers and Yeomanry. At that time the War
    1554
    Office decided to call only for a certain number of Volunteers, and when, say, 100 were asked for, it could not be ascertained how many were really prepared to go. But in a few cases—and it was on this point he proposed to convert the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to ask the Secretary of State for a public apology for his statement on the subject—Volunteers without any limit of number were asked for, and he had particulars of the response made. From the Queen's Westminster 690 volunteered; from the London Scottish, 500; and from the 4th Battalion Queen's, 635 men and 20 officers. The hon. and gallant Member suggested 10 per cent., but did he suppose that these figures did not represent a considerably greater proportion than that?
    *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he was speaking not of the Metropolitan corps only, but of the whole Volunteer force.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that on the 10 per cent, basis the 1st Volunteer Battalion Middlesex should have provided 69·7 men, but, as a matter of fact, 510 were anxious to go to the front. From the 1st Volunteer Battalion Argyll Royal Garrison Artillery, with an establishment probably of about 500, 300 volunteered, and from the 1st Volunteer Battalion Manchester, although it was said only a small number of Volunteers were required, 370 men and three officers came forward. From these figures, which he had been able to obtain since the Secretary of State's amazing statement that it was a delusion to suppose that the Volunteers were of any use to serve oversea—
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Those are not my words.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he had the words with him, and what the right hon. Gentleman stated was that it was a complete delusion to suppose that the Volunteers could be regarded as of real value as a reserve in time of war for service oversea.
    AN HON. MEMBERasked how many of those who volunteered were physically qualified for service abroad.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid he had not the figures with him.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENTFive per cent of the Queen's Westminsters were unfit.
    MAJOR SEELYsaid that if the hon. and gallant Member who asked the question meant to imply that the general standard of fitness in the Volunteers was such that it was not worth while maintaining them, he would suggest that the number of recruits for the Regular Army rejected for unfitness was a more fruitful subject for discussion. The figures he had given showed that the Volunteers were ready to furnish from 60 or 70 per cent, of their total strength to serve oversea in a time of national emergency. That was the bed-rock on which the supporters of the Volunteers stood. He was prepared to go further, and confidently to assert that had the War Office frankly said to the Volunteer force that they were at the end of their resources for men, and that they wanted every Volunteer they could get to go to South Africa, 99 per cent. of the whole force would have come forward. He hoped those figures would convince the hon. and gallant Member that he had underestimated the patriotism of these men. After all, it was somewhat the custom to sneer at the Auxiliary Forces and the War Office. He would ask the Committee to remember that whatever these men were worth it was all they had. When this country was engaged fighting against 40,000 farmers we soon came to the end of the men who had had any training at all. There were at least two hon. Members of this House who had had to command, in a war against 40,000 farmers, brave and gallant Englishmen who had had no military training whatever, and who did not know one end of the rifle from the other. If, instead of proposing to reduce the Volunteers, the right hon. Gentleman had aimed at getting as many men as possible to do something in the way of military training this country would in the future be saved from such a bitter humiliation as occurred in the South African War, which culminated in the capture of a great and gallant British general owing to the fact that a
    1556
    number of the men under him had not learned the elements of military warfare. Now they had the Secretary of State for War coming down to this House and declaring that these men were redundant and proposing to reduce them. This question was going to be fought out, and whatever else they did one thing was certain, that the more men they possessed who had the patriotism and the skill to give some kind of military training to their country the better it would be. Some of them who occasionally cast their eye to what was going on in the rest of the world, and who perceived that in one battle the combatants had lost a total equal to the whole British Army with its Reserves, were occasionally led to think that the more they appealed to the patriotism of the people to fit themselves for war the better it would be. This question would be raised again and again until this foolish policy of sapping the patriotism of the people had been finally condemned.
    He moved a reduction of this Vote because they had decided that the great questions of Army policy should be raised on Vote 1, and that they should endeavour to understand on Vote A exactly what they were to fight about. Therefore, he proposed to reduce the Army by 10,000, and strange to say the Secretary of State for War proposed the same thing. Apparently this was the beginning of unanimity. Therefore he would direct his remarks to finding out what the Government intended to do, so that they would know what to condemn and what to approve of. The first question, if they proposed to reduce the Army, was, why was it necessary to reduce it, and what did the Government propose to do in order to make up for the loss of military power which that reduction would produce? All sides were agreed that they must reduce the Army, but the cost per man would continue to increase. The more people thought scientifically the more they would see that the more expensive part of the Army must be increased, and the less expensive parts must be reduced. They must have more officers, more cavalry, and more artillery. Consequently, if they were to fulfil the mandate of this House to reduce the total

    1557
    cost, they must greatly reduce the numbers, anticipating increases in the more expensive forces of the Army. The Army was not the actual power of the nation, because they all realised that it was no use sending the British Army in the field against a nation that could mobilise 3,000,000 men. The second reason why they must reduce the Army was because of the effect of increasing the term of service for the recruits. The Leader of the Opposition last year warned the Secretary of State for War that in adopting the nine-years system he was going perilously near that moment when they must provide a life career for the soldiers. That was exactly what the Secretary of State was doing, because by taking a man for nine years they robbed him of all chances of taking civil employment at the end of his service. That day ho had received two letters from soldiers who had not learned any trade, asking him to find them employment. What happened in such cases? The hon. Member for Chippenham knew from his connection with civic authorities and with the Army what happened, and he had a special right to speak upon this matter. If it were true that by enlisting men for nine years they condemned them to unemployment in the future, they had a right to ask the Secretary of State for War what he proposed to do.
    The right hon. Gentleman said nothing that he had done was going to prevent his successors from either reversing the policy he proposed or continuing it. He did not tell them what he proposed to do in the future, and he did not say at what moment he proposed that the two-years system of enlistment for home service should begin. Was it fair, after having for one year taken advantage of the general wish of the House to give him a chance to undertake a difficult problem, and after saying that he would not produce Estimates on the old basis, to come down and say that while he still intended to prosecute his scheme, for some reason they did not know of the scheme could not be proceeded with? When were they going to begin establishing the home-service Army? Would the Secretary of State for War pledge himself not to proceed with it until the House had had an
    1558
    opportunity of considering it? He I wished to know whose scheme it was which the right hon. Gentleman now propounded. Was it his own scheme? If it was, all he had to say was that it was I very different to last year's scheme. If it was not his scheme, who had approved of it? Was it the scheme of the Army Council or the Committee of Defence? Were his proposals approved of by his responsible advisers, and did the Auxiliary Forces Department at the War Office desire to reduce the Volunteers? Did they wish to abolish the Militia? To all these things they wanted a reply, so that when they came to discuss Vote 1 they would not be talking in the dark. They had been talking in the dark for a year and a quarter, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to admit that the House had continued to give him their indulgence in a policy of concealment due to the fact that his advisers and himself could not agree. Of course there must come an end to this state of things, and he suggested that it should come before they discussed Vote 1. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the abolition of the Militia? In the second place, did he propose to proceed with the enlistment of a home - service Army, a change to which many of them objected very strongly. Thirdly, did he propose to reduce the Volunteers irrespective of whether they were efficient or not, or was he of the opinion that any man who wished to serve his country should have an opportunity found for him of so doing? Did the right hon. Gentleman adopt the extraordinary theory that after all the duty of the people of this country was to look on and pay up, and that nothing more was required than a few men placed at strategic points, numbering about 40,000 or 50,000, to defend certain isolated places. Those were three very definite questions. He did not think they were asking for anything very outrageous in requesting that replies should be given to those points, because the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were more far-reaching than any which had been made since the time of Mr. Cardwell. When Mr. Cardwell proposed his changes in the Army it was admitted that they could not be carried through

    1559
    without full discussion, and ten days were devoted to Army matters in that year before the 31st of March. The fullest disclosures were made of the intentions of Mr. Cardwell and the Government, and no parallel could be found for the policy of concealment pursued by the War Office until the very eve of a decision being taken by the Committee. He asked for this information in order to enable them to form a right conclusion. Although they wanted the British Army to maintain great traditions they realised at the same time that the expenditure must be limited. They realised also that the Army must be composed of the best men they could obtain. At the same time they would not, if they could help it, entertain any proposal to dispense with the services of any Englishman who would submit to any kind of military instruction whatever. They knew that after all the future was dim and dark. They could not lay down precisely with any certainty what would happen when the dark day of war came upon them, but they knew that after all the safety of this country depended not only upon ships but in the first, in the second, and in the last degree upon the patriotism of the people and upon their spirit of self-sacrifice.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 211,300, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service."—(Major Seely.)
    *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid that in listening to the speeches which had been made in this debate, it seemed to him that the keynote of the speakers was "retrenchment," but he had not heard from any hon. Member a practical exposition of the manner in which the admirable reforms suggested could be effected. If the Secretary of State for War, with his characteristic affability, were to be guided by the criticisms of every hon. Member of this House, he would find his task to be no light one. He would have to reduce the Army in order to please some, and he would have to increase the Army in order to satisfy others, and, besides, he would have to add very largely to the
    1560
    number of the Volunteer force while at the same time reducing the expenditure upon it. The right hon. Gentleman would have to abolish the Army Council and entrust its functions to the hon. Member for Central Bradford by the express desire of the hon. Member for Oldham.
    It was easy to use retrenchment as a battering-ram against any Government, but how were they going to retrench today? A few years ago the "blue water" theory still held good, but as things were to-day it was impossible to reduce our Army by a single man without its being a danger and menace to the Empire. In the last year or two conditions had radically changed. We had lost our insular position, and our extended Indian frontier had become as vulnerable as the frontier of any European Power. Recent events proved beyond doubt that if our Indian frontier were menaced, our Indian Army of 230,000 would be found totally inadequate for the calls that would be made on it. Although one naturally hesitated to refer to hostile possibilities in connection with a friendly Power, yet facts could not be blinked. Russia had just completed the Trans-Caspian Railway at enormous expense. It abutted on the Afghan frontier, a country we were pledged to defend. She had done more. During the last twelve months, although plunged in external and internal troubles, she had completed a second great trunk line from Orenburg to Tashkend. Troops and stores had been poured into the Trans-Caspian Provinces, which we could hardly believe were solely for the comfort and protection of "trippers" to the Far East. These railways were, beyond doubt, purely strategical. Wise nations, like wise individuals, did not throw away money to no purpose; and if Russia was preparing for a probable rupture with a friendly country, then so must we. Until recently it would have been impossible for Russia to have sent against us and supported a fully equipped army of more than 150,000 men, but now with two lines of railway completed she would, in the event of hostilities, be able to plant on our frontier an army of considerably over 500,000. This had been proved beyond doubt by the enormous number of troops she had poured into Manchuria, over one line of

    1561
    railway 5,000 miles long. Under Lord Kitchener's scheme our frontier Army would consist of 160,000 men, of whom one third would be British. It was quite clear, therefore, that in order to successfully resist an attack of three times the number, we must be ready, immediately on the outbreak of war, to send at least 150,000 more troops from this country. The Japanese War had also shown us that we should require a further 200,000 men every year for depletion from calamities and disease. And it was at this moment that without offering any alternative proposal the amateur military critics would cut down our Army to promote its efficiency.
    How, then, we were to obtain an Army efficient for the defence of our Indian frontier, which, inadequately guarded, was a direct incentive to any nation envious of our rich Indian possessions? Apart from conscription, a system which would never be tolerated in this country, because it was wholly alien to the British character, there was only one solution which he ventured with great deference to submit to the House. In another year our treaty with Japan would lapse. He urged not only that we should renew it, but that we should make it of such a character that in the event of either country's Asiatic possessions being attacked they should mutually help each other—Great Britain with her Fleet— Japan with her army. It was difficult to gauge the far-reaching advantages of such an alliance, not only to Japan and Great Britain, but to the whole peace-loving world. Great Britain would be relieved of the upkeep of an Army, which if brought to the huge standard of efficiency demanded by the new conditions would become on intolerable burden to the British taxpayer. The idea of all Army reformers might then be realised —a small but efficient fighting force combined with a cheap and serviceable Home Army. And if this alliance had wide-reaching advantages for England, there was no limit to its possibilities for Japan. Like ourselves she was an island Power; like ourselves at the end of this war she would possess a continental frontier, and, therefore, her series of victories, splendid and unbroken as they were would avail
    1562
    her nothing in the future if she should lose command of the sea. Even if peace were happily concluded, Japan could not ignore the fact that Russia's enormous resources enabled her to build three ships where she could build one, and to build or buy three times as quickly. We had it on the authority of a Russian officer of the highest distinction, Admiral Dubassoff, who had publicly stated that if Russia patched up peace it would only be in order to build a new fleet and renew the struggle with increased vigour. Not only could our Fleet guarantee her immunity from this menace, but behind its shadow she would reap the full fruits of her sacrifices and enjoy that recuperation which alone could save her from financial exhaustion. To Russia such an alliance would be a boon in disguise as it would secure the future peaceful development of a peace-loving people.
    *THE CHAIRMAN; This seems hardly relevant to the Army Estimates.
    *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHERsaid he would conclude what he had to say by respectfully drawing the attention of the Government to the renewal on a stronger basis of our alliance with Japan, because he saw in it the only possible means by which we could secure retrenchment and efficiency with safety to the Empire.
    MR. GUESTsaid it was a remarkable thing to find in an Army debate an alliance recommended on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for the Eskdale Division. He supposed the hon. Member was so delighted with the success of Chinese labour in South Africa that the proposal was to relegate the work of the Army to another yellow race. In a speech of singular earnestness, tinged with such a deep sense of melancholy as to make it somewhat more a lament than a statement of policy, the Secretary of State for War appealed for the non-Party treatment of the Army question, and generously offered to his successor the fruits of his own unremitting toil. He welcomed the spirit in which that appeal was put forth, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not think hon. Members on his side of the House factious if they found themselves not entirely able to go with him on certain

    1563
    Army matters. The Secretary of State developed in its extreme form what was known as the doctrine of the blue-water school. He declared that this country enjoyed practical immunity from invasion, that conclusion having been reached as the result of scientific inquiries by the Council of Defence and the Army Council, confirmed by the observations which took place at Clacton-on-Sea last autumn. If we enjoyed that practical immunity how was it that the Secretary of State for War was able to come forward with the proposals he had made? The Secretary of State was either not logical or had not the courage of his opinions to face the logical deductions to which they led him. If we enjoyed this immunity, so far from retaining any portion of the Volunteer force, they should be completely abolished and the Militia also— all those who were tied to the soil—and the Regular Army, which was the only force the right hon. Gentleman could conceive to be possible in future, should be fostered, if not augmented. What had the right hon. Gentleman done? He had not abolished the Volunteers. He had maimed them, and he had threatened the Militia, and so far from having nurtured the Regular Forces of the Crown he contemplated reducing them by 17,000 in the course of the year. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to continue the course on which he had entered.
    In order to state to the House his own view as to the necessity of reducing the Regular Army it was necessary to indulge in a short comparison between the state of the Army to-day and in 1898, which was the last normal year before the war. In 1898 an Army of 180,000 was maintained for £20,000,000, whereas the Estimates this year provided for 204,000—after eliminating the 17,000 who were to disappear—and they were to be maintained at a cost of £30,000,000. That was to say, while there was only an addition of 24,000 men the Estimates had risen by £10,000,000. It could not be asserted that the existing Army was in many respects better than the Army of 1898. The Army of 1898 was, at any rate, able to accomplish certain objects, It provided the drafts for our Indian establishment—which he
    1564
    believed to be the first object which it ought to perform, and which the Army of the present Secretary of State for India egregiously failed to do. Then, that Army of 1898 provided and maintained 444,435 men to serve in South Africa. That was a considerable achievement. Again, in 1898 we had a reserve of 78,000 men; while the Auxiliary Forces maintained under that 1898 system actually sent out to South Africa no fewer than nearly 100,000 men. The question that had to be asked was: "Was the present Army able to do half as well again as that Army achieved?" He thought, on the contrary, that it had not attained that state of efficiency reached by the Army of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. If so, why was it that it cost £10,000,000 more to maintain an Army to-day which was only slightly larger than that of ten years ago? If hon. Members examined the Estimates they would observe that by far the largest item in the £10,000,000 was £4,000,000 for increase of pay. The pay had risen 66 per cent. and the number of men 30 per cent. The fact was, the limit of the enlistment system had been ignored. The origin of this increase in the Army was due to the days—now happily done away with —of the megalomania of the Secretary of State for India: to the days of the doctrine of home defence by the Regular Army, now entirely abandoned: and also to the days of that bugbear, the equipoise of the linked battalions. Lord Lansdowne was responsible for increasing the Army by 28,000 men; his successor for an increase of 37,000 men—or a total increase of 65,000 in ten years. He entirely agreed with the Secretary for War when the right hon. Gentleman stated the previous night that if a large Army was necessary for the defence of the Empire, the problem should have been squarely faced and the question of compulsory service should have been fairly met.
    If the Committee agreed with him that there was a limit to the voluntary system, it was obvious that if more men were wanted another means of obtaining them must be devised; and that the present system was not the way by which it would or could be done. Unfortunately the standard of the Army

    1565
    had been tampered with with the most disastrous results. One of the ways by which the increase in enlistment was to be affected was by the late Secretary for War accepting the Motion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight insisting on the production of character by recruits. There was a third device by which it was expected a greater number of recruits would be secured— the institution of a short-service system. He maintained that in introducing the short-service system the present Secretary for India had not got the condition of the Reserve in his eye. It was offered as an inducement to recruits in the hope that a considerable proportion of them would prolong their service. Now, what he had been trying to reach was this: the governing factor of the situation by which the size of the Army would be ultimately determined was not the necessities of the Empire, but the normal supply of recruits expected to be obtained in any given year. In 1894 41,000 recruits were raised in this country: but these figures were very misleading, because in the same year no fewer than 21,000 were lost to the Army from causes other than by passing into the Reserve, by purchase, and by completion of service. That was a loss of 50 per cent. It was interesting to observe from what causes that loss took place. There were 1,699 deaths, 1,330 unserviceables, 4,973 invalided; discharged for misconduct 3,656, and other causes 8,444, or a sum total of 21,000. There was not only a large material loss, but a great economic waste. Both from the point of view of efficiency and a consideration of the facts there had to be eliminated, as far as possible, all those men, who, from one cause or another, could not fill the services on which so much money had been spent. There was another ominous fact. He had seen it stated that in 1902 no less than 21,943 soldiers were committed to prison for one offence or another.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid that that included both sailors and soldiers.
    MR. GUESTsaid even that was very serious. Then there were the desertions, which averaged 2,000 a year. His contention was that by lowering the standard—
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BBODBICK, Surrey, Guild-ford)said he never lowered the standard of the Army in his life. He had always set his face against lowering the standard of any class of soldiers.
    MR. GUESTsaid he quite agreed that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to lower the standard; and he knew that the right hon. Gentleman in one particular did raise it very materially. But whatever the right hon. Gentleman might have done, whether by increasing the pay, tampering with the standard, or by reducing the term of short service, more than a certain number of recruits would never be got. The present Secretary for War had much circumscribed the possible cases for which an Army might be needed. All he contemplated was a sufficient force to defend our possessions beyond the seas and the possible provision of a small striking force for dealing with Mad Mullahs or the like.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Gentleman had omitted that one of the most important purposes of the Army at home was to furnish large reinforcements for our Army abroad in case of war.
    MR. GUESTsaid he would include that. As to the terms of service under which recruits might be enlisted, the Secretary for War had two objects in view. First, the provision of an Army in India and the colonial garrisons; and, second, the creation of a Reserve on which he could rely. There were several ways in which these two objects might be achieved. It was well known that a long-service system was much, more suitable for the one, and a short-service system for the other. The late Secretary for War relied on short service, with the inducement to the soldier of an increase of pay of 6d. a day to extend his service. That experiment failed, and the right hon. Gentleman might have foreseen it, because after a man had been only three years in the Army he had not attained an age which precluded him from returning to civil life and learning a trade. But if the soldier continued his service for another seven years, he would

    1567
    find himself at a time of life when he could not devote himself to learning any sort of trade with success and there would be nothing left to him but his small pension. The present Secretary for War proposed a simultaneous long and short-service system, but that was only the same system as that of his predecessor, only under a different name. There was another system in vogue. First, the long-service Army was to be filled up, and then something was to be done for a short-service Army with an inducement to go into the Reserve. Now, he could not believe that that was a satisfactory conclusion. His own opinion was that they should be driven back to the compromise of so many years with the colours and so many years with the Reserve. The corollary of the reduction of the Regular Army was the maintenance of the Auxiliary Forces. In this country war was only possible if it had the support of public feeling, and that feeling would enable the War Office to rely with certainty on the patriotic readiness of the Volunteers and Militia to serve in any part of the world. The official contempt for Auxilaries was much to be deprecated. In European warfare it was as necessary to protect the line of communication as it was to have a fighting line, and that was a thing for which the Volunteers were well fitted. Again there was the defence of India. If Volunteers could be sent to India to occupy the garrisons whilst the Indian Army went to protect the frontier India itself would still be in a very good position so far as defence was concerned. The creation of the Imperial Yeomanry was the one great achievement of the present Secretary of State for India, and something of the same sort ought to be done for the Militia and Volunteers.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSONreminded hon. Gentlemen opposite when they criticised the Secretary for India's schemes of reform that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the most important reform of raising the pay of the soldier after two years service. That was a most gratifying change because it permitted us to obtain the number of recruits we required. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, had been enabled to enforce the condition that only men of good character should
    1568
    be enlisted, and it was pleasing to hear that recruits were being obtained of a higher class and satisfactory character. He attributed to the action of the Secretary for India the restoring of a depleted Reserve after the war. The Guards, for example, had long been enlisted for three years with power to prolong their service, and about half of the men enlisted had agreed to continue in the Army. At the same time a large Reserve had been built up, enabling the regiments to send 10,000 men to South Africa and keep the battalions at home at their full strength. He agreed in the main with what had been said by the last speaker as to the project of the Secretary for War n respect of the Auxiliary Forces. He hoped that they were not committed to the project of the practical abolition of the Militia. The Militia had received very hard treatment in being reduced to its present condition, and every one knew that the force had been made the milch cow for the Regular Army. It should not be forgotten that the Militia in former times had supplied the Army with men in time of need. This was the case in the Napoleonic Wars and in South Africa, for it was known that many men fought at Waterloo in their Militia uniforms. He contended, therefore, that it was not necessary on grounds either of economy or of efficiency to abolish the Militia as the Secretary of State had practically proposed to do.
    *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERsupported the Amendment for the reduction, because he was convinced that if they were to reduce the expenditure on the Army it could only be done by a substantial reduction in the number of men. The attack which had been made on the Auxiliary Forces, if carried to its logical conclusion, must become detrimental to the whole military system. He opposed any reduction of the Volunteer force on Imperial grounds. The suggestion that a home-service Army should be established had not taken practical shape as yet, and it therefore became necessary to maintain the only substitute which could provide an adequate Reserve through the maintenance of the Auxiliary Forces. He supported the reduction of men on the Regular establishment, believing it would

    1569
    in no way jeopardise the drafts for India, The extension of the period of service would give the War Office the same facilities in that respect as they had under the old seven-years system. In connection with three years service considerable difficulty arose in the matter of drafts for India, and the system was shown to be most futile and expensive, as men's term of service expired in many instances so soon after their arrival in India. The costliness of the system would be realised when it was remembered that the cost to India and back was about £18, with £4 or £5 for additional equipment, and that within the last six months no less than 5,000 men had been sent out under these conditions. During the war the short service was necessary in order to get the men, but the time had now come when the longer service must be reverted to. But the fact had to be faced that with a nine years service men were placed in a very precarious position at the expiration of their term.
    The real Army problem was the question of the after-employment of men who joined the colours. In his Memorandum last year the right hon. Gentleman made sympathetic reference to the question, but there was nothing further in that direction this year. Was it not time the House took into its serious consideration the question of the after-employment of soldiers? Men joining the service at the age of eighteen and serving nine years, would be discharged in the prime of manhood, but at a period of life later than that at which they could easily adapt themselves to civil occupations, with the result that they would be thrown upon the casual market. He believed the question of unemployment, which he hoped the House would face in the near future, was closely connected with our military system. If the Local Government Board would procure from the local authorities a return showing the number of men out of employment, marking those who at some period had been with the colours, it would probably be found that a very large proportion had served in the Army, and then through no fault of their own had found their way into that class who were the last to be employed in good times, and the first to be discharged in
    1570
    bad times of trade. The three years system was introduced on the assumption that 70 per cent of the men would re-engage, but only 12 per cent, did so. If an analysis were made of the un-employed during last winter it would probably be found that a large proportion of the 88 per cent. who did not re-engage went to swell the ranks of the unemployed.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERpointed out that that could not be the case, as the three years men had not come to the end of their term of service.
    *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDERthought that, at any rate, many of the men would find it very difficult to obtain employment, although, of course, it would not be so difficult after three years as after nine years service. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter up, and endeavour to frame some constructive scheme by which the public services and organisations throughout the country might provide employment for these men. No doubt all sorts of objections would be raised and the proposal said to be impossible, but the country was face to face with a great problem; and if the present voluntary system was to be maintained a scheme would have to be devised by which men who joined the colours, provided their conduct during service was good, should be assured of employment when their term with the colours expired. Something might be done through the Post Office, a Department which had 37,000 employees in London alone, and that number represented only 32 per cent. of the total in the country. He would not confine the plan to any one Department, it should be so arranged with different Departments that the men might be evenly distributed about the country. Some assistance might come from the police, though he knew the idea was very unpopular. At present we were moving in a vicious circle. The fact that they were not ensured employment on the expiration of their term of service debarred many men of good character and position from entering the Army. A change in that respect would automatically raise the standard of recruits, and the result would be not only a great gain to the

    1571
    Army, but a substantial mitigation of one of the grievous problems of the day. The local authorities throughout the country might be approached in the matter. He still held the view which he expressed four years ago, that with our voluntary system the more closely the local governing authorities could be brought into harmony with the military system the better it must be for the country. At the outside, only from 30,000 to 35,000 men were discharged per annum in the ordinary course, and that number distributed throughout the country into different organisations need not be a burden to any particular one. To secure a strong and efficient Army every encouragement must be given to men to enter the Army, and the only real encouragement that could be given was an undertaking that if they conducted themselves as respectable citizens during their term of service they should be sure of employment on their return to civil life.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I must say I have no reason to complain of the discussion to-day not being in accordance with the request I ventured to make yesterday. It has certainly lacked nothing in breadth or in depth, and if I may say so, it has been a most valuable contribution to the discussion of Army questions. With much that has been said I am in cordial agreement, but with a great deal I am afraid I still remain at variance. I should like if I can to do justice to those who have differed from me, as well as to those who have agreed with me. I have noticed with great satisfaction that there has been a tendency in the direction which I desire we all should travel—a tendency to recognise the truth that after all we are not keeping up, as we ought not to keep up, a large Army primarily for the defence of these islands.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: No, no.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. Members to whom that tendency has not extended have been left behind in the advance that has been made; but I have noticed a very remarkable tendency in that direction.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To whose speech does my right hon. friend refer?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think almost every speech that has been made. But I will endeavour to make my point good. I do not mean to say that all who have expressed that view are in agreement with me, but I do note that tendency in all their speeches. I am going, not to traverse, but to criticise some of the statements which have been made by the various speakers. If hon. Members will allow me I will explain to them my view of what is the real guiding principle in this matter.
    We are told we ought to have a great reduction in the Regular Army. The hon. Member who has just sat down was very emphatic on that point, and I wish to know how he justifies that proposition, whether it is based upon a true view of this question, or whether it is really an idea thrown off because he knew it would be acceptable to all of us, and that that is the shortest way of getting a reduction of cost. It is admitted on all sides that we have to maintain an Army which is suitable for our needs in time of peace, and capable of expansion in time of war. Has he considered whether, if he reduced our Regular Army, it would be able to satisfy those considerations? I am working under strictly limited conditions. The Army Council is working with the object of producing an Army which shall supply in time of peace a garrison for India and the approved garrisons for the Colonies, while having a certain proportion of that Army at home, so as to make a proper circulation between all parts of the Army, and which shall be capable of furnishing the drafts and units necessary for the reinforcements which the Indian Government demand in time of war. The hon. Member suggested that we might with advantage go back to the system of seven and five years enlistment. I traverse that statement for this reason. If you do go back to that system you will get no reduction in cost, and you will most certainly get no Reserve which will enable you to satisfy the demands of the Indian Government in time of war. You will not and you cannot get the Reserve necessary for the requirements of the Army in India if

    1573
    you put the whole Army upon that basis. You will get nothing near the infantry Reserve required for that purpose, nor would you get the number of units. You will not get units sufficient to supply the demands of the Indian Government in case of war; if you begin to reduce and cut off units you will be not, as I explained before, cutting off the officers, but you will be making it impossible to add to the number of your effective Army when the stress of war comes. It can easily be calculated what Reserve was produced under the previous system. It numbered 54,000 men in the infantry. If you begin to reduce the number of infantry units you pro tanto reduce that Reserve, and that Reserve is entirely inadequate for the purpose we are compelled to regard as binding upon us. The hon. Member said we had introduced the nine years system of service, and that he considers too long. Well, standing as an isolated period, I should agree with him; I think if it were not joined with the short service it would be too long. I would remind him that the period is practically the same as that upon which thousands have been serving before, and it is only one year in excess of the official term which men have been serving for years past. We have fought this battle over and over again, thinking we ought to do all in our power to provide for men who have been in the Army for nine years. I did make a proposition that we should be able to guarantee to every soldier of good character who had served nine years a congenial occupation in the ranks of the Army in connection with the short-service battalions which would provide him with that certainty of employment to which I think he is entitled. I think the hon. Member was mistaken in supposing that little is done for the employment of these men on their discharge. If he would look at the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting he would see that the proportion of men of good character who cannot obtain employment is comparatively small.
    *SIR J. DICKSON-POYNDER: I am told it is about 30 per cent.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Oh, no; it is much less, and that fact has been
    1574
    the secret of success in the Navy, and it will be the secret of success in the Army. The hon. Member has said he considers two periods of service at the same time impossible. A great many things have been said about the impossibility of it. I was told by many great authorities that we should have no chance of obtaining our military recruits for the nine years service, but since October we have obtained 11,000 men on that basis; and to that extent we have passed the calculation of many who were entitled to express an opinion. I believe you must come to this double system of recruiting, and if you do come to it you can successfully carry it out if you comply with the ordinary conditions of common sense.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Is that the right hon. Gentleman's policy at the present moment?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes. If you continue the long-service recruiting indefinitely you must sacrifice your Reserve. If you do not come to some kind of short-service recruiting you cannot make that Reserve. In order to carry on the two systems side by side you must have great differentiation in the inducements offered to the man who has served the long time and the man who has served the short time. The hon. Member has not remembered that the inducement to the soldier hitherto of enlisting for a long period of service has not been great, and that inducement has never been given to him until he has served two years in the Army. I pass from that view of the question as to how we ought to deal with the soldier in the Army, to what has been the main part of the debate this afternoon; that is, the question whether we can or cannot regard the Auxiliary Forces in their present state as a substitute, or an available substitute, for the Regular Army.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that question would he kindly answer the Question put by my hon. and gallant friend as to whether he is proceeding with the short-service Army proposals?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have explained that many times, and I say

    1575
    that it is impossible to proceed with the short-service men until the nucleus of long-service men required for the Army has been raised.
    MAJOR SEELY: When will that be?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That, of course, will depend entirely upon the rate at which recruiting proceeds.
    MR. CHURCHILL: But when will it be?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: We are recruiting at the rate of about 400 per month, and it will be about seven or eight months before we shall have obtained enough long-service men.
    MAJOR SEELY: And will you then begin with the short-service Army?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes.
    MR. CHURCHILLrose again.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERwould not give way.
    MR. CHURCHILLsaid the right hon. Gentleman would do better in his own interest if he allowed his interruption.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not wish to stand in the hon. Member's way.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I wish to get this information definitely in view of the very important debate on Monday next. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman's policy now is that, as soon as he has got his requisite number of long-service men, that is in eight or nine months time, he intends to proceed with the scheme of last year which he has laid before the House for establishing a dual Army system and short service for soldiers at home?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, that is so. I now come to the question as to how far we can regard the Auxiliary Forces as a substitute for the Regular Army. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight expressed my own sentiments upon this point. This is a question we must examine not from the point of view of
    1576
    patriotic enthusiasm, but from the point of view of its military value. The hon. Member for the Eskdale Division of Cumberland said that we might rely upon public enthusiasm in time of war. My view is that public enthusiasm in time of war is not enough. There was an enormous amount of public enthusiasm in the year 1870 in Paris, but that war ended disastrously, and something more than that was required. What I want to inquire into is how much we can rely upon it to make itself of value for the purposes of war.
    MAJOR SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman misapprehends the point I raised as he misapprehended it once before. We had enthusiasm at the time of the Boer War, but then it must be remembered that everybody does not belong to the ranks of the Volunteers. The point was could they rely upon enthusiasm without training. If they could not, then they ought to be able to obtain men who had had some training to fulfil that patriotic enthusiasm.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: If it be true that we can rely upon putting into the field against a foreign army troops which have had only the training of the Volunteers, all I can say is that every other country in the world is making a mistake except ourselves.
    MAJOR SEELY: But that is better than nothing.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I agree that it is better than nothing, but the question is, is that good enough. If we are right then every other country in the world is wrong. I have abundance of opinion from every military authority in this country, and it is unanimous upon this question, and they declare that you cannot safely enter into combat with a civilised army with men who have had so small a training as that which we give to our Volunteers. But supposing we are right and everybody else is wrong, then surely we are wasting both our time and money on the Regular Army. I cannot accept that, and I cannot bring myself to believe that the Germans, the French, the Japanese and every other country is wrong. It is argued that this force is of great value

    1577
    to have, however imperfectly trained, because it is a great supplement to the Army in time of war. I admit that up to the point to which that argument will carry me. My view is that it is our duty to provide such an organisation for the Regular Army as will allow a very large reserve of trained men who will have had equivalent training to the troops which form foreign armies. That is why I attach no importance to the particular period, and why I suggested two years as the minimum period of training to be allowed. That is the minimum training adopted by every country except Switzerland, which does not, I suppose, contemplate the undertaking of a foreign expedition.
    *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to my speech?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I think the hon. Member used the phrase "public enthusiasm."
    *MR. CLAUDE LOWTHER: No, I never used that phrase.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Then I withdraw the "public enthusiasm." The Volunteers, it is argued, give us what we are likely to want in time of war. The hon. Member has called me to task for what I have said with regard to the value of the Volunteer force in a great emergency. I think he has endeavoured to put into my mouth words which I did not use. I have said that you must not expect more from the Volunteers than the conditions of the service allow them to give. What do the conditions allow them to give? We know what they gave in the case of the South African War. They gave a great deal, especially on the first occasion when the demand was made. But what do I find in the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting for the year 1901? The Report says—
    "It was found that it was not possible to obtain the full number of companies, nor, indeed, to obtain companies at the same strength as in the preceding year. The Army Order which appeared on 25th January was consequently modified, and companies allowed to proceed as such at a minimum strength of ninety all ranks. In cases where the requisite
    1578
    ninety were not forthcoming, Volunteers were allowed to proceed as drafts, to relieve an equivalent number of men of the service company in South Africa, provided a minimum number of twenty-one came forward."
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask my right hon. friend if at that time 5s.a day was being paid to men without any training whatever?
    MAJOR SEELY: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies—
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must be allowed to reply.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A great many men did go out who had no previous training, but I am aware that a great many of these men became as efficient as some of the Volunteers who went out.
    MAJOR SEELYagain rose, and—
    *THE CHAIRMAN, interposing, said the hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to keep up constant interruptions. He was listened to with perfect silence himself.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have read the Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting. Let me read some other facts which I think are relevant to the question how far we can rely on this force in time of emergency. The number who volunteered for service in 1900 was 20,929. Of those 3,528 were rejected on medical grounds. Further, there were rejected as not complying with the regulations as to efficiency 3,333. That is to say, 33 per cent. of the 20,929 who presented themselves as willing to serve the country were rejected. I do not blame these men for the fact that they were not medically qualified, or that from the military point of view they were not efficient when they came forward. But we have the fact that 33 per cent. were not accepted by the military authorities on grounds which perfectly justified them in not accepting their services. I am not adducing these facts as a matter of censure at all. I am charged with the duty of seeing whether we have or have not an available military force in time of war, and I have to test the question by the

    1579
    only evidence available. In his examination Colonel Satterthwaite was asked—
    "Do you consider the medical inspection of the recruits strict enough?—There are many sides to that when you ask whether it is strict enough. One is that in the Volunteers their existence depends on the capitation grant, and if the medical inspection was too uniformly carried out many of these corps would cease to exist."
    Captain Jenner, Adjutant 3rd Lanark Rifle Corps, in his evidence said—
    "I think if you look at the record of the men that were examined for the service companies that went out to South Africa—and I know some cases that came under my notice—you will find some suitable food for reflection there. You mean in the rejections?—Yes, they were simply terrific the cases that came under my notice in several corps."
    Colonel Hawarth, 3rd V.B. Lancashire Fusiliers, was asked—
    "How many of your men would have passed the doctor?—I should think 35 per cent. would have been rejected."
    I do think these are relevant considerations. It is unreasonable to expect the Volunteers as now constituted to be available for foreign service, and especially service in India. We know the class who come into the Volunteers. We know that they are proud of the occupations in which they are employed, and no one would really expect a large proportion of the Volunteer force to sacrifice their occupations in order to undertake the work of a campaign in India. When we eliminate these two sections of the Volunteer force—those unfit medically or on the ground of inefficiency, and those disqualified on the ground of being occupied in such a way that they cannot leave the country and cannot hold themselves available for foreign-service—we shall have to reduce the force considerably. If these facts are as I have stated is there anything unreasonable in the proposals I have made to the Committee? I have proposed that we should take steps, so far as we can, to eliminate from the Volunteers the inefficient. We are asked to make large reductions of expenditure. I have been led to believe that you cannot safely make large reductions in the Regular Army except in the way I myself have proposed. I have always entertained the belief that you can make considerable reductions in
    1580
    the Militia force, and yet, at the same time, make it more efficient and self-respecting, and much more useful to the nation. But, be that as it may, I am not prepared to accept the proposition that you are to reduce the Regular Army and the Militia and to take no steps at all, in view of the facts I have just recited and many others I might recite, to reduce the cost of the Volunteer force.
    What does that reduction mean? It means the reduction of the inefficient part of the Volunteer force. I am quite sure that reductions such as I have proposed can be made without outstepping for a moment what would be included in the description I have given.
    My hon. friend the Member for Sheffield asked where I found any support for my allegation that the tendency of the Committee was in the direction of accepting the view that the Volunteers, like every other branch of our Army, ought to be made available, if possible, for foreign service. I find it in the fact that many of the arguments addressed to the Committee, and notably the arguments of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, were based on the assumption that when a time of crisis came we can and must rely on the Volunteers. I say that that is a great step in advance, and I said yesterday and I repeat to-day that it is only logical if that be so that I should ask hon. Members to meet me half way, and to allow the War Department to so spend its money and so organise its forces that it may really fulfil that which the hon. Member desires that it should accomplish. Does the hon. Member think that we are going the best way about it by continuing the present organisation of the Volunteer force? The hon. Member spoke of the Volunteer force forming a garrison for India and a protection for our lines of communication. I have two remarks to make in that connection. I have never been a believer in playing what you may call your second eleven. It may be that you have to defend communications which are never attacked; that has happened; and so long as they are never attacked it does not matter who defends them. But if those communications are

    1581
    attacked you must have troops who are capable of defending them, and I am not going to subscribe to the theory that it is consistent with the safety and dignity of this country to depend upon troops not being engaged when they are placed in a responsible position. If you are going to send the Volunteers—and honestly I do not think you are—to India you must entirely reconstitute that force; you must change its constitution from top to bottom, a thing which I would never think of suggesting to this Committee. How many of the Volunteers went out as an organised force in the late war? Not a single unit.
    MAJOR SEELY: They wanted to go, but were not allowed.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That is precisely my point. The organisation of the Volunteers as legally constituted absolutely prohibits their being made use of in the one way in which military forces can be most effectively employed. The Volunteers have been made use of in foreign wars as individuals and not as a military force, and if they are to be employed as a military force it follows as a necessary consequence that they should be organised in such a way that they could go to the seat of war with their own organisation and their own officers.
    It has been said that I have made a proposal to abolish the Militia. That, I may perhaps be permitted to say, is an absolute misconception. I had hoped to utilise them, and I still think that it would be much better if we could, in a way which would make them independent of the Regular Army and make them really the basis of the short-service Army of this country. That has been my desire and that is my desire. That was my proposition and it remains my proposition, but it is not the proposition that I have been allowed to make to the House. Hon. Members know perfectly well what I mean. I have stated it over and over again. I find the feeling in this House is unconquerably opposed to any alteration of the organisation of the Militia; but I do believe that the hon. Member who alluded to
    1582
    this subject is perfectly right in saying that if we were allowed to take the Militia and make them the short-service Army, and make them really fit to face foreign troops in the field we should give the Militia a chance of becoming a real force. That is the "head and front of my offending." I should desire to include in that force a certain number of Line battalions. Now I want once for all to make it clear why I have made that proposal and why I think that that is the proposal which will ultimately be accepted. You have one hundred and fifty-six battalions of the Line, and if you are going to keep the whole of those hundred and fifty-six battalions of the Line on the basis of 800 to 1,000 enlisted for long service with their pay and emoluments as at present, and if you are going to spend any additional money on the Militia as you all desire we should, you will have an enormous increase of the Army Estimates. You will have the upward tendency in the Army Estimates accelerated, and you will have that great increase of our expenditure which the House and the Committee have over and over again said they will not have. There are two alternatives open to you. You may destroy a certain number of battalions of the Line in order to place battalions of Militia in their stead. But when you come to do that, I think you will have a problem which the boldest of us would not care to face. I do not think that public opinion will support the abolition of, say, the 92nd Highlanders in order to put Militia in their place. But that is the absolute logical sequence of forcing these proposals through if you are not to do anything to the Line battalions except to reduce them. What I propose, and what I think is the wisest course, is to level up the Militia battalions to the level of the Line battalions which are not necessary, and which need not be maintained in their full strength in time of peace, and make them the nucleus of the short-service Army. I am not proposing to reduce the Militia, as the hon. Member suggests. The whole Militia Vote is taken this year as it was taken last year; and I am going to ask the Committee, and I hope they will give me their full acquiescence and approval

    1583
    in the course which I have suggested, that we should deal with the Militia in the only way in which we can deal with it in its present condition—that we should get rid of those units and battalions which are inefficient and are clearly incapable of becoming efficient; that we should consolidate such battalions as would gain by consolidation, and if the result is economical from that process we should devote the funds saved to giving the Militia such additional training as the military authorities may think necessary, and which they are capable of receiving.
    I have done my best to answer the question of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight, though I do not suppose I have satisfied him. I have told him that while we owe an immense debt to the Volunteers, we must not exaggerate their importance. I do not think the hon. Member has made it evident to the Committee that we are justified in relying in the event of a great war on the Volunteer force as at present constituted to fulfil our needs. I do not think he has made it clear that we are in such imminent danger of invasion that it is necessary to keep 630,000 men in time of peace to repel an invasion which I honestly believe will never take place. But the hon. Member ex hypothesi will say half of that force, the Regular Army and the Reserves and the Reserves of the Navy will be withdrawn and we shall be left with a much smaller force at home. If we had to send the whole of the Regular Army out of the country it is absolutely certain that we should have the entire command of the sea, and if that is so, I believe we are on the safe side in proposing to take the steps I propose. What are those steps? It is that we should recognise, in the first place, that the doctrine of the chance of invasion of this country may be fully expressed by the chance of a raid by 5,000 men. We must be prepared to meet such a raid by a properly organised, equipped, and officered force, and in the Volunteers there is ample material for the formation of such a force. If we limit ourselves to a force of 200,000 Volunteers I am convinced we shall have in any part of the country which may be threatened an ample and sufficient force to repel any such raid, and an enormously improved efficiency on the part of the Volunteers
    1584
    by such a reduction of men and the additional expenditure of money on those remaining in the force.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he did not attach as much value as some hon. Members did to these debates on Army reorganisation. There were in the House a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who were under the impression that they ought to be field-marshals. These Gentlemen always seized every opportunity of submitting some particular plan of their own for Army reorganisation, and they generally disagreed with each other; while in most cases their plans involved a considerably larger expenditure. It was, therefore, obvious why the Votes for the Army had increased so much in the last few years. He understood that the debate that had gone on on the previous and was going on that day for such a time was merely a sort of preliminary canter, and that they were to have the whole of next week in which to say what the Army ought to be. He really felt inclined to seize the opportunity of taking a holiday; for he did not pretend to be a sort of professor able to lecture on military administration. He left all the details to the technical men in the profession; but what he had observed was that in all those debates in which money was thrown away and squandered in the most reckless fashion the talk was very much confined to the would-be military section of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for War himself was one of those field-marshals; but, after all, they could not have a dozen Ministers for War if there was to be unity in the discussion of those matters. He came there simply as a representative of that burdened creature, the British taxpayer, and to look upon these matters from his point of view. Some years ago they had the great Army Corps scheme, which had disappeared, and all they knew was that the Army cost a great deal more at the present moment. And unless hon. Members specifically said that they would not allow the military men to expend more than the present money, the expenditure would go up and up. He believed in a practical Amendment to reduce the amount of the Vote by so much. His hon. friend the

    1585
    Member for the Isle of Wight had anticipated him in that course by moving a reduction of 10,000 men; but he understood that the money was to be spent on some other plan of the hon. Member's own. He would vote for the Amendment, because it would be so much less; but he wished it to be understood that he voted for it entirely without prejudice to his right to vote against the whole amount asked for.
    He would give one or two good reasons for that course. Last year the Secretary for War came forward with a wondrous plan, and everything was to be changed for the better. He wanted to know what on earth had become of that plan? He consulted his military friends, and they told him that the plan had entirely disappeared; that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had been overruled by his colleagues. He remembered that last year the right hon. Gentleman told the House that they had got an Army that was perfectly worthless and that all they had got to hope for was that, now he was Minister for War, he would alter it at once. Had the right hon. Gentleman done anything? Not a bit of it. Another observation the right hon. Gentleman made was that, if his plan was adopted, he would not continue to hold the office of Minister for War if he did not reduce the Estimates this year. Where on earth was the reduction? Would anybody tell him where it was? He did not know what the plan of the right hon. Gentleman was; but he gathered from the military critics that, if there was a plan, it was absolutely worthless. They knew that two or three years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor produced his plan, the Prime Minister said it was perfection; and now that the House had found that it was not worth the money expended on it, the Prime Minister had thrown over the late Minister for War and taken on the right hon. Gentleman, the present Secretary for War. But that right hon. Gentleman was not allowed to carry out his own views; he was a perfect dummy. The right hon. Gentleman made a bold statement—he was rather bold and egotistical in his habits, and seemed to think that everybody should bow down and worship him—and said that if he
    1586
    was not allowed to carry out his own views, and if he did not reduce the Army Estimates this year compared with those of last year, he would not remain for a moment at the War Office. But there was the right hon. Gentleman this year at that box, with no plan and no reduction of Estimates. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to do what he promised. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman uttered that threat not so much to the House as to his colleagues; but his colleagues had got the better of him. They had frightened the right hon. Gentleman out of his promises.
    Now, it seemed to him that the House ought to express their opinion that the right hon. Gentleman was not fit for his place, and that the Ministers collectively were not fit for their places. How were hon. Members to do that? By the old constitutional way—let them refuse any money or men to the Government until they gave place to better men. Really, it was monstrous that the right hon. Gentleman should come down to the House and tell them that he was not going to do anything last year, but that this year, if he remained Minister for War for so long, he would do something to reduce expenditure on the Army; and that there would be perfection in the end if only they kept him in office. What the House wanted was that the thing should be done at once; and they were not going to keep the Minister for War, or the Prime Minister either, in office any longer. They wanted both to be turned out and replaced by good sound Radicals, who would carry out in office pledges given in opposition. He knew it was said, "What a monstrous thing! Do you want to be without an Army?" No, he did not want the country to be without an Army. He believed the country required a reasonably large and efficient Army; but they had to use the forms of the House to secure that; and the only way in which they could press their protest against the mode in which the business of the Army was carried on, and show their thorough distrust of the Minister for War and his colleagues, was to vote against any proposal they made. If the right hon. Gentleman had

    1587
    come forward and asked for a modest Vote on Account, so as to enable the Government to arrange for a dissolution, he would have supported it, but as he had come forward and asked for a Vote to carry them over the whole year, when the Government had not the support of the country behind them, he should vote against it.
    MR. BECKETTsaid he could not agree with the proposition of the hon. Member for Northampton that the Secretary of State for War was not fit for his place. The right hon. Gentleman had, whether they agreed with him in all the details of this scheme or not, proved emphatically that he was fit for his place. He had tackled a remarkably difficult problem in the right spirit. He had inherited an estate very heavily involved, and had done a good deal to extricate it from that difficult position. He believed he was on the right lines, and if he was allowed time to develop his policy the result would be most satisfactory. The proposition to reduce the Vote by 10,000 men he did not understand, because he did not know whether that was in addition to the reduction already promised by the Secretary of State for War. At all events, sufficient reason had not been given for such reduction. It was true that a proposition was made two years ago to reduce the Army by 27,000 men. For that proposition he, amongst others, voted, but he thought the conditions now were entirely different. Two years ago, when he voted for the reduction of the men, the scheme before the House was radically wrong in principle and hopelessly impracticable. It was therefore their duty to defeat that scheme by every means in their power. That scheme had been abandoned and another scheme had taken its place, from which the country hoped much better things. In order to complete the former scheme 50,000 recruits were asked for by the Secretary of State for War. It was manifestly impossible that 50,000 could be obtained, and therefore, in asking for a large establishment, the Government were merely asking the taxpayers' money. Now a smaller number of recruits was required, viz., 42,000 men, and as these men could be obtained the posi-
    1588
    tion was entirely different. Again, men were asked for two years ago for the defence of this country. Men were now asked for service abroad. There was a very great distinction between the two things. Again, two years ago the effective establishment was 311,000 men. Now the effective establishment was 274,000, or a reduction of over 37,000 men in the number of the Regular establishment. He did not therefore think that his hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Wight had made out a conclusive case in favour of a reduction by 10,000 men.
    It was not well to reduce the Regular Army at the same time they were endeavouring to reduce the Volunteer force. He admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of an effective Volunteer force, but there were certain considerations which had not apparently been borne in mind. The Secretary of State for War said he wanted his Army for service abroad and on the Indian frontier. Supposing we were attacked on the Indian frontier and had to use our forces to repel that attack, should we not have to rely on Volunteer forces of some kind or another in order to supplement our Regular Army? Did the Secretary of State for War believe the Regular Army sufficient to repel an attack on the Indian Frontier without the assistance of Volunteer forces?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Certainly we should not have enough forces unless we had a very large Reserve, and that is why I make the proposal.
    MR. BECKETTthought experts would maintain that the wastage would be so great that in addition to the Reserve we should have largely to rely upon such assistance as we could derive from Volunteer forces in the country. If that were so, it was necessary to have as many men as possible accustomed to handle the rifle, and they would have a better position with 340,000 men to draw from than with only 200,000.
    When they came to discuss the scheme with the right hon. Gentleman next week, he hoped some information would be given on certain points. Only a week or two

    1589
    ago the Prime Minister said the Secretary of State for War would produce "his" policy. He did not say "our" policy. The Secretary of State for War had also referred very fervently to the present policy as "my" policy. It was very desirable that they should know whether the Government had pinned their faith to this policy and whether they intended to stand or fall by it. That was a point upon which the House and the country ought to be informed by the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister was a member of the Defence Committee and must have the whole subject at his finger ends, and, considering the doubt and uncertainty which prevailed as to the true policy of the Government, the Secretary of State for War's statement should be supplemented by a definite statement from the Prime Minister next week. He asked the Secretary of State for War to tell them also what he had decided to do in regard to the striking force, and what shape that force would take. It would be extremely interesting and satisfactory if the Secretary of State for War would explain the system of recruiting a little more in detail, then they would feel more security as to the future of the Army. He had not offered these remarks in a hostile spirit, and would support the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the reduction proposed.
    MR. MARKHAMcommented upon the fact that the Secretary of State for War had not offered any explanation of the reasons why he had not been allowed to carry out his policy, although he declared last year that he would not retain his position unless he were allowed a free hand.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERdenied that he had been inconsistent or had falsified any of his pledges. He had not gone back one inch upon the proposals he had made.
    MR. MARKHAMsaid the right hon. Gentleman said he had not been allowed to carry out his policy, and the question was who had prevented him? Was it the Prime Minister, the Defence Committee, or the Secretary of State for India? They were in a very remarkable position. The Secretary of State for War stated that in his opinion it
    1590
    was necessary to have a short-service Army capable of being sent abroad in time of war, and yet he was not allowed to submit his scheme to the House. Was the right hon. Gentleman consulting his own dignity in remaining in the Government under such circumstances?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken. All he had said was that he was prevented by the prevailing sense of the House of Commons from making his proposal with regard to the Militia. That was not embodied in his scheme, and therefore he had nothing to withdraw.
    MR. MARKHAM: Then we understand it is the House of Commons which has prevented the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, certainly.
    MR. MARKHAMsaid it had been pointed out that we had to face a large expenditure on the Indian frontier because Russia had brought a double line of railway to the frontier, and so long as this country continued to twist the tail of Russia so long a heavy expenditure on the Indian Army would be necessary.
    MR. SOARESwas understood to ask before the Committee divided for some information on the subject of remounts and the disposal of cast horses, explaining that he did not desire to occupy time by repeating his observations of the previous day.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT,)was understood to say: The hon. Member on the previous day had suggested that we were in no better position to-day with regard to the question of remounts than at the date of the South African War. That was not so. He was not surprised at the suggestion being made because the work had been done in a quiet and unostentatious manner, and it had not

    1591
    come to the knowledge of hon. Members. It was quite true that there was a smaller number of horses this year, not only in this country but in the world, than there were in 1899, and to that extent the difficulty of securing horses for the Army had not been reduced, but rather increased, but so far as organisation was concerned we were in an infinitely better position to-day than when we went to war in South Africa. The Remount Department had been entirely reorganised and was in a far better position than ever it had been before. They knew where horses were to be found and who they belonged to, the world having been divided into spheres of action. The small prizes given at local shows, to which the hon. Member had referred, would be continued during the coming year, because although they were small it was hoped that they would encourage the breeding of the class of horse likely to be useful for remount purposes. The hon. Member's suggestion as to the sale of cast horses had been considered, but the conclusion had been come to that it was not so economical as the present system. He was afraid they could not give horses to the Brood-Mare Society.
    *MR. AINSWORTHreferred to the difficulty in reducing
    the numbers of the Volunteer force. He could not accept the statement of the Secretary of State for War that a large number of Volunteers were medically unfit. Of course so far as possible they should have physically fit men in the Volunteers, but so long as battalions were maintained under the capitation grant it would follow that the larger the numbers in the battalion the larger would be the capitation grant, and if the numbers of the Volunteers were reduced the War Office must be prepared to pay more heavily for those who were fit. [Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Hear, hear!] Referring to the call made upon the Volunteers for active service with the Colours, he pointed out that the call originally made was for two companies from each brigade—one for immediate service and one for service six months hence. It was easy enough to get any number of men to volunteer for active service at once, but not so easy to get men to promise to go out in six or twelve months time, because they did not know what the demands of their business or occupation would be so long beforehand.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 258. (Division List No. 90.)

    AYES.

    Abraham Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Allen, Charles P.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Fenwick, Charles

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

    Asquith, Rt Hon. H. Henry

    Churchill, Winston Spencer

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

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Crombie, John William

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Cullinan, J.

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Benn, John Williams

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Black, Alexander William

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Blake, Edward

    Delany, William

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Boland, John

    Devlin, C. R. (Galway)

    Gilhooly, James

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John

    Brigg, John

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Doogan, P. C.

    Griffith, Ellis, J.

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Brown, G. M. (Edinburgh)

    Duffy, William J.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Hammond, John

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Dunn, Sir William

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Elibank, Master of

    Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Burns, John

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

    Harmsworth, R. Leicester

    Burt, Thomas

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Harwood, George

    Caldwell, James

    Emmott, Alfred

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Cameron, Robert

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Shackleton, David James

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Murphy, John

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sheehy, David

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

    Newnes, Sir George

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Nolan, J. (Lough, South)

    Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West

    Norman, Henry

    Slack, John Bamford

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Jacoby, James Alfred

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

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

    Johnson, John

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Joicey, Sir James

    O'Brien, P. (Kilkenny)

    Strachey, Sir Edward

    Jones, D. B. (Swansea)

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

    Sullivan, Donal

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan. E.)

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Thomas, D A. (Merthyr)

    Joyce, Michael

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

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

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

    O'Dowd, John

    Tillett, Louis John

    Kilbride, Denis

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Tomkinson, James

    Kitson, Sir James

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

    Toulmin, George

    Labouchere, Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Lamont, Norman

    O'Mara, James

    Ure, Alexander

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cornwall)

    Partington, Oswald

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Wason, J. C. (Orkney)

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Weir, James Galloway

    Levy, Maurice

    Price, Robert John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Rea, Russell

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Lough, Thomas

    Reddy, M.

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

    Lundon, W.

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Reid, Sir R. T. (Dumfries)

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Richards, T. (W. Monm'th)

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Roberts, J. Bryn (Eifion)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

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

    M'Crae, George

    Robertson, E. (Dundee)

    Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

    M'Kean, John

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Young, Samuel

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Roche, John

    Yoxall, James Henry

    M'Laren, Sir C. Benjamin

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Rose, Charles Day

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

    Mooney, John J.

    Runciman, Walter

    Major Seely and Sir John

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Russell, T. W.

    Dickson-Poynder.

    Morley, Rt Hn. J. (Montrose)

    Samuel, H. L. (Cleveland)

    Moss, Samuel

    Schwann, Charles E.

    NOES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynto

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Bill, Charles

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Bingham, Lord

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Bond, Edward

    Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

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

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith,

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Arrol, Sir William

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Cook, Sir F. Lucas

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Brassey, Albert

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Brown, Sir A. H. (Shropsh.)

    Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Bull, William James

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Baird, J. G. Alexander

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Balcarres, Lord

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

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Baldwin, Alfred

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

    Davenport, William Bromley

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

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir E. H.

    Denny, Colonel

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Banbury, Sir F. George

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. E.

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Beckett, Ernest William

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Chapman, Edward

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    1594

    1595

    Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

    Randles, John S.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Law, Andrew B. (Glasgow)

    Rankin, Sir James

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Faber, George D. (York)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

    Renwick, George

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

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

    Fison, Frederick William

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Round, Rt. Hn. James

    Forster, Henry William

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

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

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

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lowe, Francis William

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Garfit, William

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Godson, Sir A. Frederick

    Lucas, Col. F. (Lowestoft)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

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

    Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Gordon, Maj Evans- (T'rH'mlets

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

    Smith, H. C. (North'mb, Tynes'd

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Majendie, James A. H.

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

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Spear, John Ward

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Gretton, John

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Hain, Edward

    Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

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

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fred. G.

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

    Milvain, Thomas

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Harris, F. L. (Tynem'th)

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

    Tuff, Charles

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Moore, William

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

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

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.

    Helder, Augustus

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Morrison, James Archibald

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

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Mount, William Arthur

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Horner, Frederick William

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Willough by de Eresby, Lord

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

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

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Hozier, Hon. James H. C.

    Pease, H. P. (Darlington)

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

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm.

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pemberton, John S. G.

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Hutton, John (Y rks, N. R.)

    Percy, Earl

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir J. H.

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Younger, William

    Kenyon, Hn. G. T. (Denbigh)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

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

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

    Viscount Valentia.

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Purvis, Robert

    Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    And, it being half-past Six of the clock, the Chairman, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of Vote A and Vote 7 of the Army Estimates.
    Question put, "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 221,300, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions,

    1597
    during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1906."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 268, Noes, 161. (Division List No. 91.)

    AYES.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Joicey, Sir James

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

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

    Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O

    Dorington, Rt. Hn. Sir John E.

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Arrol, Sir William

    Doughty, Sir George

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Lamont, Norman

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

    Laurie, Lieut. -General

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Lawrence, Sir Josoph (Monm'th

    Balcarres, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

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

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

    Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

    Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Lee Arthur H.(Hants., Fareh'm

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

    Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inverness B'ghs

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Fison, Frederick William

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Bartley, Sir George C. T.

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

    Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

    Beach, Rt Hn Sir Michael Hicks

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

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

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Forster, Henry William

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

    Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W

    Lowe, Francis William

    Bill, Charles

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

    Bingham, Lord

    Garfit, William

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

    Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

    Bond, Edward

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

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Boulnois, Edmund

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    MacIver, David (Liverpool)

    Brassey, Albert

    Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Bull, William James

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Caldwell, James

    Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

    Marks, Harry Hananel

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

    Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

    Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

    Gretton, John

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Greville, Hon. Ronald

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

    Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Hain, Edward

    Milvain, Thomas

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Montagu, Hon J Scott (Hants)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Hamilton, Marq. of (Lond'n'rry

    Moore, William

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

    Chapman, Edward

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Morrell, George Herbert

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

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Heath, Sir James (Staffs. N. W

    Morton, Arthur H Aylmer

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Helder, Augustus

    Mount, William Arthur

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Murray, Charles J (Coventry)

    Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Newnes, Sir George

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Hoult, Joseph

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

    Pemberton, John S G.

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Percy, Earl

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Hunt, Rowland

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Davenport, William Bromley

    Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Denny, Colonel

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Pretyman, Ernest George

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

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Purvis, Robert

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Welby, Lt-Col. A C E (Taunton

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Randles, John S.

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne

    Rankin, Sir James

    Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Smith, H C. (North'mb. Tyneside

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Reid, James (Greenock)

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

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Remnant, James Farqnharson

    Spear, John Ward

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

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Renwick, George

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

    Ridley, S. Forde

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Talbot, Lord E (Chichester)

    Wortley, Rt Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Younger, William

    Round, Rt, Hon. James

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire

    Tuff, Charles

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Vincent, Col Sir C E H (Sheffield

    Viscount Valentia.

    Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Walrond, Rt Hn Sir William H.

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Morley, Rt Hn John (Montrose

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Moss, Samuel

    Allen, Charles P.

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Gilhooly, James

    Murphy, John

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Griffith, Ellis J.

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Benn, John Williams

    Hammond, John

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

    Blake Edward

    Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

    O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

    Boland, John

    Harwood, George

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Hayden, John Patrick

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

    Brigg, John

    Helme, Norval Watson

    O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

    Bright, Allan Heywood

    Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Higham, John Sharpe

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

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    O'Dowd, John

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Horniman, Frederick John

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Burt, Thomas

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

    Cameron, Robert

    Johnson, John

    O'Malley, William

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

    Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

    O'Mara, James

    Causton, Richard Knight

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Cawley, Frederick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Partington, Oswald

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Joyce, Michael

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Crombie, John William

    Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W

    Price, Robert John

    Cullinan, J.

    Kilbride, Denis

    Rea, Russell

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Kitson, Sir James

    Reddy, M.

    Delany, William

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th

    Doogan, P. C.

    Levy, Maurice

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Duffy, William J.

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Lough, Thomas

    Roberts John H. (Denbighs.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Lundon, W.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Ellice, Capt. E. C. (S. Andr's B'ghs

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Roche, John

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Farrell, James Patrick

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Rose, Charles Day

    Fenwick, Charles

    M'Crae, George

    Russell, T. W.

    Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E

    M'Kean, John

    Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Flynn, James Christopher

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Shackleton, David James

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Mooney, John J.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Sheehy, David

    1600

    1601

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Tillett, Louis John

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    Slack, John Bamford

    Tomkinson, James

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Toulmin, George

    Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Ure, Alexander

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    Sullivan, Donal

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

    Young, Samuel

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

    Weir, James Galloway

    Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.)

    White, George (Norfolk)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

    Wilfrid Lawson and Mr.

    Thomson, F W (York, W. R)

    Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

    Labouchere.

    Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,630,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge for
    The committee divided:—Ayes, 259;

    AYES.

    Agg-Ganlner, James Tynte

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.

    Anson, Sir William Reynell

    Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

    Gretton, John

    Arkwright, John Stanhope

    Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

    Greville, Hon. Donald

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

    Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

    Hain, Edward

    Arrol, Sir William

    Gorbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

    Hall, Edward Marshall

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

    Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

    Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

    Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.

    Hambro, Charles Eric

    Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

    Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton

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

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Bain, Colonel James Robert

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

    Baird, John George Alexander

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

    Balcarres, Lord

    Davenport, William Bromley-

    Hay, Hon. Claude George

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Denny, Colonel

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

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

    Dickson, Charles Scott

    Helder, Augustus

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

    Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.

    Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

    Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

    Hickman, Sir Alfred

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Hoare, Sir Samuel

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir John E

    Hogg, Lindsay

    Bartley, Sir George G. T.

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

    Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

    Hoult, Joseph

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. Hicks

    Doxford, Sir William Theodore

    Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

    Hozier, Hon. James Henry C.

    Bignold, Sir Arthur

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

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Bill, Charles

    Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

    Hunt, Rowland

    Bingham, Lord

    Faber, George Denison (York)

    Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

    Bond, Edward

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

    Jessel, Capt. Herbert Morton

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

    Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

    Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

    Boulnois, Edmund

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

    Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh

    Brassey, Albert

    Fisher, William Hayes

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

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Fison, Frederick William

    Kimber, Sir Henry

    Brotherton, Edward Allen

    FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

    Fitzroy, Hn. Edw. Algernon

    Knowles, Sir Lees

    Bull, William James

    Flannery, Sir Fortescue

    Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Flower, Sir Ernest

    Laurie, Lieut-General

    Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

    Forster, Henry William

    Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

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

    Lawrence, Sir J. (Monmouth

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

    Gardner, Ernest

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Garfit, William

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

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

    Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

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

    Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

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

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

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

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

    Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

    Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

    Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

    Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

    Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Goschen, Hn. George Joachim

    Llewellyn, Evan Henry

    Chapman, Edward

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

    Clive, Captain Percy A.

    Graham, Henry Robert

    Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

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

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

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

    Supplies and Clothing, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906."
    Noes, 185. (Division List No. 92.)

    Lonsdale, John Brownlee

    Percy, Earl

    Spear, John Ward

    Lowe, Francis William

    Pierpoint, Robert

    Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

    Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

    Pilkington, Colonel Richard

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

    Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

    Platt-Higgins, Frederick

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsm'th)

    Plummer, Sir Walter R.

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chicheater)

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

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

    Macdona, John Cumming

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    Thornton, Percy M.

    MacIver,. David (Liverpool)

    Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

    Tollemache, Henry James

    Maconochie, A. W.

    Purvis, Robert

    Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

    M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

    Randles, John S.

    Tuff, Charles

    Majendie, James A. H.

    Rankin, Sir James

    Vincent, Col. Sir C E. H (Sheffield

    Malcolm, Ian

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

    Manners, Lord Cecil

    Reid, James (Greenock)

    Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

    Marks, Harry Hananel

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Warde, Colonel C. E.

    Martin, Richard Diddulph

    Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

    Webb, Colonel William George

    Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriessh.)

    Renwick, George

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Ridley, S, Forde

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

    Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Fredk. G.

    Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

    Whiteley, H. (Ashtou und. Lyne

    Milvain, Thomas

    Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Molesworth, Sir Lewis

    Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

    Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

    Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

    Willough by de Eresby, Lord

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Round, Rt. Hon. James

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

    Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

    Royds, Clement Molyneux

    Wilson, John (Glasgow)

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

    Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

    Morrison, James Archibald

    Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-

    Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

    Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

    Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

    Mount, William Arthur

    Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

    Wrightson, Sir Thomas

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

    Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

    Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

    Younger, William

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

    Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

    TELLES FOR THE AYES—Sir

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Sloan, Thomas Henry

    Alexander Acland-Hood and

    Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

    Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)

    Viscount Valentia.

    Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

    Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside

    Pemberton, John S. G.

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

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

    Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Ainsworth, John Stirling

    Delany, William

    Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D

    Allen, Charles P.

    Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

    Helme, Norval Watson

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Dobbie, Joseph

    Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H

    Asquith, Rt Hn. Herb. Henry

    Doogan, P. C.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    Douglas, Chas. M. (Lanark)

    Higham, John Sharpe

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Duffy, William J.

    Holland, Sir William Henry

    Barran, Rowland Hirst

    Duncan, J. Hastings

    Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

    Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Horniman, Frederick John

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

    Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

    Benn, John Williams

    Emmott, Alfred

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Black, Alexander William

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas

    Johnson, John

    Blake, Edward

    Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidatone)

    Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

    Boland, John

    Eve, Harry Trelawney

    Jones, Leif (Appleby)

    Bolton, Thomas Dolling

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

    Brigg, John

    Fenwick, Charles

    Jordan, Jeremiah

    Broadhurst, Henry

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

    Joyce, Michael

    Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

    Kennedy, Vincent P (Cavan, W.

    Burke, E. Haviland

    Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

    Kilbride, Denis

    Burt, Thomas

    Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

    Kitson, Sir James

    Caldwell, James

    Fuller, J. M. F.

    Lamont, Norman

    Cameron, Robert

    Furness, Sir Christopher

    Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

    Campbell, John (Armagh, S.

    Gilhooly, James

    Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

    Cauaton, Richard Knight

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Layland-Barratt, Francis

    Cawley, Frederick

    Griffith, Ellis, J.

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Cheetham, John Frederick

    Guest, Hn. Ivor Churchill

    Leigh, Sir Joseph

    Cogan, Denis J.

    Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

    Levy, Maurice

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Hammond, John

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Crombie, John William

    Harcourt, Lewis

    Lough, Thomas

    Cullinan, J.

    Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvi

    Lundon, W.

    Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

    Harwood, George

    Lyell, Charles Henry

    1604

    1605

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Partington, Oswald

    Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Tennant, Harold John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

    M'Crae, George

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr

    M'Kean, John

    Price, Robert John

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

    M'Kenna, Reginald

    Rea, Russell

    Tillett, Louis John

    M'Laren, Sir Chas. Benjamin

    Reddy, M.

    Tomkinson, James

    Markham, Arthur Basil

    Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)

    Toulmin, George

    Mooney, John J.

    Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

    Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

    Ure, Alexander

    Moss, Samuel

    Rickett, J. Compton

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Moulton, John Fletcher

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

    Murphy, John

    Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

    Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

    Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

    Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Weir, James Galloway

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Roche, John

    White, George (Norfolk)

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    White, Luke (York, E. R.)

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

    Rose, Charles Day

    Whiteley, Gsorge (York, W. R

    O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)

    Runciman, Walter

    Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Russell, T. W.

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

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

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

    Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

    O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

    Shackleton, David James

    Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.

    Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

    O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

    Sheehy, David

    Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N

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

    Shipman, Dr. John G.

    Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

    O'Dowd, John

    Slack, John Bamford

    Young, Samuel

    O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

    Smith, Samuel (Flint)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N

    Soares, Ernest J.

    O'Malley, William

    Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R. (Northants

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr

    0'Mara, James

    Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

    Herbert Samuel and Mr.

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sullivan, Donal

    Bright.

    Resolutions to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.
    *THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)moved to report progress.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid he understood that no dilatory Motion could be taken until the business of Supply had been dealt with.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: What the House ordered was that no dilatory Motion could be received "on that Business"—that "Business" constituting the Business to which this Order relates. That has now been disposed of.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid that the guillotine Resolution referred to the whole Business, which would not end until eleven o'clock to-morrow night.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I do not take the view of the hon. Gentleman. "That Business" referred to in the Order is now concluded.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid that the Order stated that
    1606
    at half-past Six "the Chairman shall forthwith put every Question necessary to dispose of Vote A and Vote 7 of the Army Estimates in Committee." Similar words were in operation when the Chairman put the Motion to report the Resolution to the House a few days ago. Was it not now necessary to report the Resolution to the House and to put the Motion.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I put that Question on a former occasion because the then Resolution was the last which came within the Ways and Means Resolution; and because it concluded the set of Resolutions dealing with 1904. When the last Resolution dealing with 1905 is reached then I will put the Question that I report the Resolution.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid that this was the last stage of the Resolutions for the ensuing year.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: These are only one or two Resolutions. There may be many more.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Not this year.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. These Resolutions are the Resolutions for 1905–6.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that this was the last Resolution for 1905–6 they would take this year; and, therefore, they thought the Question was necessary.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid that Mr. Speaker had ruled that there could be no dilatory Motion until the whole business had been concluded. He himself was prevented from making two bites at a cherry for that reason.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: We have completed the business for this sitting.
    MR. CALDWELLsaid that if the Committee referred to the guillotine rule it would be found that the words were that "no Business other than Business of Supply shall be taken." That was not merely Supply within the guillotine Resolution. The Army and Navy Votes were down for consideration; and the Supply to be taken was not limited to that governed by the guillotine Resolution.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERpointed out that when Mr. Speaker gave that ruling the business of the Committee had not been completed.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry I was not here to hear the ruling of Mr. Speaker. I think the circumstances must have been different. I have given this question my best judgment and I am sorry if I am at variance with the ruling of Mr. Speaker.
    And, there being no further Business set down for the Afternoon Sitting, Mr. Speaker left the Chair until this Evening's Sitting.

  EVENING SITTING.

    SOUTH OXFORDSHIRE WATER AND GAS BILL (BY ORDER).
    Read a second time, and committed.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert pro-
    1608
    visions for the compulsory supply of water in bulk by meter for agricultural and trade purposes at a reasonable rate and under reasonable conditions, provided that such supply does not entail any further increase of capital than that provided for in the Bill.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

    FREE IMPORTS AND SHIPPING TRADE.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMSsaid he thought it important that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the effects of tariffs on out shipping industry at a time when many people in this country seemed ready to throw to the winds that fiscal system which had during the past fifty years benefited our shipping trade beyond all others, and who seemed to fail to realise that the shipping trade was the one industry which had the most to lose by the imposition of tariffs. In no department of trade had we more cogent examples of the baneful effect of tariffs, privileges, and restrictions of all kinds than in the history of the great ship-owning industry. Free trade had giver our shipbuilders access to the cheapest and best materials in the world. Tariffs must increase the cost of shipbuilding by adding both to the cost of material and wages. They had done so in America; they must do so here. The result in America had been to inflict great injury to their shipping industry, which at one time promised to rival that of this country. Who would say that tariffs were likely to increase the quantity of cargo to be carried? It had been pretty conclusively proved that the effect of all tariffs was to restrict trade and reduce both production and consumption. Let them remember too, that tariffs begot tariffs, and to be effectual they must ever increase.
    What advantage had tariffs been to American shipowners? In the early sixties the ships of the United States filled the ports of England and France, The Stars and Stripes were seen jostling the Union Jack in every harbour of Europe, and the Baltimore clippers were the pride of the ports. Where were all those vessels now? Swept from the face of the waters as the tariff-reformers

    1609
    opposite had been swept from the House of Commons. Protection and tariffs had destroyed them, and enabled free-trade England to drive them from the harbours of the world. Contrast the decline of the American carrying trade with the wonderful prosperity of our own under free trade. In 1870 we owned 5,690,789 tons; in 1902, 10,054,770 tons, without counting ships owned in the Colonies. He did not know whether, when the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham visited Liverpool, he brought an unprejudiced eye to bear upon the spectacle of that great city. If so, he would have seen in its fine streets and great buildings and its wharves and docks and floating palaces a cloud of witnesses to the fruitful effects of free trade. There, on the banks of the Mersey, had grown up one of the finest cities of the Empire, a city which had grown up with the growth of our great shipping industry. During the course of his speeches there the right hon. Gentleman vainly endeavoured to reassure those who foresaw in protection the certain decline and downfall of that great industry. He might as well have tried to prove that the sun and stars would shine in the heavens at the same time. The Liverpool shipping, indeed the nation's shipping industry, had grown with its carrying trade, which in its turn had grown, for the sole and simple reason that Great Britain placed no check on the free flow of imports and exports. Ever since the United States drifted into protection her carrying trade had dwindled, and her shipping industry with it. The right hon. Gentleman knew, of course, that the same thing must happen in this country, that our busy and crowded, harbours would grow silent and deserted, and that the Union Jack, that now waved on every sea and to every breeze that blew, would grow A rarer and rarer spectacle on the great ocean highways. He knew, of course, that no towns would be more severely hit by protection than Liverpool and Birkenhead. Yet he tried to divert the thoughts of the Liverpool people by the suggestion that we might renew the navigation laws. Renew the navigation laws! What a mad suggestion! Why, we had achieved our present commercial superiority entirely since our fathers adopted the principles and practice of
    1610
    free trade and in particular had our shipping trade prospered enormously since we renounced the monopolies and privileges, and freed ourselves from the shackles of the old navigation laws in 1849; and yet this was the gentleman who said he wished to see this country part of a great Empire, united, strong, and prosperous. Well, he was not alone in that wish. Where they differed was as to the paths that led to prosperity, and as to the forms by which unity might best be preserved and consolidated.
    It seemed to him that the first round of this fiscal fight, or fight of free imports in the country, had gone badly against the right hon. Gentleman. He had won nothing; he had brought powerful adherents to the camp of his enemies, and succeeded in shattering the unity of his friends; he had lost them seats and lost them credit; he had not improved the Prime Minister's position or furthered his career. Indeed, his disregard of the Prime Minister's difficulties gave the measure of his political methods in the inroads he had made on comradeship, Party ties, and plain national interests. What could be clearer than that the nation wanted rest after the war? But rest did not suit the right hon. Gentleman's book—with repose came reflection; and the right hon. Gentleman's last chance had been to keep up the unreal, heated atmosphere of the war. However, he was glad to think that great advantages to the Liberal cause had accrued from the right hon. Gentleman's breach, not only with the ablest and most experienced of his old colleagues, but with the flower of young Toryism and Unionism. If he had lost them, the men of the future, they had also no place in the Prime Minister's temporary encampment. The Unionist Party was split asunder on the most profound political differences that could divide a Party. The Prime Minister had told them that the question of free trade and protection would not be the issue at the next election. That was the same voice that told them in the 1900 election that the only question before the country was the war in South Africa. It was hardly wise to play that game again quite so soon.
    "You may fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can t fool all the people all the time."

    1611
    The question of free trade or protection was not one that could be left open for a number of years, to be decided in a series of general elections, for all the world like a course of economic lectures. It must be settled at once. There was not a man inside or outside the House of Commons to-day who did not know that, come when it may, it would be not a defeat but a rout of Toryism. Under these circumstances, the position that the free-trade Unionists had taken up seemed to him inexplicable. Place and power, or any hopes of them, were gone irretrievably. Yet each man seemed to hope to save himself, and that hope but enfeebled his attachment to a Leader who was making his return to Parliament daily more impossible. Had they had the courage of their convictions, instead of being induced to vote on a false issue, on a mere quibble, which in their heart of hearts they must have despised, they could at any time during the last two years have ended with one blow the miserable dance of insincerity which was playing havoc with English trade and dividing English society. They could have ended the insolent farce of the Tariff Commission, with its self-appointed inquiry and its absurd Reports. They could then have shown that they really counted for something in politics. The Duke of Devonshire had long since given them a strong and emphatic lead. Surely they must see that if they continued the course of action they had hitherto maintained they would be ground to pieces between two Parties, and in the end, if not consigned to oblivion, at least go on adding to the burden of shame and failure with which they would have to meet the electors. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham, in a letter he wrote to the Member for Dulwich, once more told them that the Empire was "trembling in the balance," and that unless Great Britain taxed her food and her imports for the benefit of the Colonies, an
    "inevitable separation of interests will weaken if not entirely destroy the bonds between us."
    This was the very ecstasy of separatist despair. There was no foundation for it whatever. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham's want of faith in the Imperial connection had been repudiated nowhere so warmly as in Canada, on
    1612
    whose behalf the crusade was started. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said—
    "There are parties who hope to maintain the British Empire upon lines of restricted trade. If the British Empire is to be maintained, it can only be upon the most absolute freedom, political and commercial."
    Other colonising nations had tried to hold their Colonies as their peculiar preserves. England gave hers freedom and self-government. Surely that alone was enough to show what an entirely different front the British Empire would present to the world if it disestablished its free-trade policy and substituted that of the ring fence. Yet in the face of all this the right hon. Gentleman asked for a mandate to destroy that fiscal system which had made this country the market of the world, and to enter upon a policy that would bring us into ruinous contact with other countries and dissolve the ties of Empire. Instead of taxing the food of the people in the interest of Canadian farmers, who did not contribute a penny to our enormous burdens, and who would brook no interference with their own affairs, we should free the land and tax land values for the benefit of our large towns and our great municipalities. Instead of killing our industries by a cut-throat retaliation we should fight foreign competition with the only real weapon of Germany and America—education, free, national, unsectarian. Instead of protecting the trust-mongers, we should assure to labour the restitution of those elementary rights which Parliament gave and the Courts of law had taken away. With such policy at home, and the fulfilment of our moral obligations abroad, the avoidance of anti-foreign feeling and mischievous alliances, they might even build up the Empire on a deeper and firmer foundation. Our Colonies were not to be bought by bribes of gold, but by faith and pride in the Motherland, which was just and free and had the strength that came from those great and glorious attributes.
    *COLONEL DENNYsaid a fortnight ago, in rising to second such a Resolution as that proposed by the hon. Members for Merioneth he should probably have thought it courteous to his Leader and fair to the House to have made a reference to the

    1613
    fact that ho had to take a prominent position in doing something not in accordance with the whip which he had received in the morning. It was not now necessary. Changed circumstances had made it easier, as far as his feeling were concerned; his opening sentences as originally penned, had, he was afraid, been blown to the winds by the determination taken by the Leader of the House, a determination which he agreed with many of his friends might have been taken long ago, and they in the House were now free to get the reasoned opinion of the Members, opinions which the Leader of the House long ago gave them to understand they were at any rate at liberty to hold. The country learned last week and last night what the opinion of those who cared sufficiently to stay in the House was on the general question of fiscal reform but, if he recollected aright, the Prime Minister made some rather slighting allusions to the general nature of the discussion, and appeared to think that time was being very much wasted. He agreed with him as little as he agreed with the hon. Member for East Fife, who thought that at any rate in the country enough had been said on the subject. Free-traders must not underrate their opponents, but must keep alert and energetic for a long time to come. At the same time be quite appreciated what the Prime Minister said as to the disadvantage of a general discussion, and so he was more than pleased that it had fallen to his lot to second a Resolution which left the general and entered into the particular. They were now discussing the effect of import duties, not in the abstract, but in the concrete, not as they affected the country as a whole, but as they affected one or two trades in particular. Many of them still believed that it was necessary to educate the House and the country, so that they might realise the effect that any interference with our established fiscal system might have upon trades of gigantic importance to our well-being.
    The hon. Member who moved the Motion had thoroughly thrashed out the question as far as he had gone, and he had only a very few thoughts to add. He had carefully examined the position; on
    1614
    the pros and cons of the question he had reasoned with himself and he had come to the conclusion that under no consideration could good accrue to shipping and its kindred industries of shipbuilding and engineering, and almost as certainly harm would result; and he would like to put a question to that most brilliant advocate of protection, his hon. friend the Secretary for the Board of Trade, and ask him to answer with that honesty he always showed when he was expressing his opinion on this or any other subject—did he, as an experienced man of business, one who had had to do in the great city of Glasgow with shipowning as well as shipbuilding, did he or did he not believe that these trades were bound to suffer, or at any rate could get no good from a change of our system? Some Gentlemen in the House might be astonished that they had in this Resolution taken not only shipping, but its kindred industries; but in that they were justified. They could not consider a workman apart from the tools he used; they could not consider a trade apart from its instruments of operation. Handicap a trade by fiscal regulations, when it depended entirely upon such raw materials as untaxed maize, cotton, or wool, and they would doubtless do it some harm; but handicap a trade whose raw material was an article every piece of which would be injuriously affected itself by a system of import duties, and a double wrong was committed, even if the industry was not actually ruined. He remembered a very pertinent inquiry made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—Are all other nations fools? Carlyle once made an allegation from which he obviously meant to exclude himself, and they could guess what he would have said if he had been alive now. But he welcomed that saying, because it gave them a direct invitation for debating this question, not only on the point of reason, where they prevailed, but from analogy, where they were in even as strong a position.
    Let them take a few figures, and only a very few, showing the position occupied by this country now and in former years, and the position occupied by countries

    1615
    which had adopted protection, and then let them judge of what the right hon. Gentleman's proposals would mean to this country. They found that the great free-trade nations in shipping and its kindred industries were two in number—Germany and ourselves, with Norway following up in a similar way. Germany had no restriction of her coasting trade, no duty on ships or shipbuilding material, and therefore stood with Great Britain side by side in the argument. France, Italy, Austria, America, and Russia, all the great exponents of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, whom he evidently intended to exclude from the Carlyle characterisation, restricted the trade on their coasts, charged, generally speaking, duties on ships and materials, and all paid large subsidies, much larger in proportion than Germany, which again paid much less in proportion to ourselves, and, like ourselves, only for services rendered. He had obtained for greater accuracy a few figures from a registry—Lloyd's in fact—of the comparative tonnage of the world, and he was not including the Colonies; he took Great Britain per se. In 1900 13,000,000 tons represented Britain; 2,500,000 the United States; 2,500,000 Germany; 1,250,000 France; and under 1,000,000 Italy, Spain and Russia. From 1900 to 1904 the net gain to Britain had been more than 1,900,000 tons, allowing for discarding of all old vessels; for the United States, including the Great Lakes and restricted coasting trade the growth had been 1,200,000 tons; in Germany, which had no great lakes, which had no protected coast, and which had to compete like ourselves with all the rest of the world, the growth had been no less than about 35 per cent., or 800,000 tons; France, on the other hand, with all the terrible subsidies she paid, reaching in the case of building to almost as much in the way of subsidy as an East Coast builder here got for the bigger part of a ship's price, had only managed to struggle on from 1,240,000 tons to 1,600,000; Italy was only 180 tons over a million; Spain had only gained 164,000 tons; and Russia had only risen from 643,000 tons to 809,000 tons. The slow process of dissolution of this great Empire which had been going on should have made itself apparent in the most sensitive trade we had, namely, that of shipown-
    1616
    ing. There had been change, but not in the direction indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and there never would be so long as the great shipping trade was given freedom.
    Where did it stand to gain by a protectionist policy? If the right hon. Gentleman were successful he would stop the import of manufactured goods into this country, and therefore foreigners would be unable to take our goods in repayment, so that we should lose both coming and going. If he were successful, the colonial preference scheme also was an illusion, because we had been plainly told by colonial ministers that the last thing they contemplated was an increase of British imports into any of the Colonies. On the other hand, shipowners stood to lose by the increase in the price of their tools. Any man in America would say, if asked, that he paid 30 per cent. more for his ships than we did, and that it cost him 50 per cent. more to run them. Then there were the Colonies. What did we pay in the Colonies to a stoker? A common fireman on board a colonial vessel earned as much in a much as many a second engineer on board a British steamer. £9 a month was the pay of a fireman in a fair-sized steamer in the Colonies. And why could that be maintained? Simply because protective legislation had come in, which insisted that no foreign vessel, which included a Britisher, not registered in the Colonies should trade from one port to another in the Colonies without coming under the same restrictions in every sense as the local-owned colonial vessel.
    As to the effect of the rise in the price of tools, what would be the result to the shipbuilder? He might give an instance. Some little time ago he was asked to write an article for a review upon the effect of tariff reform on shipbuilding, and the first things he locked for were facts, so he made an examination into the costs in various countries. Some countries were out of it. Russia, for example, with all the raw material that the goodness of God could confer on a country, I with a population who would welcome the wages paid by us to the lowest class labourer as something beyond the dreams of avarice, had yet been unable

    1617
    to establish anything but Government shipbuilding yards in her country. Spain, which country had been making great efforts lately to increase her mercantile marine by purchase, was still unable to supply her wants from her own factories. We drew the most of the raw materials from Spain with which we made the pig-iron and plates for our ships; we drew our copper from Spain, our lead from Spain; and Spain took her ships from us. France, with subsidies for the mere building of a ship equal to the bigger part of the price of a ship in this country, was unable to compete. Why? Because every ounce of their raw material was protected, and they were unable to buy their material at prices which would allow them to build for anything but a subsidised or premium-paying line. And as for America, that country which, if the Creator could in any way be lavish, he had certainly not forgotten, where they made more pig-iron, drew more ore, brought up more coal, had more immigrants of the best possible class, than any country in the world, was unable to touch us by 30 to 40 per cent. And why? Because manufacturers were not always philanthropists; because though a man might give many charitable donations with the one hand, he was taking with the other money he had ground out of his unfortunate fellow-subjects. The following were the authentic figures which he obtained within one week from various parts of the world. We were paying for steel plates in Glasgow on a given day in the month of July, 1903, £5 7s. 6d. The price on the East Coast of England at that date was £5 12s. 6d. By arrangement with a celebrated German firm he obtained from them the price they were paying at that date, viz., £5 13s. 7d.; also by arrangement, which was a little difficult to carry out, but which was successful, he obtained from a reliable source in America what steelmakers were charging for the same article at the same time, and it was no less than £8 15s. He would leave the matter to the House; in fact, he would be willing to leave it to the Secretary of the Board of Trade. Did he or did he not recommend this alteration, and, if he did not, why not?
    He would conclude by making a small allusion to the speech of his noble friend
    1618
    the Member for Greenwich. Unionist free-traders had had a rough time but many had had a much rougher time than he had. He could not accuse the tariff-reformers of great hostility in Scotland. He had no reason to complain of them; he had equally no reason to complain of his Liberal friends. He was not opposed by a tariff-reformer; he was opposed by an orthodox Liberal, and he had no right to grumble. He still held certain Unionist principles; he still held, with the noble Lord, that a large portion of the future of the country rested in the hands of the Unionist Party when that Party had been purged of a disease which he hoped was only superficial, and had not yet struck its roots deep into the flesh. If they could do that, as the noble Lord said, what did a few casualties in the rank and file of the Party matter, so long as they could get leaders capable and sound at heart. Might he venture to appeal to the Prime Minister, their Leader, if he would really be so Could he fail to be convinced now that loyalty to a respected, but, he thought, mistaken colleague could be carried so far as to menace the existence of a great Party? Would he not come out from among these old friends who had contracted this mania, and lead the remnant of the Party which was free from it If he would do so, the democratic Conservative Party, now momentarily divorced from the people, might again become the Party of the people, under a Leader any one might be proud to follow. Present sacrifices for some of them might be future gain for all; they must take their chance of that. But he did entreat his fellow-countrymen to pause and consider as to whether any evils that might have been with them in the past, and might touch them in the future, should be met, not by a resort to an artificial stimulus appealing directly to the most selfish of man's instincts, but by the exercise of individual ability and hard work, which had brought this country, with free trade, to where she now was, and which, with enthusiastic co-operation between employers and employed added, would maintain her in that position if those canons were not violated.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House,

    1619
    grave injury would be caused to the shipping industry and to other industries dependent thereon by the adoption of the changes in the existing fiscal system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham."— (Mr. Osmond Williams.)
    *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he had not intended to take part in the debate, but after the speech just delivered he wished to say a few words not in any way as representing shipping Members generally, but as speaking on behalf of his own constituency and himself personally. The Shipping Committee had held a meeting that afternoon and the general feeling was that it was undesirable to take part in the debate. The admirable and really eloquent speech of the seconder of the Resolution was the best presentation of the case of the opponents of tariff reform he had heard, but it was very largely an argument based on false premises. A great deal had been said by the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, as well as by other speakers and writers, of the state of shipbuilding in the United States, the decay of which they, somewhat absurdly, attributed to protection. What they had forgotten was that the United States as regards shipbuilding was in reality a free-trade country.
    *COLONEL DENNY: I forgot to mention the question of drawbacks. I did know about the question of drawbacks in the United States, but they do not work.
    *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid there was a good deal which his hon. friend had emitted to state, but which lie would endeavour to explain in as clear terms as he could. The United States Tariff Act expressly provided that all duties levied upon importations of shipbuilding materials should be given back in the shape of drawback in respect of vessels built in the United States for foreign trade and for their coasting trade between the Atlantic and Pacific ports. The effect was that practically all duties were given back except in the case of vessels for the like service, and the near coasting trade.
    *MR. REA: Then why do not they build the ships?
    *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that the cost of labour was very much higher in America. The country was prosperous, and men would not work for the wages which were current in this country. Shipbuilding artisans in the United States got 40 to 50 per cent. more wages than was paid here for similar work. Americans also could not operate ships as cheaply as we could in this country, because they were obliged by law to have a certain proportion of their crew and all their certificated officers American subjects. No doubt American shipowners had to pay higher wages just as American shipbuilders had to do, but the actual materials could be imported from this country or the Continent free of duty. They imported very little; but that was only because their own steel manufacturers were wise enough to give them special terms which made it cheaper to buy at home. His hon. friend the Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs was a shipbuilder of great eminence, but he had rather a speciality. He built splendid turbine steamers and high-class passenger boats, but he did not build to any large extent the class of vessels commonly used for carrying cargoes generally throughout the world. The hon. Member numbered amongst his clients a great foreign company—the Austrian-Lloyd. He did not say that that had any great eflect on the hon. Member's views, but it was an indication that he had certain foreign clients. The interests of foreign cleints were not always those of the people of this country.
    *COLONEL DENNY: We have not built a ship for the Austrian-Lloyd Company for fifteen years.
    *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he was sorry to hear that, because he remembered the day when the hon. Member's firm used to build them all. He remembered the day also when the vessels of the Hamburg-American Company were built on the Clyde, but now that business had gone away. The mover of the Resolution spoke of American shipbuilding, and drew a picture of the

    1621
    magnificent fleet of American ships in days gone by, which had been swept from the seas. He ascribed that to protection, but as a matter of fact protection had nothing whatever to do with it.
    MR. OSMOND WILLIAMS: It had everything to do with it.
    *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that the cause was the change from wood to iron The magnificent fleet of American ships to which the mover of the Resolution referred had been built under protection and owed its existence to cheap timber; but when timber gave place to iron the whole circumstances were altered. A great deal had been said about Liverpool.
    The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution spoke as if he thought Liverpool shipowners generally sympathised with his views. He held in his hand a document which was issued on the authority of the Liverpool branch of the Tariff Reform League. It was not without interest to the House because it contained the names of those Liverpool shipowners who were directly and officially connected with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The president was Sir Alfred Jones, the chairman Mr. J. H. Welsford, and the executive included Mr. Aubrey Brocklebank, Mr. Arthur Cook, Mr. R. W. Leyland, and himself, and amongst the names on the general committee were Mr. Collard and Mr. Beckett Hill, all well-known shipowners. Mr. Beckett Hill was a partner in the firm of Allan Brothers & Co., and was chairman last year of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. Mr. Collard was a partner in the firm of R. P. Houston & Co., and was the previous chairman of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. He had got the names of all the shipowners in Liverpool, and there were only five or six amongst the whole number holding views other than of perfect accord with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. They were many of them even financial supporters of the
    1622
    views of the right hon. Gentleman. The shipowners to whom he had referred made their living out of carrying the produce of the manufacturers of the country. Anything for the good of the manufacturers of the country—and therefore of the people—was, they believed, to the interest of the shipowner, because if hostile tariffs were broken down and our export trade could be increased, shipowners would have more to carry. Nearly all of those shipowners who were engaged in the carriage of general cargo believed that Mr. Chamberlain's proposals would tend to increase the carrying trade of the country, and be better for shipping. But why were some shipowners of a different opinion? At a recent deputation from the coal trade to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the shilling a ton duty it was stated that 80 per cent. of the entire exports of this country consisted of coal. That meant that four-fifths of the shipping, so far as exports were concerned, had nothing to do with the manufactures of the country. Shipowners engaged in that business were not interested either one way or the other in the export trade as far as manufactures were concerned. The improvement of our export trade in manufactured goods would not benefit them. They never carried anything except coal; and their Business interests were not the same as the business interest of the shipowners of Liverpool. He might go further and say that many vessels sailing out of Liverpool were not British steamers. They sailed under the British flag, but belonged to an American combine. He believed the Member for Gloucester, to whose information and that of the Member for Dewsbury the mover had acknowledged himself in part indebted, had considerable business interests in carrying coals for such a combine. He did not ay that those interest were anything but the most legitimate, but they were lot the same as the ordinary interests of shipowners in this country. Shipowners in the coal trade were not affected by the proposals of the right on. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and their views in regard o fiscal questions depended mainly upon their politics.

    1623
    He did not wish to trouble the House with figures, but he wished to give his authority for what he had stated, and whenever it was possible he preferred to appeal to the authority of his political opponents. The gentleman he would call as witness was Mr. John Williamson, brother of the late Mr. Stephen Williamson, well known to many hon. Members as the much-respected Member for the Montrose Burghs, who had made a careful study of the exports of this country. According to statistics compiled by Mr. J Williamson and explained by him in a paper read before the Chamber of Shipping at their annual meeting in London last year, there had been no real increase in the volume of our exports in the last twenty years with the exception of the trade in coal.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if the exports included ships.
    *MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he referred to manufactured goods carried in ships, and in these there had as regards volume been a diminution, while the export coal trade had enormously increased. That statement had support in the returns of exports and imports upon which dues had been paid to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. The trade of the port of Liverpool showed an enormous increase last year as compared with previous years in every item of receipts except one, and that was the export of manufactured goods. Last year the port of Liverpool received about £13,000 more in respect of dock and town dues upon imports than in the previous year; while the amount received in respect of dock and town dues upon exports was £1,100 less. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn in regard to ships, he had not actual figures, but he was certain we had not the preeminence in shipbuilding for foreign nations that we used to have. A list of the 178 steamers of the Hamburg-American Company, in which were included some of the finest vessels in the world, and of the North-German Lloyd Fleet of 152 steamers, would give an indication of the success
    1624
    of foreign competition in this respect. These were only two out of several great and admirably managed German shipping companies; nor were our German friends our only competitors. Hon. Members had only to go to the reading room and take up the advertising sheet of The Times to get some idea of what these foreign ships were doing. We had still got a pre-eminence in coal carrying, but our pre-eminence in all other respects had entirely gone. It had gone to protectionist countries, who were beating our manufacturers out of the field, not through any fault of our manufacturers, but because their rivals had a larger market, because they had a protected home market, and were able thereby to quote lower prices for the export market. Our shipowners so far as the best class of shipping was concerned, were suffering with our manufacturers. We were being beaten, and well beaten, upon every one of the great trade routes; and in every part of the world. Our carrying trade was going from us by reason of our insane persistence in this free import system, because we had not taken the reasonable means—protection if they liked— to retain our hold on that trade, because we had not yet adopted the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He was quite sure we must adopt that policy, if this country was to regain her position.
    He thought it was a great misfortune that fiscal questions should have become Party questions, because not only the Unionist Party, but the whole common sense of the people of this country had to be converted before they could adopt the new fiscal proposals. He was glad to see his hon. friend the Member for the Flint Boroughs in his place, because there was a book published a couple of years ago, before fiscal questions became Party questions, from which he would like to quote a few passages to the House. The book was entitled "My Life Work, by Samuel Smith, M.P.," and Mr. Smith wrote this—
    "I may take this opportunity of saying that I believe a great change has passed over this country on the question of free trade … All nations except our own have gone in an opposite direction. The United States and our Colonies have flourished exceedingly under a contrary policy. None but idealogues would

    1625
    now accuse the American people, the shrewdest on earth, of being blind to their own interest. It is a matter of common knowledge that no nation since the world began has advanced with such rapidity in wealth and commerce as the United States in the past fifty years; yet it has increasingly adopted a protective policy. Our exports to that country are not more than they were fifty years ago, while we now import three or four times as much, and the balance of trade between us and the United States shows some £119,000,000 a year in their favour! The mere strumming upon the shibboleths of Cobden and Bright—true at the time they were uttered—will not save us, and a fresh survey of the whole industrial situation is absolutely necessary."
    That was written by an hon. Member who had recently been busy in Wales talking free trade and electioneering with the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. He thanked the House for listening so patiently to his remarks, and he thought he had said enough to show the hollowness and absurdity of the contention that the shipping industry of this country in any way benefited under the free import system.
    *MR. REAsaid that anybody who was acquainted with the shipping trade of the port of Liverpool would not have been very much struck with the statement made by the hon. Member who had just sat down. With regard to the list of names which had been produced by the hon. Member for Liverpool, such a Member would have been much more struck with the names which did not appear on that list than with the names which did appear there. He was sorry that the hon. Member had mentioned his name in connection with the American combine, because he had nothing whatever to do with it. When that combine was formed it was an international concern, but the ownership was held in a preponderating degree in this country. Since the formation of that line the founder of it had disappeared, and the American president had disappeared. The sole control and management of that great combine was now in this country, and it was to-day as much an English concern as any other concern in the port of Liverpool or the port of London. The hon. Member for Kirkdale spoke of American shipbuilding as being carried on under equal con-
    1626
    ditions with this country because they were able to import their materials free by law. But why did they not do so? Witness after witness before the Commission held in Washington gave evidence to the effect that this concession was absolutely illusory. Although the American shipbuilders could import materials for shipbuilding free by law, their hands were so tied by conditions that they could not import freely for their industry the different materials which by law they were permitted to import.
    The argument that we were falling behind in the general shipping trade of the world was answered perfectly easily. Speaking at Liverpool, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham took a period of ten years, and, including Japan, he erroneously made out that the increase of British tonnage was not as great as the increase of foreign tonnage. If they excluded Japan, the figures for Great Britain alone, excluding the Colonies, were much larger than the figures for the rest of the world. The figures were now available for another year. In that year we had added to our registered tonnage 450,000 tons, and all the rest of the world, including Japan, but excluding Russia, because the figures for that country were not available, had added only 400,000 tons. The shipping trade was absolutely the greatest trade in this country. Its gross turnover was equal to that of our great railway system—namely, a trifle over £100,000,000. He did not mean to say that in regard to the amount of capital invested the shipping trade was to be compared with British railways, but in the amount of turnover and returns the business done was equal to the whole railway business of this country. They had had such a deluge of fiscal statistics poured upon them that he felt sure every hon. Member was getting weary of them. but there were certain broad facts which he thought it would be just as well to state. Thy over-sea trade from the ports of the United Kingdom was one-fifth of the trade of the whole world, but the trade done in British ships was one-half, and, if we took the length of the voyages and value of the trade into account, more than one-have of the whole shipping trade of the world.

    1627
    There was one fact connected with this great trade which ought to be borne in mind by those who supported the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and it was that of this half of the trade of the world, more than one-half was trade between foreign countries which did not touch the ports in this country at all. The principal protected countries gave more employment to British ships than the United Kingdom itself. Of the tonnage in our own ports two-thirds was with these protective countries, and only 15 per cent, was with the British possessions, and of this trade at home one-fifth was peculiarly ours, that was to say, the transshipment trade, which was very valuable to the shipowners and the shipping classes in this country. Shipping was not only the biggest trade in the country, but it was by far the best. It was the most Imperial and the most necessary to us as an island people. He would say more—it gave the very best employment to the people of this country of any trade in which we were engaged. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that the British working man was "being paid more and more with invisible exports"—being paid, not paying. That was an example of how incapable tariff-reformers were of distinguishing between debit and credit. The cotton trade produced £90,000,000 a year, and the export was £70,000,000. But it had to pay £40,000,000 to the foreigner for raw material. This invisible export was not a staple material product that could be seen, but it was payment for labour, and therefore invisible. It consisted in payment for ships built in British yards, almost altogether of British material. These ships were engined in British works, officered and engineered by British subjects, and far the greater part of the crews were British. They were repaired in British yards, provisioned by British dealers, coaled by British coal, and insured in British offices. That was where the money went. If there was anything left it went to the shipowner for his remuneration, but at present he was afraid he had to go without it.
    The shipping trade was not only our biggest, but it was the direct product of our fiscal policy. Other countries had
    1628
    founded great trades because local conditions were favourable. Providence had given the coal trade to South Wales and Pennsylvania and the cotton, trade to Lancashire. But nothing had helped England on the ocean, except its policy. The shipping trade was one which was open to everybody, and in free competition with all the protectionist powers in the world our supremacy was now such that it might almost be called a monopoly. This supremacy dated from the institution of tree trade. It did not exist before. In 1846 America was almost our equal, and other nations were not very far behind, but from the institution of free trade and the abolition of the navigation laws in 1849 dated the progress of the British mercantile marine, which had arrived at its present pre-eminence. He did not say that our free-trade policy alone could have achieved this astounding result. It had been aided by the protectionist policy of other nations. Other nations had one by one dropped out, while we had increased our shipping trade under their protectionist system. Germany was an apparent and not a real exception, because in this particular matter she had been content to act on free-trade principles. Our great shipping trade was a fair target for everybody, and if we engaged in a tariff war with other nations it was through that trade they would hit us. In America it was already possible for the President, at any moment, to put on a duty of 10 per cent. on all imports brought in by ships of a foreign nation in addition to the ordinary tax authorised by law. It was not probable that the President would impose that tax so long as there was no friction with foreign nations, but if we entered into a tariff war with America it was shipping that would be hit, and it would be hit effectually. How could we retaliate? There were gentlemen who advocated that we should establish restrictive legislation in regard to shipping and impose differential dues. That was not practicable, because out of 36,000,000 of foreign tonnage in our ports we could only hit about 4,000,000. He could not understand how any shipowner could support the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It was to him a perplexing phenomenon

    1629
    and only showed that men might run and operate ships without any knowledge of the principles that formed the very basis of their practice and success.
    MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he intended to vote for the Motion, but he discriminated between the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the policy of the Prime Minister. A good deal had been said about personal interest. He was not a shipowner, and had no shares in shipping, but even if he had he hoped he would subordinate personal interest. He condemned the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham because it sought to found the unity of the Empire upon a basis of self-interest, and more particularly upon a basis of the taxation of food. He objected to it also because it would tend to increase the cost of building and working ships, and would diminish the volume of trade on which our shipping prosperity depended. Any benefit world only be a transitory one, and the advantage to shipping was very illusory. His hon. friend the Member for the Kirkdale Division had referred to the opinion of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, and had stated that the great majority of Liverpool shipowners were favourable to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He knew many eminent shipowners who supported that policy and many who strongly objected to it, bat whether the majority was of one opinion or the other he had no means of deciding. He thought there was among the shipowners of Liverpool and the country generally a feeling of dissatisfaction with the way in which the shipping trade was carried on at the present time. The hon. Member for Gloucester had stated that this country had sustained its prosperity amounting to a monopoly in the case of shipping. He did not think the hon. Member intended to say that. He thought, the present condition of the shipping trade had been described in too glowing terms by the hon. Member. If his information was correct, the trade had reached its zenith and had entered upon a period of declension. In the twelve years between 1890 and 1902 Great Britain had lost
    1630
    10 per cent. of the tonnage of the world During the last twenty years British tonnage entering and clearing from the United Kingdom had increased by only 50 per cent., and foreign tonnage had increased by 119 per cent.
    *MR. REA: May I ask whether the is hon. Member is taking the entrances and clearances as his test?
    MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he was taking the amount of tonnage of the entrances and clearances. Did the House realise what was meant by the figures he had quoted? In the period to which he referred British shipping coming in and going out had only increased 50 percent., while foreign tonnage had more than doubled.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: What are your original figures? One might mean 100 and the other 100,000.
    MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he had not got the figures with him, but he thought the percentages spoke for themselves.
    MR. LOUGH: It is most misleading.
    MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he found that in 1881 the British tonnage was 41,000,000; and in 1902 it was 64,000,000. In 1881 the foreign tonnage was 16,000,000; and in 1902 it was 35,000,000.
    *MR. REAasked whether the hon. Member could state how much of the tonnage referred to as entrances and clearances was represented by large German steamers which called for passengers and did not interfere with the export and import trade of the country at all, and further whether he could state how much of the tonnage referred to Channel steamers which were owned by the Continental railway companies and were counted every day in the year.
    MR. CHARLES MCARTHURsaid he was giving the figures with respect to tonnage from all sources. There was

    1631
    a great deal of misgiving as to the future of the shipping trade. He would remind the House that the Shipping Subsidies Committee came to the conclusion that, although British shipping was in the main holding its own, there was great cause for anxiety and exertion. The Committee went into the subject very carefully; and they attributed the present position of British shipping to the very large bounties given by many other countries to their shipping, to indirect bounties, such as free dock and harbour accommodation, and to the exclusion by some foreign countries of British shipping from their coastwise trade. That Committee came to the conclusion that the time had come when we might ask for reciprocity in this matter. This brought him to say something about retaliation. That was a word they did not like. It seemed to be "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but what was wanted was not hostile retaliation leading to great tariff wars, which were to a large extent a disadvantage to the countries concerned. He ought perhaps to except from that statement the tariff war between Russia and Germany, which only lasted for a short time, and was attended with satisfactory results to both countries. He would ask those hon. Members who approached this subject from what he might call the extreme free-trade point of view, why they always spoke about imports and never mentioned exports? In his view the true free-trade policy was that which endeavoured to remove restrictions on exports without interfering with the system of imports. Those hon. Members seemed to argue that if we increased our imports our exports increased themselves. This seemed the same as saying that if we increased our expenditure our income would increase itself. He would remind them that the producer had rights as well as the consumer, and that he was equally entitled with the consumer to the benefits of free competition. While he very much regretted, in many of its aspects, the great agitation which the country had been passing through for some time, he believed it would do good if it led people to realise the economic conditions which were essential to commercial prosperity.
    1632
    Whilst he condemned the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, which he thought would be injurious to the country, and particularly to shipping, at the same time he believed that the system of free imports and restricted exports was not the most favourable possible to the shipping interests of this country. What was wanted was free trade all round, and therefore he supported a modification of the present system.
    *MR. RENWICKsaid he thought there would be a general consensus of opinion that what had taken place to-night proved conclusively that certain important questions raised on a private Member's Resolution could not be adequately discussed between nine o'clock and twelve o'clock, especially when the mover and seconder of the Resolution occupied such a considerable proportion of the three hours. He had listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member who proposed the Resolution; but he must confess that he had heard very little germane to the-subject. A great deal was said about the Stars and Stripes and about the great city of Liverpool having been built up by free trade. He would remind the hon. Member that if he looked at the opposite side of the Atlantic he would behold New York, compared with which in. size Liverpool sank into insignificance He would see in that city a river alive with shipping, a city not built up on the system of free trade, but on a system of protection. The speech of the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs was entitled to the consideration of everyone who took an interest in the subject. The main current running through that speech was that it was impossible to carry on shipbuilding without cheap wages, and naturally it followed that there should be also cheap materials. A good deal had been heard about the decaying industry of shipbuilding and shipowning in the United States, and they were told that that was owing to protection. He did not think for a moment that protection had anything to do with it. Previous to 1863, when they saw those magnificent American clippers going to and fro from our ports, there was protection in the United States; but at that time there

    1633
    was only a glimmering of the great transition from the use of timber to iron in shipbuilding. While shipbuilding was being carried on by the aid of timber British North America and the United States were prominent in the shipbuilding world. But after the American Civil War when iron was substituted for timber in shipbuilding, this country, with its great supplies of coal and iron close to its splendid waterways, forged ahead. There was nothing to prevent the United States at the present time building ships for they had the best machinery and the best skilled workmen. Why did these workmen not build ships then? It was because it paid them better to be engaged in other industries. If anyone disagreed with that let him put it to an American working man whether be would be content to accept the same wages as were paid in British shipyards in order to build up an American marine; and the answer would be "No."
    It should be remembered that Continental nations and America could buy ships from us as cheaply as we could buy them, whether it was from the yards of the Tyne, the Wear, or the Clyde; and what was more, all foreign nations got the same benefit as we did from our ships. Their goods were carried as cheaply as ours. But foreign nations had advantages which we did not enjoy. With these advantages Germany had built, equipped, engined, and managed finer and faster vessels than we possessed. Was that anything that we ought to be proud of? And when it was Suggested we should do something to regain the supremacy of the Atlantic no British shipowner was prepared to do it, and the Government came forward with a loan of £2,500,000 at a low rate of interest to enable two vessels to be built to compete with the German liners in the Atlantic trade. And yet we called ourselves a free-trade country! He would remind eminent ship-owners opposite, that foreign countries were running us a close race in many of our staple trades, such as the coal-carrying trade. Last year 64 per cent. not only of the number of ships but of the tonnage cleared from the Port of Blyth was foreign. It was similar in the Bristol Channel ports.
    1634
    There was a growing preponderance of foreign vessels, and that was because the foreigner carried on his shipping trade on more advantageous terms than we did. Mr. Walter Runciman, senior, speaking at the launch of one of his own vesselspointed out that British shipowners were handicapped owing to the harassing policy' of the sailors' and firemen's unions. The wages bill of a British ship of 2,000 tons was £62 10s. per month and cost of provisions £10 per month greater than of a Norwegian or Swedish ship of the same size. Mr. Runciman went on to say that he had, therefore, entered into negotiations to put his firm's older vessels under a foreign flag, and the effect of that on his whole fleet would be a saving of £20,000 per annum. When that was the result, he believed they would put patriotism on the shelf, and go in for the money. Mr. Runciman added that Scandinavian sailors were the best clothed, most respectable, and best conducted sailors he knew.
    The Resolution before the House really referred to some proposal put forward by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham; but, as far as he could gather, these proposals had only been put forward in a sort of tentative form as to what might, under certain conditions, be carried out. The right hon. Gentleman first pointed out very properly that by a rearrangement of our duties upon a common sense basis, viz., by taxing the goods from abroad which we could produce ourselves, and admitting free goods which we did not produce, we might do a great deal of benefit to the people of this country. That was a policy which he himself believed would be carried out before very long. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: Will you vote for it?] Yes, if the question were put fairly before the country. He had never feared to say before the public outside that he was in favour of such an alteration. He would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that so long ago as 1892, when a fair and square fight took place in Newcastle-on-Tyne on fair trade, the right hon. Member for Montrose was placed second on the poll, and the fair-trader was placed triumphantly at the head. Ever since then they had never been afraid in Newcastle to avow that

    1635
    some alteration in the fiscal policy was necessary. What effect would that alteration in the fiscal policy have on the shipping trade? It might, to a certain extent, curtail the import of manufactured goods; but that would not injure the shipping industry. Shipowners were more anxious to carry raw materials than manufactured goods. He would like to take away manufactured goods made in this country rather than bring here goods manufactured abroad. There was no proposal whatever to put any tax on raw materials, they were the best cargo for shipowners. The other proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was to bring the Colonies into closer commercial union with the mother country. Would that do any harm to the shipping trade? No, because bulk was of greater importance to shipowners than value. To bring a million pounds worth of bullion from Australia or South Africa to this country was of comparatively little value to the shipowner; what they wanted was to bring raw materials, and above all raw materials and corn from a long distance; and the greater the distance the larger the ships they would have to build. The shipbuilder had solved the problem by building larger ships to carry the cargo long distances for the same freight as the smaller vessels could carry it from the near Continental ports. Therefore, if trade between the Colonies and the mother country was increased there would be an enormous expansion of the shipping trade. If only that trade could be expanded, depend upon it, neither shipowners nor shipbuilders had anything to fear, but could look forward to an era of prosperity greater than they had ever hitherto enjoyed.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had shown an example in debating this question in a serious way. He had stated very clearly what were the views entertained by the protectionist Party on this subject. He had been struck by one expression of the hon. Member, that when the question was fairly put he would be prepared to give a vote. Why did not the hon. Member induce
    1636
    his leaders to put the question fairly? Surely the sooner the question was put fairly both in this House and in the country it would be better for everyone. But he noticed that when the question was put before the House last week the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give a vote upon it. The hon. Member said that an alteration in the fiscal policy might curtail the import of manufactured goods; but that he did not care for because it would not injure the import trade in raw materials. Did the hon. Gentleman believe that he could increase the import of raw materials, and all those semi-manufactured articles so largely used in our industries, by raising the price of food; and did he think it possible, consistently with his colonial policy, to avoid taxing some raw materials such as wool? The hon. Gentleman said he was anxious to maintain long-distance traffic because the Colonies were in the most distant parts of the world. Not all of them. But this country did not do its largest trade with the Colonies. At present we had the enormous preponderance of trade, both export and import, with the Colonies already. No other country in the world was in it with us. If we took other countries, like Argentina, with its rich corn lands, and with which we had, if not the monopoly, the bulk of the trade, he asked whether the hon. Member wanted us to begin his policy of protective tariffs by destroying that carrying trade?
    A comparison had been made by the hon. Gentleman between Liverpool and New York, but he submitted that that comparison would not hold, because New York was the outlet of a gigantic continent, and ought not to be compared with any port in this country. But, even in the port of New York the bulk of the seagoing ships were British. There were, of course, coasting steamers which did the trade between the different ports on the sea-board of the different States of the United States. But the majority of the seagoing ships in New York were British. The hon. Member said that we had developed in this country our shipping trade because we

    1637
    had coal and iron. But had they not in the United States coal and iron in far greater quantities than we had? The development of the American coal and iron trade was one of the most extraordinary industrial facts of recent years. The reason why the Americans had not developed their shipping trade was because it cost about a third more to build iron ships there than in this country. The hon. Member should read the Report of the Committee on Ships Subsidies in America, and note the despairing cry about tariffs and the duties on raw materials and manufactured articles. The hon. Member said that the Americans could buy their ships here; yes, but they had to pay a tariff on those ships when they went to America. No better object-lesson of the deleterious and injurious effects of a protective policy on a given industry could be supplied than in its effect on shipbuilding in America. In 1870, after the effect of the civil war had passed away, the American shipping trade was nearly twice what it now was, and that was the result of protection.
    For the third time he saw before him empty benches. They had been having a very important discussion. Why were not the representatives of the Board of Trade there? They could make a valuable contribution to the discussion. Then the other side would know what they had to meet. They had had an astonishing series of discussions. First there was the debate on protection initiated by the hon. Member for Oldham; then there was a debate on the particular doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and last night there was a debate on retaliation. That evening they had had in a useful and instructive discussion the doctrines
    1638
    of retaliation brought to the test of a particular trade. He could imagine no way in which the House of Commons could be better employed, but those for whose benefit this instruction was intended were unfortunately absent. Their leading organs said that they required more time for social functions. The Leader of the House was away, and would never know what was passing in the House. He would never know, because there was no single one of his colleagues present to tell him, and because they knew he never read the newspapers, and still less would he read the proceedings in Hansard, because he contemned the House of Commons. He seemed to think there was no House of Commons unless he himself and his colleagues were present. This state of coma might be said to be the harbinger of a dissolution. How long were these grotesque performances to continue. The Prime Minister seemed to think that they were inert matter unless he passed a sort of electric current of his own-personality through the House. He thought the House of Commons and instrument only for considering questions which the Government thought of submitting to it. He did not seem to recognise that they were there by the will of the people, to represent the people, to give voice to the sentiments of the people on questions which interested them, and that they should be neglecting their duty if they did not endeavour to discuss that very question in which the people were most interested at this moment. If the Prime Minister were there he should like to remind him that they were not there merely for the purpose of listening to the proposals that emanated from the Government, but to tell the Government what the

    1639
    people thought and what they wanted. The Prime Minister was away because his followers would not vote for or against protection, and the followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were away because they knew they would be defeated. That was the way in which the great interests of the nation were being imperilled. In this miserable exhibition of cowardice and insincerity he thought that the protectionists after all were less cowardly and less insincere than the larger section which, with the Prime Minister, ran away in this pusillanimous manner. Never before had the head of a Government done this. This was one of those startling constitutional novelties which they owed to the present Prime Minister and by which his Ministry would be remembered, whatever else it was remembered by. There was one consolation. This sort of thing could not last. A Government which insisted on making itself ridiculous must be drawing near its end.
    As to the particular Motion before the House, he desired to express admiration of the vigorous and independent speech, based on close personal knowledge, delivered by his hon. friend the Member for Kilmarnock. What possible benefit could protection be to shipping? Even the hon. Member for Newcastle, who had all the courage of his opinions, had not shown that; and he did not know how the shipping community could see anything but certain and increasing disadvantage in that which, ex hypothesi, would diminish the volume of British shipping trade. Our shipping was half the value of the shipping of the world, and more than half of its quality, when its higher speed was taken
    1640
    into account. The supremacy of British hipping was mainly due to three causes—the abolition of the navigation laws, the cheapness of shipbuilding, and our open ports. Free ports had made this country the emporium of the world.
    MR. RENWICK: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a free port?
    MR. BRYCEsaid a port where no duties were levied except for revenue.
    MR. RENWICK: That does not make a free port.
    MR. BRYCEsaid that was the sense in which he used the term. The hon. Gentleman would hardly differ from him in the opinion that the possibility of an enormous quantity of goods coming to our ports without having to go through a Custom-house had contributed to make this country an emporium of market commodities, and in making it that emporium had also made it a financial centre and a banking centre. It had also had a great deal to do with our transit trade. A great deal of our shipping was built with reference to a particular class of trade and particular customers, and they could not readily alter the ships to fit them for another kind of trade with other countries. What an enormous mark our shipping would be to the retaliatory policy of other countries! There was no branch of our trade in which protection would be more immediately and seriously injurious than it would be to oar merchant shipping. Of that shipping we had every reason to be proud. Our shipping greatness had been built up on the

    1641
    policy of tree trade. There had been nothing like it in the history of the world, not in the trading cities of the Middle Ages, in Venice, or in Genoa. The Dutch, who in later times took the lead in maritime commerce, never had the same proportion of the maritime trade of the world. That was something to be proud of. He claimed for our shipping trade that it was a link that most effectually bound the Colonies to the mother country. He claimed for it also that it was one of the sources of our naval strength. It was often said that it was largely for the protection of our mercantile marine that we had to maintain so large a Navy. That was true; but that mercantile marine was also one of the causes of the strength and power of our Navy. Through the mercantile marine our people had become so imbued with a capacity for sea life that they had become a sea-loving people. Through the mercantile marine we found the men to man our fleets, and through it our Navy had become what it was. They were told this was Nelson's year, but the centenary of Trafalgar was the last year in which this country would think of reversing a policy which had given Great Britain her hold on sea power.
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid he wished to make some reference to the quotation made by the hon. Member for Newcastle from a speech which his father delivered some years ago. The hon. Gentleman quoted only a small portion of it, but even that portion showed that the wages paid under a foreign flag were lower than the wages paid under our own. They in their firm were never so foolish as to
    1642
    transfer any vessel from the British flag to a foreign flag. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham seemed to think that British vessels would be sent on longer voyages than ever before under his scheme, but if that was the hon. Member for Newcastle's only serious argument the bottom was easily knocked out of it. The distance from the Black Sea to the United Kingdom was greater than from Canada to the United Kingdom, and the distance from Cape Colony to this country was less than from the Argentine. In fact, the very reasons given for altering the fiscal policy of this country did not work out in mere matters of miles. Then the hon. Gentleman entirely overlooked the main points put by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock Burghs and made no reference to the increased price of vessels in protectionist countries and no reference to the increased cost of repairs in protectionist countries—a very important item in those countries. The hon. Gentleman knew well enough that repairing was a serious item in all shipping firms. Then there was the increased price of stores, which was also a serious item. These, added up, made an extra expense of something like 50 per cent. The hon. Gentleman had said that British shipping was not making large profits, but what profits would it make if there was 50 per cent. added to the expenditure. Then the hon. Gentleman also said something about Britain having been compelled to subsidise the Cunard Company in order to retain our supremacy on the Atlantic. More than once he himself had pointed out that a more foolish policy was never adopted than that with regard to the Cunard Company. That was only another example of the foolishness of legislation

    1643
    by panic promoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It was the right hon. Gentleman who got into a panic over the American combine; it was he who was the prime mover in the extraordinary Cunard scheme. The right hon. Gentleman was more short-sighted than any of his predecessors in the important office he had held.
    The hon. Gentleman opposite said nothing on the question of retaliation, and made no reply to the statement of the hon. Member for Gloucester that shipping could be used as a target for retaliation whenever this country put such a system in force. Foreign countries would of course use our shipping as the first object for their attack, and for one reason that our shipping was right under their noses. They were taunted with our flags flying in their ports in greater numbers than their own, and they saw that our shipping was more vulnerable than anything else we possessed. If the hon. Gentleman imagined the people of this country were going to be so foolish as to jeopardise our shipping for pearl buttons or Moroccan jewellery he must believe they were greater fools than they had ever shown themselves to be before. He seemed scarcely to realise the enormous loss which would fall even on the shipping with which he was connected through the serious dislocation of trade. The great object of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham in his proposals at Glasgow was to prevent Russian corn from coining into this country in order that Canadian corn might be forced into it. The first effect on shipping would be that an enormous amount of the shipping now in existence,
    1644
    in fact some of the best ships now on the water, would be shut out of the Black Sea trade, and, according to his scheme would be forced into the Canadian trade for which they were totally unfitted. Something like 12,000,000 tons of shipping at present engaged in the near coast trade would be rendered absolutely useless for the Canadian and more disadvantageous trades which the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to cultivate. He entirely overlooked the fact that if we could not obtain Canadian grain for our markets at cheaper prices than Russian grain, naturally the country was the loser. He also seemed to forget that they could not dislocate a homeward trade without entirely dislocating an outward trade. Voyages were not merely trips in one direction, but out and home trips. One great example might be given of the way in which trade might be dislocated by merely endeavouring, with a single eye m one direction, to bolster up an industry which owing to natural causes was not able to find a market in this country. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the coalfields of Pennsylvania. Some of the steam coal there rivalled our South Wales coal and was delivered on vessels more cheaply from Virginia to the Argentine, which was one of the principal markets for that class of coal, although the distance from Virginia to the Argentine was very much less than the distance from here to the Argentine. That was to say, the Americans had the advantage of distance, quality, and prices in their favour, yet somehow or other, although the Virginian coalowners had been very anxious to make an inroad, they had not been able to get a footing for the simple reason that America, in her folly, had closed her doors against Argentine commodities.

    1645
    So it happened that outward freights from Virginia to the River Plate must be very much larger than the freights outwards from South Wales, and that was just sufficient to prevent the Argentine from getting coal from Virginia. He only gave that as an example in order to show that dislocation of the shipping trade would have much more far-reaching effects than either the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. leader had ever apprehended. They could not tell where the damage would stop. To introduce a system of protection into this country would not only damage the carrying trade but the shipbuilding trade as well, and he wished that they had had a word from the Member for East Belfast, who could have thrown some light on the subject. How was it the American combine had to build in Belfast rather than in Philadelphia? It was for the simple reason that Messrs. Harland and Wolff were able to build there 30 per cent. cheaper. Therefore we had this system branching out in every direction throughout the whole range of our industries. If they hit the shipping trade not only would they also hit the shipbuilding, but the iron trade, the coal trade, and all the other trades which depended primarily upon the shipping trade. Anyone who was so foolish as to throw sand into this delicate mechanism was worthy of the condemnation of this country.
    *MR. J. A. PEASEsaid in the two or three minutes which were left he would like to refer to the latest shipbuilding Returns published by the Board of Trade. The figures he was about to quote compared the average annual shipbuilding in the United States, France, Germany, and the United King-
    1646
    dom during the past thirty years. With a view to avoid taking any special year he had taken the average of each of these countries for three decennial periods. The figures were as follows:—1874–83 United States, 171,000 tons; 1894–1893 United States, 131,000 tons; 1894–1903 United States, 178,000 tons; 1874–83 France, 30,000 tons; 1884–93 France, 27,000 tons; 1894–1903 France, 66,000 tons; 1874–83 Germany, 26,000 tons; 1884–93 Germany, 48,000 tons; 1894–1903 Germany, 88,000 tons; 1874–1883 United Kingdom, 553,000 tons; 1884–1893 United Kingdom, 615,000 tons; 1894–1903 United Kingdom, 815,000 tons, or in other words he said that a comparison of shipbuilding as between this country and foreign countries showed that whereas tonnage in the United States had increased per annum by only 7,000 tons, in France by 35,000 tons, and in Germany by 62,000 tons, it had increased in this country by 262,000 tons. Having regard to the fact that shipbuilding also involved the welfare of the coal, the iron and steel industries, which together gave more employment to labour than any other industry at home, surely it would be folly to raise a tariff which would prejudice the interests of our great shipbuilding industry.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, grave injury would be caused to the shipping industry and to other industries dependent thereon by the adoption of the changes in the existing fiscal system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.—(Mr. Osmond Williams.)

    PUBLIC TRUSTEE AND EXECUTOR [EXPENSES].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the charge upon the Consolidated Fund of such sums as may be required to make good liabilities arising out of the default of the Public Trustee or his officers appointed under any Act of the present session to provide, for the appointment of a Public Trustee and Executor, and to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of the salaries and other expenses payable in pursuance of such Act.—(Mr. Austin Chamberlain.)
    Resolution to be reported this day.

    ORDER OF BUSINESS.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD,)in moving the adjournment of the House said that, in accordance with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, it was proposed to take the Report on Vote 7 as the first order at nine o'clock to-morrow evening and the Report on Vote A as the second order.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
    MR. RUNCIMANsaid he wished to ask the Patronage Secretary of the Treasury whether he was aware that a Resolution had been passed by the House that night, nemine contradicente, pointing out that the
    1648
    scheme put forward by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was detrimental to the interests of one of our greatest industries, the British shipping trade, and of industries closely allied thereto. He understood that the Prime Minister was not aware, of what had passed in that House last night. Fut it was important that the Prime Minister should know this, because he was the Leader of the House, or had been in the afternoon, and ought to be aware of what was the opinion of the House, containing as it did the representatives of the nation. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman also to convey the information to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to state where the Secretary to the Board of Trade was that night—perhaps they had no right to inquire—but if there was one place in the world where ho ought to have been that night it was in his place on the Treasury Bench.
    MAJOR SKELYsaid he desired to ask Mr. Speaker whether it was not a gross breach of constitutional usage for a salaried Minister of the Crown and servant of the Slate, whose Department was concerned not to be in his place on the Treasury bench on an occasion like the present?
    *MR. SPEAKER: It is extremely undesirable that the Chair should be called upon to express an opinion upon matters of which the House is the proper judge.
    Adjourned at Seven minutes after Twelve o clock.